HomeEconomic Issues‘This Faux Outrage is Absurd!’ Thom Hartmann FREAKS OUT on Idiot Libertarian (Video)

‘This Faux Outrage is Absurd!’ Thom Hartmann FREAKS OUT on Idiot Libertarian (Video)

After reporting on a story about two men that got themselves intentionally arrested in order to have access to life-saving health care,  Thom Hartmann sheds his generally cool demeanor and goes off on smug libertarian, Austin Peterson.  Hey, Austin, if you don’t want to pay your fair share to live in a civilized society, then “go Galt” already, jerk!

From YouTube:  Austin Petersen, FreedomWorks.com, joins Thom Hartmann.  What part of “right to life” don’t libertarians understand?  Only in America would someone have to threaten to kill the President in order to get life-saving healthcare.  Isn’t it time we made healthcare a basic human right so sick Americans don’t have to take such drastic measures?

Watch the video here:


Americans Against The Tea Party is a group committed to exposing the Tea Party’s lies, violence, racism, ignorance, intolerance, bigotry, and corporatist fascist efforts to subvert our democratic process – and we are organizing to defeat Tea Party/GOP candidates on ballots everywhere.
  • Nestor

    fin, filing bankruptcy because one did not take the RESPONSIBILITY to buy insurance is called a consequence for not being responsible. That is one of the reasons I buy health insurance, that is the reason why many people buy insurance. The other option is that the person without insurance works out a long term payment plan. See, then they do not have to file for bankruptcy! All they have to do is have insurance or make payments in order to not file bankruptcy! Pretty easy, huh???

    Furthermore, fin, if they could not afford health insurance pre-ObamaCare, how are they going to afford health insurance WITH ObamaCare? Will they get magic money trees from Obama with ObamaCare?
    The solution is quote simple fin, buy insurance, maybe even an inexpensive major medical policy in order to insure against a big hospital bill in the future, or risk going into bankruptcy if you get really sick. THAT is a no brainer fin!
    And now you play the class warfare card? Are you claiming that only “rich people” have health insurance? Seriously?
    You apparently have no idea what you are talking about. “Those that are not rich have access to health insurance and health care. There is Medicaid for the truly poor. There are SCHiP programs in every state for those not quite so poor as well. Signing up for these programs requires personal responsibility fin. But I guess that is something you are against.

    The more you post, the deeper you are digging your hole. Better stop digging fin!

  • Nestor

    fin, see, you ARE confused. Forcing people to buy insurance does not promote personal responsibility.
    Letting people go bankrupt because they refused to buy health insurance when they needed it teaches people personal responsibility. As far as letting people get “uncompensated care” goes, the solution is simple. Let them agree to a payment plan to pay the costs. If they do not start paying in a certain amount of time, say 3 or 6 months, simply garnish their income, say 10% or so until their bill is paid. There is a system in place for that already. Most states have a similar system for deadbeat parents.

    “and im so glad to see you take the wages within the first 4 years after the worst economic disaster since the great depression and attribute it to Obama.. you are getting really desperate now sport…”

    I see you are very confused here. The recession was over shortly after Obama took office. It also was not as bad as the Carter recession. In fact, the economy started to recover before Obama had any budget in place! Tell me, if you can, what was the misery index under Carter? What was it under Bush?

    Tell me, how did you make the giant leap from “the rich” making more money to corporations making “mega-profits”.

    It is YOU that are sounding desperate here fin!

    Where are the jobs? There have been many more part time jobs created than full time jobs during your Messiah’s administration fin! And why do you think that is? I’ll give you one guess. Ask any union boss, they’ll tell you. Read the letter they sent to Obama, where they want their special exemption to ObamaCare, a policy they wanted so badly until about a month ago!

    • fin

      lol.. so letting them file bankruptcy and get the overwhelming majority of their debt either forgiven or drastically reduced is making people take personal responsibility? so letting people FORCE people like me to pay for their uncompensated care is your solution? I really think your the one who needs that quarter sport… that is the literal opposite of personal responsibility.. and I think its gross and a disgusting filthy mentality that you are promoting.. u think people shold be forced into bankruptcy and garnished wages because they cant afford their healthcare? THAT IS THE VERY PROBLEM we are trying to fight against you bafoon.. America is the ONLY industrialized country where people are going bankrupt to pay for their medical bills and you want to expand that problem? are you fucking joking me? so what your really saying is that rich people should get great healthcare and not have toi worry about a thing while poor people should have to beg for healthcare and be forced into bankruptcy and have their meager earning garnished if they “choose” to get sick and need healthcare?

      and you really need to use sources other thing extreme right wing propaganda sites… MORE FULL TIME JOBS have been created then part time jobs and that’s a FACT.. every single month of obamas presidency has proved that true .. june was the very first time since Obama took office that more part time jobs were created then full time but of course u ignore the facts and just focus on junes figures.. your pathetic….
      FACT- 2 million part time jobs have been added under Obama
      FACT – 5 million jobs have been added under Obama
      FACT – 5-2 = 3


      lol im so glad to see you focus one the one specific area that fits your narrative again, the misery index? how about we focus on loss of gdp, loss of jobs, unemployment rate,ect? those don’t count in your warped view? the reason the misery wasn’t as bad was because of LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE POLICIES AND SAFTEY NETS!! all of which people like you would have eviseratored if given the chance and tried to many many times.. unemployment extension were fought tooth and nail by people like you, yet u cite the misery indez.hahahaha you hypocricy is funny man… every single economic indicator that even exist all PROVE this was the worst economic disaster since the great depression.. people didn’t suffer as bad bcos of liberal and progressive safety nets, all of which you are AGAINST. YES you took the first 4 years figures after the worst economic disaster in American history save the great depression ands attributed them to Obama.. your a very fair critic let me tell you.

  • Nestor

    fin, there was no demand for the I pad before Apple cam up with it. There were no other products like it on the market at that time. There are many more examples of products that companies created the demand by persuading the consumer that they “needed” it.

    You are right that companies hire due to increased demand, but demand is a function of price and other things. Labor and material costs are a big factor (as well as taxes) in demand. If prices go up due to labor and material costs, demand goes down.

    Take an economics course and learn something. Stop living in the fantasy world where you think higher wages do not increase business costs.

  • Nestor

    Well fin, I guess if you cannot disoute the facts, you must attack the messenger.

    I’ll give you a name, Catherine Engelbrecht. go ahead and google her name. Then we have the American Issues Project that was abused by the IRS and FEC. There was an editorial explain the abuse in Fridays WSJ. Look it up if you dare to learn any truth.

  • Nestor

    Wow fin, you really need to come back to reality. So because Costco exists, higher wages do not mean higher prices?

    You seem to think that prices are the only thing that businesses depend on. Tell me, if you can, which business has a higher net profit margin, Costco or Sams Club.

    Are you saying that convenience stores don’t compete with supermarkets? Then why do people shop at convenience stores?

    So you want companies to pay employees a “living wage”. OK, so is a “living wage” the same for the breadwinner of a family of two and a family of four? Why or why not?

    Should the breadwinner of a family of four and the breadwinner of a family of two, who are doing the same job make the same amount of money? Why or why not?

  • Nestor

    Eunomia, here is a new memo for you:

    The House Ways and Means Committee this week released emails showing that, in 2008 and 2009, the FEC’s general counsel staff sought tax information about conservative political groups from Lois Lerner of the IRS. Ms. Lerner is the IRS official who took the Fifth before Congress rather than tell her side of the story. She had previously worked at . . . the FEC’s general counsel office.

    Such a request is a no-no in many ways. The FEC staff was investigating these groups without the approval of its commissioners in clear violation of FEC rules. And the IRS is legally barred from releasing confidential tax information—including to the FEC. The emails show that Ms. Lerner asked her staff to provide information to the FEC, and Ways and Means is seeking more documents.

    I suggest you find better sources of information than what you currently use.

  • Nestor

    fin, do you deny that labor costs go up when wages go up? And when a companies costs go up, what happens to prices?

    Are you saying that Sam’s Club only competes with other club type retailers and not retailers like Target, K Mart, Walmart and others?

    If I gave you a quarter, would you buy a clue? You need one.

    I strongly suggest you take an economics course. You may learn a thing or two about business!

    • fin

      haha… just refuse to even acknowledge an example that refutes your bogus narrative again I see.. Costco PROVES YOUR WRONG!!!! Costco literally blows your illogical theories to dust.. the very fact that Costco even exist should be proof enough for any normal person but no, not an ideologue hack like yourself.. actual real world examples that exist in reality are inferior to libertarian logic and theory right? inm your world theory trumps reality right?… and did you seriousally just ask me if sams club competes with target? lol.. was that a joke? that’s like saying a gas station has to compete with supermarkets just bcos they both sell bananas and bags of chips…. sams club competes with businesses in their OWN MARKET!! like Costco.. just like Sunoco gas competes with lukoil gas you ignoramus.

      yes when labor cost go RAPIDLY up and productivity doesn’t then yes,prices go up. or the business can pay their empl,oyees a living wage and allow them to retire in dignity by taking those higher wages out of their windfalls of profits instead of passing the buck into the consumer and btw sport…. according your your precious free market rules and theories if walmart paid their employees higher wages they COULD NOT raise their prices because then they couldn’t compete with other companies in their market right? I thought competition drives prices down scooter? that logic doesn’t apply all of the sudden? there will ALWAYS be a company who is willing to take less profits in order to expand their market share and that’s a FACT.

  • Nestor

    fin, “lol.. hahaha.. please tell me the financial pain conservative groups had to endure from the CONSERVATIVE in the irs who ordered these audits.”

    A conservative ordered these audits? When did William Wilkins, an Obama appointee become a republican?

    You know not of what you speak, fin.

    ” the only lowlifes who would have suffered were the teaparty groups who tried to swindle the irs by claiming to be a 501c4 when they were not legitimately one”

    Since these groups have not been approved nor denied status yet, how do you know that they are not “legitimate”?

    Do you know something that the IRS doesn’t know?

    As far as the IRS harming conservatives goes, here is a link:

    Sen. Chuck Grassley, an Iowa Republican and the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, recently disclosed that government officials violated the privacy of at least four political candidates or campaign donors by illegally accessing or disclosing their confidential tax records. In only one case, however, did the inspector general find the privacy violation was “willful.”

    • fin

      still waiting for an example of who “suffered”
      and did you honestly just link me to a drudge report?> lol.. can I link you to hufpo or al sharptons msnbc reports? because IM SURE youll take those as credible sources right?

      isn’t the drudge report where michelle bachman got her ” 200 million dollars a day “figures for obamas trip? isn’t drudge the ones who “forgot” to convert the currency from american into the currency of the country Obama was traveling? I think you need that quarter more then I do sport

  • Nestor

    What’s the matter eunomia? Can’t answer the question either? What “mega profits” are you talking about? What is the net profit margins of these corporations with these alleged “mega profits”?

  • Nestor

    Eunomia, where do you get your misinformation from? Tell me, if you can which liberal organizations were asked what they were reading, who were their donors, who attended their meetings, and for copies of their materials.
    What, so 2 liberal groups were asked a couple extra questions before they were approved while the conservative groups applications were stalled (intentionally) for over a year?

    So was Lois Lerner (democrat) lying when she said that the IRS targeted conservative groups? Why would she lie about that? We do know that she lied about the “two rogue agents” that instigated it. In fact we know that it goes all the way up to the Obama appointed (not a democrat) IRS Chief Council William Wilkins!
    You better find a better source for real information Eunomia.

  • Nestor

    fin, what “mega profits” are you talking about? Which companies are making these so called “mega profits”?
    And no, I have seen the union have other ethically inept and morally bankrupt moments.

    Tell me, if you can, why and how has production increased so much in the past few decades?

    Cite a single union worker that is rich? Well that depends on what you call “rich” doesn’t it?

    I know a few union electricians that are/were “rich”. I know several postal workers that I consider “rich”.

    • eunomia

      Hay, guy, I think your logic is flawed by your belief structures that present you with an alternative reality

  • Nestor

    finn, you are obviously confused about the term personal responsibility. First of all a mandate had nothing to do with personal responsibility since people are forced to buy the insurance. Secondly, under Obama, wages have fallen for the middle class and more so for lower income people. Only “the rich” have prospered more under Obama. His whole “focus on the economy” and “helping the middle class” agenda has failed. You must be ecstatic that middle and lower class people have less money now than they did before Obama was elected, right? We have had nearly 5 years of subpar economic recovery under Obama. His “stimulus” failed, Detroit has filed for bankruptcy even though he said he saved Detroit from bankruptcy. Oh, and how has that reset button with Russia been working out lately?

    • fin

      yes! it is forcing people to take personal responsibility u idiot.. because of as now they refused to take personal responsibility and the uninsured receiving uncompensated care is the biggest reason for the rapid increase in medical cost each year. the people like me who DO take personal responsibility are being FORCED to pat for the people who are refusing to.. but in your world that’s ok.. but if we force those people to pay for their own insurance all fo thr sudden its not ok… your hypocricy is filthy.

      and im so glad to see you take the wages within the first 4 years after the worst economic disaster since the great depression and attribute it to Obama.. you are getting really desperate now sport…

      so now your condemning Obama for the rich people doing so well under him right? but when Obama says ,fine,lets tax them then..they are the only ones doing EXTREMELY WELL in this economy so lets tax them..then you condemn him for not helping rich people.. so which is it nestor? is Obama bad for helping rich people get richer or is Obama bad for trying to make rich people less rich? you cant have it both ways…

      and I thought u said earlier that there are no mega profits? and no windfalls of money? are u back tracking that now? so which is it nestor? are rich people getting wealthier under Obama or are they not? you cant have it both ways…..

      lastly, the fact that the rich in this country are doing better then they have EVER done ,economically, should PROVE your bogus ideology wrong yet again… your theory is that the wealthy are the “job creators” and when they make mor emoney they will create more jobs… that is your sides EXACT CLAIM!!! so where the fuck are the jobs nestor? it would seem that your claims are wrong.. unemployment is still high dispite the fact that the wealthy are getting rapidly more wealthy and corporations are setting RECORD profits.. which your logic we should be swimming in jobs right now..

  • Nestor

    fin, really? So demand creates jobs? Where was the demand for the I pad when Apple released it? There are many products that were made that people really didn’t know they wanted (demand). Look at the personal computer! How many people demanded these before they were made?
    You really need to learn about business. A entrepreneur starts a company and tries to persuade people to buy the product or service they provide. Then when they are successful, they hire more people to provide said goods or services. It is the businessman that risks their capital to start the business and then returns some of the profits (capital) to the business to expand and create even more jobs. Without the businessman there would not be the jobs.

    • fin

      did you seriousally just ask me if there was demand for the a light weight travel size personal computer? lol… u cant be serious.. YES there was demand for the ipad.period.. there is always and was always and will always be demand for the newest and latest tech gadgets… get a clue man….. do you really think apple would of created a product that they thought there was no demand for ? you cant be serious.

      the only realm you have a slight case is in areas where a new product that has NEVER EVER EVER been seens before comes into the market… besides that SMALL TINY TINY TINY realm you have no case and even in that instance once that product is relased it is DEMAND that takes over.. companies hire for ONE reason and one reason only.. to increase productivity to satisfy demand…. not nive versa.. companies don’t hire more people out of the kindness of their hearts and just sit around and wait or pray for demand.. FIRST there is demand THEN there is hiring…. without the demand there would be no jobs and that’s a FACT.

      demand drives our economy and creates jobs that is irrefutable. even in the small percentage of cases where a new market and new products came out.. the initial release may have been a risk.. but then DEMAND takes over and without demand the entrepreneur WOULD NOT HIRE A SINGLE PERSON,FACT

  • Nestor

    christiangood, furthermore, the workers wouldn’t be where they are if the owner did not risk THEIR capital to start and expand their business!

    • fin

      and the owners wouldn’t be where they are if it wasn’t for the CONSUMER. their precious capital they “risked” would be GONE if it were not for the workers producing the goods and the average working middleclass American who buys those goods.. DEMAND creates jobs not investment or risk or rich people… a person opens a biz for ONE reason and ONE reason only, because there is demand in the market…nobody risks their capital if they thought there was no demand. rich people and venture capitalist don’t create jobs out of the kindness of their hearts,they create jobs for one reason and one reason only, so they can MAKE MORE MONEY by producing more good…if they don’t hire then they cant keep up with demand and they will loose potential profits… we have a consumer economy, consumerism makes up 70% of our gdp and the middleclass and working poor are the biggest block of consumers, they create the demand and demand creates jobs thus the WORKERS AND THE WORKING MIDDLECLASS CLASS are the REAL job creators.period end of story.

  • Nestor

    Wow, christiangood, you really swallowed that union BS hook, line and sinker!
    The truth is that the government now regulates work rules now, including minimum wage and now health insurance! You don’t deny that, do you? Unions only represent 11% of the workforce now. Why is that christiangood? Why do so many people dislike unions? Maybe because they are seen as being corrupt? Morally bankrupt and ethically inept?
    Unions were needed way back in those old days. They are not needed now in most cases. They only look out for themselves and not the workers. As proof, they were all for ObamaCare in the beginning (yet they insisted on getting temporary exemptions). Now they want to be totally exempt from ObamaCare!
    But let’s get back to your increase in wages doesn’t increase prices argument. Where will that cost of increase in labor cost (and the products of the companies supplies whose costs will go up due to higher labor costs) come from?
    Costs are passed on to the consumer. That is the way capitalism works. If a company doesn’t earn a good rate of return, they go out of business. Unions and their members don’t see it that way. They think that they should get the biggest return from the company, yet they risk no capital in the business, they get a paycheck every two weeks. For some reason they do not see that demanding a wage that the business owner cannot afford causes job loss. They are concerned with the money here and now, not next month r next year. To them, it is all about ME ME, NOW NOW! I have worked in union houses, I’ve seen it!

    • fin

      still blabbering on about your ONE expierence with ONE union ONE time many years ago I see… you still don’t understand why your personal expeiernce and anecdotal evidence is USELESS. your nothing more then disgruntled x-employee with a beef, nothing more. I can just as easily say your wrong because based on my personal expierence what you say is not true and the unions fight for EVERY worker. why does your bogus stories count while mine doesn’t? is it because you only entertain the things that fit your narrative while refusing to even acknowledge ones that don’t?

      the higher wages can come out of the fucking MEGA PROFITS these corporations are raking in..( right now corporations are making the most profits compared to ANY time in ALL of American history while at the SAME EXACT TIME workers compensation is at an almost ALL TIME LOW which is filthy considering the FACT that production has increased 300x fold in the past few decades ).. but that isn’t an option to a libertarian right? only corporations and rich people deserve huge windfalls of money and profits and wages while workers don’t deserve shit besides “market based wages” that are as low as humaly possible right? the average union worker in the united states makes 50k or under.. pleased tell me where these inflated damage causing wages are sport? I want you to name me a SPECIFIC UNION WORKER who is rich.. cite an example!!!!!!! not a union boss ..because im sure youll cite a union bosses salary but completely avoid citing the wages of someone in the non union sector with an equivalent position, like an executive of a corporation…. you are so far gone that its a fools errand to try and educate you… this comment isn’t for you so I don’t even want to hear your rebuttal.. this comment is for all the sane people on here who are capable of accually thinking for themselves instead of regurgitating right wing rhetoric and parroting bogus narratives ad nauseum.

  • Nestor

    Seriously Eric??? What scandal???
    Well, get your head out of the sand!
    The IRS illegally targeted conservative groups and then audited supporters of those groups. They also leaked private records to liberal groups and the media.
    No one denied this happened. The IRS even admitted that this happened. At first they blamed “rogue agents in Cincinnati”, which we now know is false.

    You are not going to try to deny this is happening, are you?

    • Eunomia

      Seriously, you didn’t get the news that the IRS investigation was started by a Republican and investigated liberal organizations too. And that in reality there was no issue, just some local IRS agents trying to make sure politically oriented organizations didn’t get non-profit tax deductions.

  • Nestor

    Eric, so expecting grown adults to be responsible for themselves is “sociopathic”?

    Is that the best you got?

    • finn

      “so expecting grown adults to be responsible for themselves is “sociopathic”? “<— so ill assume that you support the obamacare mandate then right? the individual mandate is the literal definition of personal responsibility.. the mandate is the epitome of personal responsibility.. so im sure it has your FULL support and you love it just as much as you love when the middleclass wages are held down. im sure you cant hate it as much as you LOATHE a good paying middleclass job that allows a human being to retire in dignity..because we all know you think the working class doesn't deserve such luxuries right?

  • Nestor

    Eric, the IRS doesn’t have to come to your house with a gun, they have much more painful ways (financially) of forcing you to submit to them. Or haven’t you heard of the big IRS scandal(s)?

    • AATTP
    • fin

      lol.. hahaha.. please tell me the financial pain conservative groups had to endure from the CONSERVATIVE in the irs who ordered these audits.. please name a specific person or group that suffered financially because they were targeted. don’t give me your wild scenerio’s or opinons or speculation.. tell me SPECIFICALLY who suffered financially and how exactly they suffered and why the suffered…. the only lowlifes who would have suffered were the teaparty groups who tried to swindle the irs by claiming to be a 501c4 when they were not legitimately one

  • https://www.facebook.com/lordbeaker Eric Lilly

    Not every Sociopath is a Libertarian, but all Libertarians are Sociopaths.

  • https://www.facebook.com/lordbeaker Eric Lilly

    Someone came to my house with a gun to have me pitch in to taxes for other’s healthcare? I must have been gone that day.

  • Pingback: ‘This Faux Outrage is Absurd!’ Thom Hartmann FREAKS OUT on Idiot Libertarian (Video) | ceci n'est pas une blog()

  • Nestor

    fin, yes when labor prices go up, some people make more money. And then the things they buy go up correspondingly so they are no better off.

    Costco is no more expensive that Sam’s Club? Wait, I thought you were just talking about Walmart!
    So let’s compare Costco and Walmart, because you were talking about Walmart earlier and NOT Sams Club.
    Let’s see, With Costco you have to buy an annual membership. You also have to by in much larger quantities. So really, Costco is much different that Walmart, isn’t it?
    Now regarding minimum wage workers pay to CEOs, minimum wage workers normally don’t remain at that wage for very long, do they? It is a starting wage, isn’t it. Then, when they get more training, they get promoted and more money, don’t they? In fact many people working at Walmart move up the ladder that way, don’t they?

    I suggest you take a macro economics course to learn about real world economics fin! You might learn something!

    Playing the class envy card… you are getting more desperate fin!

    • http://gravatar.com/christiangood christiangood

      NESTOR i am so sick of the stupidity that forms your logic….”if you raise wages then you cant buy things because they cost too much because the wages were raised” and”wal mart employees start at minimum wage and work their way up”…. my god how stupid can you be? the people that fought for workers rights in the early 1900’s that led to things like THE WEEKEND, OVERTIME, HEALTH CARE BENEFITS, CHILD LABOR LAWS, MINIMUM WAGE ETC…you know, the things that led to the largest middle class in the world… they werent fighting for a lower cost of goods, or making sure the enormously wealthy didnt have to find ways to make sure they had to pay a decent wage, THEY FOUGHT FOR FAIRNESS!!! the fact that the OWNERS wouldnt be sitting on top of the world if it wasnt for their workers!! youre an IDIOT, the cost of products will mean nothing when the general population has to have 3 jobs to afford them. you have no idea what made this country great and you are PATHETIC.

    • finn

      you simpleton .. why the hell would u try to compare Costco to walmart? they are NOTHING ALIKE.. that’s why I compared walmarts SAMS CLUB to Costco you fool… they have the same exact business model yet Costco is unionized and pays there average worker almost DOUBLE what sam club does despite having the SAME LOW PRICES… Costco pretty much PROVES BEYOND A DOUBT that your stupidity is only outmatched by your extreme willful ignorance and fondness of parroting tired right wing talking points.. the fact that Costco exist PROVES YOU WRONG.. you fail. you loose. get lost

  • Nestor

    You are desperately stretching here fin, from that quote, Shafer is OBVIOUSLY talking about “a” tea party group”, not all the ones that were targeted.
    Yet the IRS admitted publicly that these conservative groups were targeted.
    Are you now holding Shafer responsible for all of the admitted targeting? Still, Shafer insists there was no targeting when there is proof that there was.
    Stop digging that hole you are in fin.

  • Nestor

    Well there you go again fin, moving the goal posts after I proved you wrong once again. But at least you now admit that it was a bailout!
    It is not entirely the governments fault, but they could have nipped it in the bud by declaring that there would be no bailouts for risky mortgages.

  • Nestor

    Well at least you now admit that there was a cover up fin, but it did last for more than 10 days, you just can’t be honest about that yet.
    I do answer your questions, you just don’t like the answers.
    Apparently you think you are exempt from answering questions. But I’ll ask again, why was there no one near (just for the sake of argument because you insist there was no one) if State knew of the danger? The Brits and the Red Cross pulled out because it was dangerous! The ambassador asked for additional security several times as well. Why was there no plan?
    Well I’ll answer the question for you in just one word – incompetence.

    Oh, by the way, there were Green Berets in Tripoli that could have helped.

  • Nestor

    I DID answer the question fin, you just won’t accept it!
    So now you are adding a qualification to your question when I proved you wrong?
    Well let me prove you wrong once again. The law passed by city council does NOT include benefits in pay, does it.
    The more you dig, the deeper you get. Better stop digging fin!

    How does having market based interest rates pay for “tax cuts for the wealthy”, fin, and why do you hate those “wealthy people” anyway?
    Again, if unions cared about the pay of their workers in DC, they wouldn’t have fought for the wage exemption for them.

  • Nestor

    alright fin, now you are just making things up.
    You said there was no scandal. You even said that the guy in charge was a republican. I proved you wrong on that. He gave $500 to the DNC. How many republicans give money to the DNC?
    And people CAN get on their SCHiP program if they make more than $12,000 a year, I know several people that have done so.
    Where do you get your misinformation from?

    • fin

      NEVER said there no scandal and that’s a FACT. secondly the commissioner DID NOT ORDER THE TARGETING!!

      below are excerpts from the OFFICIAL transcripts that were finally released IN FULL

      “Asked if he had “ever communicated with [then IRS] Commissioner Shulman about the screening of Tea Party cases?” he replied, “I have not.”

      “Republican and Democratic committee staffers interviewed IRS official John Shafer on June 6 about the agency’s decision to scrutinize a tea party group’s application for tax-exempt 501(c)(4) status. Shafer, who identified himself as “a conservative Republican” and said he’d worked for the IRS since 1992, said that he and a fellow screener initially flagged a tea party group and continued to do so with subsequent applications in order to maintain consistency in the process.”

      “Do you have any reason to believe that anyone in the White House was involved in the decisions to centralize the review of Tea Party cases?” he was asked. “I have no reason to believe that,” he replied”


      as you were saying sport? would you like to double down on your claims scooter?

      and tell me sport , why wouldn’t republicans release the FULL transcipts IMMEDIATLLY? what were they trying to hide?

      YOU FAIL

  • Nestor

    fin, it was reported on extremely often about the implicit guarantee! And I did show you there was a financial bailout previously.

    You are entitled to your own opinion fin, but not to your own facts. You can’t just ignore facts and make up false claims.
    Even Mother Jones acknowledges there was an S&L bailout.
    I suppose you are going to claim that Mother Jones is a right wing site that posts “bogus articles” too now!

    • fin

      I don’t care what label you put on the SnL dedbacle.. the FACT is it was not a large scale government bailout that provided capital injections to private corporations and THATS A FACT.. there was NEVER a precedent for the type of bailout that occurred.. the government never gave its “implicit” grantee EVER! and again is your argument honestly that its the government fault for the market exploiting , and being extremely negligent? is that your argument man? seriously? and you think the rape analogy is not accurate? hahahahahahaha

      the governmet dressed waaay to sexy huh? the government gave its “implicit” garuntee that it would be “easy”.. so the market raped the government for dressing to sexy….and your blaming the government instead of the market for not being able to control its self….<–THAT IS YOUR ARGUMENT and it is ABSURD

  • Nestor

    Really fin? That “challenge” was easy!
    Safeway is a union grocery store that pays some workers under the $12.50 an hour wage.

    Maybe you should have checked into that before making that challenge.
    Guess you are wrong once again there buddy!

    • fin

      lol.. you don’t answer a single question that is asked of you and finally you do and think you’ve won the debate? muahahah.. way to cherry pick the questions you want to answer while COMPLETELY ignoring the ones that the answers wouldnt fit your narrative..

      btw sport NO UNION EMPLOYYES at safeway makes under 12.50 an hour when their TOTAL package is factored that the union negotiate don their behalf… secondly I don’t believe that this bill exempts unions shops.. that’s just a wild bogus claim without facts or evidence to back it up.

      and to think you have the audacity to say unions don’t care about workers when CONSERVATIVES just freakin raised the college loan rates and introduced a bill that would eliminate overtime pay for some hourly workers.. while at the same time ryan proposes a budget that
      ” Ryan’s budget would generate a huge windfall for high-income taxpayers. those in the top 0.1 percent of income, who make $3.3 million or more, would get a whopping $1.2 million on average — a 20 percent increase in their after-tax income.”

      I guess you filthy conservative have to pay for those tax cuts for the wealthy somehow huh? I guess doubling college loans rates and taking “lobby” money from multi billion dollars corporations to eliminate overtime pay might close that revenue loss a little huh?

      so who were u saying “cared about the workers” sport?

  • Nestor

    No fin, it is you that is trying to change the subject. You said that democrats did not know about the targeting years ago when in fact they did.

    Now, did former IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman make a donation to the Democratic National Committee or did he not? DO republicans typically make donations to the DNC fin?
    Furthermore, does your claim absolve Obama of his incompetence on this matter? He said he first heard about this on the news like we did. You believe that? His chief of staff said he knew before that.

    • fin

      the commissioner DID NOT ORDER THE TARGETING!!

      below are excerpts from the OFFICIAL transcripts that were finally released IN FULL

      “Asked if he had “ever communicated with [then IRS] Commissioner Shulman about the screening of Tea Party cases?” he replied, “I have not.”

      “Republican and Democratic committee staffers interviewed IRS official John Shafer on June 6 about the agency’s decision to scrutinize a tea party group’s application for tax-exempt 501(c)(4) status. Shafer, who identified himself as “a conservative Republican” and said he’d worked for the IRS since 1992, said that he and a fellow screener initially flagged a tea party group and continued to do so with subsequent applications in order to maintain consistency in the process.”

      “Do you have any reason to believe that anyone in the White House was involved in the decisions to centralize the review of Tea Party cases?” he was asked. “I have no reason to believe that,” he replied”


  • Nestor

    As a typical liberal, fin, you don’t think thing through, do you? What happens when labor costs are raised? Prices necessarily go up to cover those costs. In addition, employers look for more efficient, labor saving ways to offset those costs.
    Why do you hate the workers so much fin?

    In 94 percent of families with an adult who works a job that pays at or below the minimum, the spouse works as well. In 8 out of 10 of the families with children present, the minimum wage accounts for less than 20 percent of the household’s total income.
    You know not of what you speak fin!

    Census data show that only about 16 percent of those who benefitted from the last federal minimum wage increase were single earners supporting children; by contrast, nearly 40 percent were teens or others living at home with a parent or relative.

    • fin

      wrong!! when labor cost go up that means people are making more money. when people make more money they spend more money which creates demand.. demand and competition drive prices down and that’s a FACT….

      germnay has a min wage DOUBLE what ours is yet their average prices on concumer products are EXACTLY the same as ours…. you fail miserably

      also take for example superfrsh super market which had an entire unionized workforce. their prices were CHEAPER then its NON UNION LOWER PAYING competitor giant.. u fail

      also lets take a look at Costco who has a unionized workforce and pays their average employee DOUBLE what walmart pays its average employee.. yet Costco is NOT more expensive then sams club.

      you fail

      lastly the average min wage worker is in their late to mid twenties and that’s a FACT. regaurdless of how you want to spin it.. your just spewing the same tired conserve. talking point that ” min wage isn’t a real job and min wage workers are just kids”.. get a clue man… min wage right now is the lowest it has been since its inception when inflation is factored in.. min wage workers LOST money while the top 1% has seen substantial gains along with the average ceo pay increasing by 300%.. why do u hate workers so much? why do you think only ceo’s deserve raises?

      it takes THOUSANDS of unions workers and MILLIONS od min wage workers salaries to equal just ONE bloated ceo salary.. so why doesn’t ur logic also apply to rich people? why does you “labor cost increase prices” narrative apply to workers and poor people but not your precious rich people? your disgusting

  • Nestor

    I answered the question fin, you just don’t like the answer. The cover up was of the incompetence at the State Department and the Obama administration!
    Wasn’t that your question, what was being covered up?

    It is you that won’t answer the question of what was the reason for all the lies!

    Just for the sake of argument, IF there were no help nearby, since State knew the area was very dangerous, why wasn’t there help stationed nearby in case there was trouble? Why didn’t State send the requested additional security (requested more than once) in case of another attack?

    In addition, you have yet to explain what “in time” means. How did the administration know what “in time” would be when they first heard of the attack? Did the terrorists give the White House a time schedule of their plans?
    Oh wait, this was “an attack that came from a spontaneous protest that got out of control”, right fin?

    Quit digging fin.

    • fin

      you didn’t answer a thing..

      I don’t care how much time they had…. I want you to answer the question

      which unit was available?

      which aircraft carrier was available for air support?

      you don’t think that if that information was availabke people like you and fox news wouldn’t be pouncing on it on a daily basis? get real man..get a clue.. you cant answer it bcos there was NONE and you know it!!!!!

      yeh what a big cover up..lasted all of 240 hours .. get a life

  • Waterboy4928

    We have a positive right to a trial by Jury and to counsel in the United States. To argue only Negative Rights count as rights is to ignore that. To extend a positive right to health care is not unprecedented.

  • http://www.facebook.com/doug.a.scott Doug A Scott

    Oh, for Christ’s sake, people, just pay your goddamn taxes already. It’s part of being a responsible grown-up rather than a whiny child.

  • Nestor

    fin, I gave you facts, and articles from left leaning sites that said there WAS previous financial bailouts.

    Give it up, you were proven wrong once again!

    • fin

      sorry sport// you failed to provide a historical example of the government “implicit” guarantee.. secondly u failed to provide a precedent for a bailout that would made investors in 2008 and prior rest assured that the government would bail them out for their extreme negligence, corruption, and exploitation….

      again you blame the girl for dressing to sexy for getting raped.. when are you going to start blaming the ACCUAL people who collapsed our economy?

  • Nestor

    I told you what they were trying to cover up fin, their total incompetence at State! What happened before and AFTER the planned terrorist attack at Benghazi! And it wasn’t the first time that consulate was attacked! The Brits and the Red Cross bugged out due to the dangerous situation.

    Obama and Hillary took the attitude “What difference does it make”!

    • fin

      I see you refusing to answer direct questions again.. is it because you CANT? if u don’t answer this question then it PROVES your wrong and just on a political witch hunt.

      which unit was available to help ?
      which air craft carrier was available for air support?

      do you honestly think that if those two things were available it wouldn’t be front page news and fox news and people like you wouldn’t be pouncing on that information on a daily basis? lol muahahaha


      way to take hiliary out of context.. she said what difference AT THIS POINT ,does it make .. the reason she said that is bcos of THIS question that u REFUSE to answer

      if the Obama admin would have said the words “terrorist attack” instead of the words “from a protest” would that have saved American lives?
      YES OR NO?

      the Obama admin had the wrong intell for 240 hours…. get over yourself.


  • Nestor

    fin, you claimed that the democrats knew nothing about the targeting and I proved you wrong. Stop digging that hole you are in!

    • fin

      stop trying to shift the focus and admit your wrong .. I will copy and paste it for everyone to see.. you SPECIFICALLY said that a democrat was in charge and ordered the targeting of conserve groups.. that what YOUR WORDS and you said I was wrong about it being a conserve.repub who was in charge.. I PROVED YOU WRONG beyond any doubt..stop trying to strawman my position and shift the focus away from what YOU asserted..

      a CONSERVATIVE with a LONG republican voting history was in charge of and ordered the targeting of conserve groups and that’s just a FACT.

      you fail!

  • Nestor

    Wow, fin, so your reasoning is that if you don’t want to pay union dues, you can be part of the unemployed! You really care about the workers, don’t you? That’s not much of a choice, is it fin? So people don’t have a right to accept a job and can be forced to pay protection money if they want to keep a job. Looks like the union confiscation of money is more important that the worker that earns the money.
    Oh, and another recent example of union corruption:
    There is a bill going through DC City Council to raise the minimum wage to $12.50 an hour for big box retail locations, that is unless that retail location is a union shop. And the unions are all for this bill! Why aren’t the unions fighting to have ALL their members get this same wage?

    See, they really don’t care about the workers that much!

    • fin

      wow nestor, so your reasoning is that if you don’t want to make a substandard wage at walmart you can be part of the unemployed? you really care about the workers don’t you? so people don’t have the right to accept a job and can be forced to work for substandard wages if they want to keep that job? looks like corporate profits are more important to you then the workers huh?
      you logic refutes ur own argument sport.. nice try tho..
      walmarts substandard wages are a condition of employment and the employees knew PRE-HIRE the terms… same EXACT rules apply for unions.. but not for you bcos u have double standards and hypocricy to use in your defense…

      as for your bogus article…
      name the union retail shop that pays UNDER that targeted minimum wage and maybe your argument will hold water..

      NAME THE UNION RETAIL SHOP THAT PAYS UNDER THE TARGETED MIN.WAGE in that bill sport… if you refuse to answer this questions then it will PROVE you cant!!!

      show me the language in the bill that specifically says union shops are exempt from this new law… SHOW ME!! don’t just assert it

  • Nestor

    fin, the only thong you have proven is that you have no idea what you are talking about. If there was no IRS Scandal, why did the IRS admit as much? Are they lying? Why have so many IRS managers taken the fifth if there is no there there? WHY was Lois Lerner suspended then if there was no scandal?
    My, what a fantasy world you live in!!!

    Sure, there will be millions that refuse to but health insurance, even WITH Obamacare (if it ever gets implemented), but whose fault would that be? Yours or the person that refused to buy the insurance?
    Low cost major medical policies would go a long way to diminish the result of filing bankruptcy due to medical expenses.
    FURTHERMORE, poor people CAM get on their states SCHiP program if they needed a new liver, could they not?

    • fin

      first where did I EVER say there was no irs scandal? please show me? I already told u I never said that yet you just repeat yourself again… I specifically said the targeting of conserve groups was ordered by a CONSERVATIVE with a long history of republican voting.. you specifically said it was a democrat who was in charge of, oversaw, and ordered it.. you were WRONG and I proved it.. stop trying to strawman my position again.. makes u look pathetic.

      and NO people cant on the states program for a liver trans… only people making under 12k a year…

      nice try tho sport…. if u have a job, your company doesn’t offer insurance and you don’t have enough cash for a liver transplant YOU WILL DIE.. and that’s the healthcare system you endorse.. ” if your rich u deserv to live and if your poor u deserve to die”…. someone making 10$ an hour CAN NOT GET STATE INSURANCE!!! and after taxes ten dollrs an hour is about 290$ a week…just enough to pay for gas and food to get to work for the month.

      u fail miserably yet again

  • Nestor

    Well consider the source of your link!
    Since when is the minimum wage supposed to be able to support a family?
    Tell me, if you can, what percentage of people rely solely on a single minimum wage job (not including tipped employees).

    • fin

      88% of the people living near or under the federal poverty line!!!

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.. you fail miserably!

      the minimum wage right now is the lowest it has EVER been sionce the inception of min wage laws when inflation is factored in.. why do u hate workers so much? why are u against ANYTHING that gives workers more money or more right? you hate the min wage , u hate the union, you LOATHE any law or anything that gives workers a slight advantage or bargaining power against your precious infallible corporations and you know it…

      70% of min wage workers are not college kids or teenagers.. the average min wage worker is accually over 25 years old with atleast one child. its time to raise the min wage to atleats what it wa sin the 80s.. when inflation is factored in the min wage should be atleast 10$ an hour.. if it wasn’t a problem for employers in the 80s it wont be a prob for employers now…. corporate profits are at an ALL TIME RECORD high right now and workers compensation and min wage is at an ALL TIME RECORD LOW right now ( post indust rev and when inflation is factored in ) but that’s exactly how you like it and exactly how u think it should be right?

  • Nestor

    Really fin? The democrats knew noting about it? Yet democrats sent letters to the IRS asking for these audits? I suppose you believe that Obama and other democrats only found out about it when it was reported in the newspaper about a month ago or so? If you believe that, I’ve got a bridge to sell you!

    As the New York Times reported back in 2010 :

    With growing scrutiny of the role of tax-exempt groups in political campaigns, Congressional Republicans are pushing back against Democrats by warning about the possible misuse of the Internal Revenue Service to audit conservative groups….And the Republicans are also upset about an I.R.S. review requested by Senator Max Baucus, the Montana Democrat who leads the Finance Committee, into the political activities of tax-exempt groups. Such a review threatens to “chill the legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights,” wrote two Republican senators, Orrin G. Hatch of Utah and Jon Kyl of Arizona, in a letter sent to the I.R.S. on Wednesday. … Democrats dismissed the Republicans’ complaints as groundless.
    So I guess they DID know a few years ago, huh?

    • fin

      hahahah.. I absolutely LOVE your dodging skills.. you just gloss over and ignore the FACT that the person who ordered the targeting and the person who was in charge was a REGISTERED CONSERVATIVE with a long republican voting history.. why wont u address this FACT.. you specifically said earlier that it was a democrat who “donated to the dnc” that ordered the targeting. are you ready to finally admit defeat? admit you were WRONG?

  • Nestor

    Really fin? There was no S&L bailout? Why don’t you just google it? There are articles from CNN, MSNBC and even Mother Jones about it! Are they all lying?

    • fin

      lol…. I just schooled you and you just basically come back with ” not uh”..hahahahahha

      the SnL “bailout” did NOT give investors reason to think that they would bail out the largest banks in the world and give a trillion dollars in capital injections to private corporations… and that’s what your trying to argue.. that the SnL “bailout” set precedent that the government gives its “implicit’ garuntee that if the private market exploits the govenrments good will, destroys our economy,collasp our system, act negligently , partake in fraud and corruption and hoodwink the entire country that the government would step in and bail them out…. again you blame the sexy girl and not the rapist.. the private market coundlt control their greed and they exploited the government programs and they were motivated by nothing more then greed and committed fraud and were EXTREMELY negligent and you have the gall to blame the government for the private markets greed.. poor poor bankers just couldn’t help themselves, its not their fault right? lol ahhahahahahahahahahah.. that’s like blaming the bars for people being alcoholics….

  • Nestor

    fin, you obviously do not now much about unions if you think that none of their dues goes to politics.
    Looks like you are the one full of BS.
    Again, when you resort to name calling it shows that you have lost the argument.
    Must be rough losing arguments so much that you have to resort to name calling.

    Wow, so if I don’t want to associate with a union I don’t have a right to work where I want to? Wow, If unions are so great, why do they only have 8% of the workforce? Shouldn’t it be the other way around, 92% unionized if unions are so great?
    And yes, unions DO confiscate dues because if you refuse to pay them, there are penalties, even if they refuse to represent you. And don’t tell me they cannot do that, they can and do.

    • fin

      FEDERAL LAW PROHIBITS unions from usuing union dues for political donations/campaigns/reasons and that’s a FACT.. it is ALSO a fact that it is a federal law that unions ,even in a union state in a union shop can NOT require members donate to PAC funds. pac funds are an “opt out” style system and that’s IRREFUTABLE…. you opinons,again,mean nothing. and the union cant confiscate dues if the employee VBOLUNTARILY applied to ,took, and stays at a union job…

      why wont u answer the question..
      is walmart forcing people to work for them?
      wow so if I don’t want to associate with the managers at walmart I don’t have a right to work there ?

      your hypocricy and double standards are easily exposed.. its perfectly ok for corporations to do the EXACT same thing but not unions…

      and I see you have failed to address a SINGLE issue I raised .. why do you do that?

      The Supreme Court in Beck concluded that § 8(a)(3) of the
      NLRA (1) does not permit a labor union to expend funds on non-related union
      activities, such as lobbying and political activities,. In 1991 the Supreme Court in Lehnert v.
      Ferris Faculty Association, expanded the scope of the Beck holdings to include public
      sector employees so that such employees may not be compelled to subsidize political
      or ideological activities of public employee unions.4
      During the 1992 presidential election year, on April 13, 1992, President George
      Bush issued Executive Order 12800 requiring federal contractors to post notices
      informing employees of their rights under the Beck decision. ”

      as you were saying sport?

  • Nestor

    fin, if there was no cover up, what was the reason for the repetitive lies for over two weeks?
    Why can’t you explain that?
    Why did the President and his minions lie about the Benghazi attack? Was it due to a protest that got out of hand?
    Perhaps it was a cover up for the ineptitude of the State Department with regard to protecting or helping Americans overseas in harms way! Why did they refuse to protect the ambassador, especially when more protection was requested? When they knew of the danger in Benghazi?

    Don’t you ever get tired of being an apologist for this failure of a president?

    • fin

      don’t u ever get tired of repeating LITTERALLY the same exact talking points that I have addresses 17 times? u asked was it from a terror attack or a protest.. didn’t I answer this question 30 times? why are u refusing to tell me what was being covered up? you said “perhaps” lol..hjahahah I see you still think opinions and wild speculation are valid alternatives to facets and evidence…

      TELL ME WHAT THEY WERE TRYING TO COVER UP.. and give me facts ,not your opinion.

      why are u refusing to answer my questions?

      which unit was available and which aircraft carrier was available for air support?

      those should be VERY easy questions for you to answer if what you claim is true.. if you do not answer those DIRECT questions DO NOT REPLY… if you do reply and don’t answer those two direct questions then it will PROVE you are unable to and lost the debate.

  • Nestor

    What a crazy comparison fin! You are getting desperate here and it shows!
    So in the S&L bailout (well, at least you admit that it was a government bailout), no one made money on this? Only the savers were bailed out? I know of several investors that made a lot of money during the bailout.
    Again, your desperation shows with the name calling.
    So yes or no, did the government bail out financial entities before this bail out? A simple yes or no would suffice.

    • fin

      answer is NO!… a bailout is when the government gives capital injections into a private bank for the private bank to use as they see fit… your anecidotal evidence is, again,useless.. your investor friends who made money from the SnL debacle didn’t make money from the government they made money bcos the stock didn’t collapse. the government let many SnL’s FAIL… and gave non failing SnL’s tax incentives, NOT CAPITAL INJECTIONS to absord failing banks… , so NO the government did NOT bailout SnL’s… you fail miserably.. please provde an example where the market created a huge bubble and the bubble popped which threatened the collapse of banks and the government GAVE private banks MONEY, not tax incentives,not tax breaks, GAVE THEM MONEY to bail them out upfront…. should be a very simple answer for you since you said it happens all the time and the government gives its implicit garuntee … also why are u refusing to address the fact that if we let those banks fail it would of destroyed the ecobnomy and the middleclass beyond repair?

  • Nestor

    Nice try at spin, fin. No the Obama administration did not “update” the intel they received, they completely changed it. They took out completely the mention of terrorism.
    Is “updating” the new term for lying now?
    Furthermore, if there was no targeting of conservative groups by the IRS, why did the IRS come out and say that they did? Why didn’t they dispute those claims?

    his is some fantsy world you and your friends live in fin!

    • fin

      lol.. nice try scooter.. trying to change your argument now and trying to change my words.. I NEVER EVER said the irs didn’t target conserve groups, nice try tho.. I specifically said Obama and democrats did NOT authorize it, know about it, or pursue it.. and the FACT is that the person who DID do all of those things and was in charge of and ordered the targeting of conserve groups was a REGISTERED conservative with a long republican voting history.. but you said earlier that he was a democrat who donated to the DNC.. are you going to double down on that claim? or just change the subject and ignore it like usual?

  • Nestor

    fin, your claim that Walmart pay is substandard is not true. The average pay is higher than minimum wage. Thousands of employees have worked there for over 10 years! If the wages are “substandard” they wouldn’t stay there that long, would they? Are people forced to work at a union job? Not necessarily, but they ARE forced to pay the dues which partially go to democrat politicians even if the worker disagrees with that. So tell me, WHY the union should have the ability to confiscate money from workers if the worker doesn’t want that to happen?
    So you are saying that no person has a right to work where they want to work, that they can only work at a union house if they pay the union to let them work there? Sounds like the Mafia, doesn’t it? So you don’t really believe in the freedom of choice or the freedom of association (guaranteed in the Bill of Rights)?

    • AATTP
    • fin

      again stop trying to shift the focus.. it makes you look desperate… walmart DOES pay a substandard wage and that’s a FACT.. but regardless lets just assume what u say is true.. then the people who DO make a substandard wage working at walmart..lets just focus on those people.. are THOSE people forced to work at walmart or not? yes or no..its a very simple question… and your double standards are shining again sport.. ..please tell me why your logic doesn’t also apply to YOU and to unions- you said would they work at walmart for ten plus years if they weren’t getting what they wanted.. well you worked for a union for 3 decades so you OBVIOUSALLY were VERY VERY VERY satisfied ,just like those walmart workers who worked there for ten plus years were right? you fucking hypocrite…. unions don’t have the ability to confiscate a single dollar.. if you don’t want to join a union and don’t want to pay union dues and don’t agree with who the unions donate money too then DONT FUCKING APPLY TO THAT UNION JOB… 92% of the workforce in America is NON UNION.. you have 92 out of a 100 positions that are NON UNION to choose from in America compared to only 8 out of a 100 that are union.. please explain this “choice” narrative your trying to spew ? NOBODY is forced to pay union dues thus NOBODY is getting their money confiscated and that’s a FACT.. lastly YOU have a say in where you unions dues are being spent politically… one person one vote..why are u against democracy in the work place? why are u in favor od dictatorships? your anti American and anti worker… you can vote to remove the union boss and u can vote to remove EVERY union position.. you can vote for whoever youd like to represent you and that’s a FACT.. you can also vote to decertify your union and choose another one to represent you… and btw NO UNION DUES GO TO POLTICAL CAMPAIGNS .period end of story!!!! unions are required by law to set up PAC funds and those pac’s are itemized on your check..political donations do NOT come out of dues they come out of PAC’s and it is a federal law that you can request the union not take pac funds out of your check.. YOU FAIL MISERABLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! the union is NOT allowed to use union dues to donate to politicans and that’s a FACT.. it is also a FACT that unions are not allowed to make it mandatory that each member donates to PAC funds…. so your ENTIRE comment is useless and only further exposes your disgustingly weak knowledge of how the union works…

      every person has a right to work where they want to work… if they want to work for a union company they should apply to one of the 8 out of 100 positions available in the country.. if they want to work for a non union company they can apply to 92 out of 100 positions available in this country…. if you don’t want to pay union dues then why the fuck would u apply to a union company? PLEASE ANSWER THIS DIRECT FUCKING QUESTION!!!!!!

  • Nestor

    fin, of course the administration lied! They were telling two different stories at the same time. One of them had to be a lie! Which was the lie, that Obama knew it was a terrorist attack from day one as he claimed during the debate AND a few weeks later, or that the attack occurred from a protest that got out of hand, as he had Sec. Rice report on 5 news programs on the following Sunday, as well as Obama saying so at the U.N.?
    They both cannot be true fin! So why the lies?
    It is obvious that it is the administration that does not care about the murders because NO ONE has been arrested and prosecuted for this attack on American soil.
    Here is a question that you cannot or refuse to answer. If Clinton and Obama knew Benghazi was too dangerous for diplomats (remember, the Brits and the Red Cross pulled out, and the ambassador and others told them of previous attacks there) Why did they insist on leaving it open? Better yet, why was there not additional security there or nearby if there was an attack?
    This WAS a State Department failure and a cover up! Otherwise there would not have been two different stories about the attack at the same time. ONE of them have to be a lie, fin. You tell me which one.

    • fin

      still ignoring DIRECT questions and LITTERALLY repeating the EXACT EXACT EXACT talking points u have repeated numerous times now.. doesn’t it get old? WHAT WAS BEING COVERED UP ? tell me specifically!! and your opinions are useless.. PROVE Obama knew it was a terrorist attack or don’t reply… and please PROVE where the Obama admin was telling two stories at the same exact time,…. stop just making shit up and asserting .. asertions that can be made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence… immediately after the attack it was quite easy to see why EVERYONE including Obama thought it was a terrorist attack and he said it in the rose garden and that’s a FACT.. then the intelligence community came back with intell that it was NOT and it was from a protest…..the Obama admin. told us that verbatim until the intell changed..when the intell changed we were updated immediately.. there was NEVER EVER EVER a single time EVER that two stories were being told at the same time.. secondly this is within a matter of ten fucking days… you people are on a poltical witch hunt and nothing more and the way you act is if the Obama admin was telling the protest narrative for years ..instead of 240 hours…. the FACTS were clear within 2 hundred and fucking 40 hours.. get a life man…. give it up…and why wont u answer simple questions.. if the Obama admin would have said the words ” terrorist attack” instead of the words “from a protest” would people be alive today? yes or fucking no?…. second.. which fucking unit was available to rescue them and which aircraft carrier was available for air support? you know for a FACT that if those two tyhings were ready and available the gop and fox news would have been pouncing on that information nonstop and you would have them memorized to heart and would be able to answer that question IMMEDIATLY!!!!!! answer the question.. which unit was available and which aircraft carrier was available for air support? why are u scared to answer my questions?

  • Nestor

    Your desperateness is showing now fin. Wow, you played the race card!
    When the attacks occurred under Bush, did they blame it on a protest that got out of hand? No, they did not. Did they lie to the American public and the world about the cause?
    Why all the lies? Why didn’t they have more security to begin with since it was requested. And if you continue with the lie that it was because those evil republicans cut the security budget, then why didn’t they just close it since they knew it was so dangerous there”
    Furthermore, with regards to help in Benghazi, obviously (to those that don’t drink the liberal kool aid) that there was help available, or people would not have been told to stand down. NO ONE has denied that soldiers were told to stand down.

    I find it fascinating that you deem it necessary to desperately play the race card.

    • fin

      why do u just REFUSE to answer direct questions? this should be very easy info to obtain if what u say is true.. which unit was available and which aircraft carrier was available for air support? if you don’t answer those direct questions with direct answers then DO NOT REPLY bcos it will be very obvious of you “implicit” confirmation that u cant answer the questions thus proving your WRONG!! ONCE AND FOR ALL.. answer the questions or don’t reply..its very simple.

      furthermore…. ive told u ten times now and u just go str8 back to the talking points.. I don’t know how much clearer I can make this.. you asked why they lied several times.. I gave u an answer several time and you just ignore the answer and repeat the same EXACT talking point verbatim …. so why do u keep doing it? the Obama administration did not lie.. the first day they thought it was obviousally a terrorist attack.. then they got intell from our intelligence community that it was bcos of the protests and they updated the public in real time… once they received intell that it was not from the protest they IMMEDIATLY told us of such information… WHAT WAS THE COVER UP and what EXACTLY was the “lie” what were they trying to cover up specifically? don’t dodge the questions ANSWERS THE FREAKIN QUESTIONS, all of them!!! if u don’t give direct answers to these direct questions then it will be confirmations of your refusal to do so or inability to do so…. and I still haven’t heard u mention one single word about the people who murdered 4 americans.. bcos you don’t give a shit about 4 dead americans.. your on a political witch hunt and nothing more…. u haven’t mentioned the murderers one fucking time..please explain this to me…. and my last question .. if the Obama administration would have said the words ” terrorist attack” instead of the words ” from a protest” would that of saved 4 American lives? YES OR FUCKING NO?

      I am LITTERALLY begging you to address these issues and answer the god damn questions that are asked of you..point by point and not dodge a single question..i asked these questions multiple times and u still have yet to answer them, why is that? give DIRECT answers, no spin,no shallow talking points.. REAL ANSWERS!! or don’t reply

  • Nestor

    Well there you go again, fin, making baseless allegations. PROVE that I was a disgruntled employee! I was not, I was a “disgruntled” union member because they took my money and refused to represent me. I loved my job, I was there (at the first one) for 29 years, worked there until the day they closed!

    All I said about that union is true, and I haven’t shared everything about that corrupt organization.
    No I believe there are people that take advantage of situations in all walks of life.
    Why am I not saying that the whole is completely corrupt when it comes to corporations, yet treat unions that way?
    It is because if I see that a corporation is corrupt, I can choose not voice my opinion freely and not purchase their product or services without any other consequences, With unions, you are forced to “buy” their services even when they do not perform their contractual services as promised. Again, with business, if they do not perform the service I pay for, I don’t have to pay them.
    This is a HUGE difference! It is more fair to not pay someone if they do not fulfill the requirements of a contract, and not fair to pay a union forced dues when they refuse to do THEIR job.

    • fin

      once again you refuse to answers direct questions.. NOBODY is forced to pay unions dues bcos NOBODY is forced to take a union job and that’s a FACT.. nobody is forced to stay at a union job either.. answer this question… is walmart forcing people to work for them? is walmart forcing people to work for substandard wages or not? its a SIMPLE yes or no question that will highlight your blantant hypocricy and double standards… lastly.. now you changing your story once again.. now your adding the word “that” instead of just sayin” the union”.. take your stories else where sport bcos nobody here believes you… if u work for a corporation and the corporation wasn’t fulfilling their obligations to you as promised pre hire then you should quit.. please fucking explain to me why that EXACT logic shouldn’t apply to unions? again your double standards and hypocricy are filthy and easily exposed…. ANSWER THE QUESTIONS THAT ARE ASKED OF YOU OR DONT REPLY

  • Nestor

    You must be getting desperate fin, you are now replying about the Benghazi scandal with IRS answers! Or are you trying to change the subject.
    Again, why the cover up about Benghazi? Why did they knowingly put out the false story about the attack coming out of a protest? Why did Hillary, under oath even mention “whether it be from two guys deciding to kill Americans that day or due to a protest (which she knew never occurred in Benghazi)?
    You are in this hole pretty deep, fin. I suggest you quit digging!

    • fin

      muahahahahahah.. I just embarrassed the hell out of you by PROVING you wrong about the irs scandal and your answer is ” forgedt about irs lets go back to Benghazi”? hahahahah…
      I suggest u quit sport….

      Hillary knew protest never happened in Benghazi? lol I see u still think wild speculation and personal opinions are good substitutes for facts and evidence huh?

      what was the cover up?

      if they would have said the words “terrorist attack” instead of “from a protest” for ten days would that have saved 4 American lives? yes or no?

      why haven’t you uttered a peep about the people who ACCUALLY murdered 4 americans?

      there was no cover up and there was no lies… period… our intelligence community fed the Obama administration the intell they had. and we were updated by the Obama admin. in real time.. as the intell became more accurate the Obama admin’s talking points reflected that! that is the anwer..stop repeating yourself,it makes u look simple minded.. you either accept the truth or don’t…but im done repeating myself bcos it brings me to you level…

      the irs scandal… are u ready to admit for once in your life that finally u were dead fucking wrong? you were also wrong about credit default swaps ( and I would argue you never even heard of them until I enlighten you ).. but your irs claims are absurd and blatantly false.. whats your obsession with avoidance ? why wont u even acknowledge when you wrong? you must live a sad life man.. and to think you have the gall to claim I have blinders on it pretty amusing….

      ,y last question,and be honest, do you watch fox news exlucsively? or atleast watch fox news as your number one source of news?

      please answer my questions and address my points as I give you the respect and address yours point by point EVERY TIME… why do u refuse to answer questions?

  • Nestor

    fin, I’ve already told you that they assumed they would be bailed out because (as has been reported many times) of “the implicit guarantee of the federal government”! Fannie and Freddie were/are quasi government entities! THAT is what they based their belief in. Are you saying that the government never bailed out any financial institutions before this?
    If so, you do not know your financial history very well! Weren’t S&Ls bailed out?
    Here, let me refresh your memory: http://www.nytimes.com/1996/07/13/business/gao-puts-cost-of-s-l-bailout-at-half-a-trillion-dollars.html
    There, I just backed up the claim that they figured the government would bail out the financial industry due to history AND proved you wrong about it not happening before!
    You’re wrong once again!

    • fin

      nestor I already told you that the rapist assumed the girl who dressed sexy would give it up easy … you blame the the girl for dressing to sexy and giving the “implicit” guarantee that she would give it up instead of the rapist who couldn’t control himself….. the rapist based his belief in that she would give up sex easy……. and u still haven’t addressed the FACT that private banks secured 3 out of every 4 subprime loans so why the hell would these investors think ther government would bail the entire system out even know they only did 1 loan out of every 4? your THEORIES and wild SPECULATIONS hold no water..they are bogus and nothing more then personal opinion..nbo evidence no facts… OPINIONS…

      you also just IGNORE,like usual, my point about the middleclass and the entire economy being eviscerated if we just “let the banks fail”… are u sguessting nothong would have happened if we just let them fail? I have to repeat myself yet again bcos you just REFUSE to address these facts..those banks/corporations DOMINATED the economy and had their hands in EVERY aspect of EVERY market within our entire economy..everything from toilet seats to boeing 747’s… they had 90% market shares in their respective sectors and they were able to get that big bcos of ONE reason, the deregulation agenda perpetuated by simpltons like yourself.. I want you to answer the fucking questions man.. address this issue..stop deflecting,stop dodging and stop ignoring it.. tell me how these corporations could of failed and not DESTROYED America and the American middleclass..tell me how we would have recovered sport? go ahead im waiting for your answer.. if u don’t address EVERY issue I raised in this comment then DONT WASTE UR TIME…do not reply!!!!

      and btw sport.. the SnL debacle was NOTHING like this bailout, not even close… nice try tho sport.. getting a little desperate now aren’t we?
      “Resolution Trust Corporation, the agency set up by Congress in 1989 to sell the assets of failed institutions, and $64.7 billion spent by the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation, which guaranteed deposits.”….
      so lets break that down.. the government let failing insitituion FAIL and sold their assets .. secondly the fed ONLY bailed out people for their desposits which have always been federally insured,nothing new, no “bailout”… you fail MISERABLY and have just been PROVEN wrong beyond any doubt what so ever…

      ” It also included $7.5 billion in tax benefits granted to healthy savings institutions that acquired ailing savings and loans”

      so the government gave tax BREAKS to PRIVATE corporations that acquired other PRIVATE failing corporations.. no bailout again sport..just tax incentives.. u fail MISERABLY.. the s and L “bailout” was not even comparable and not even close to a large scale government bailout.

      “placing a total price tag on the debacle of nearly half a trillion dollars, including more than $130 billion from taxpayers”

      so out of the half trillion dollars tax payers were only responsible for 130B which mostly went to bailout the COMMON person when their deposits were saved….

      there I just THOROUGHLY debunked your claim.. your wrong once again.. there was NEVER a single precedent or historical evidence that would suggest “implicit” guarantee byt he government that is the private market exploited and destroyed our economy that the government would just bail them out… these scumbags that u think are infallible and your precious “hand off” mentality of the market took advantage of the good will of the government and exploited the system to no end and fueled by nothing more then greed peppered with extreme negligence and corruption and you have the audacity to blame the government for these peoples mistakes and negligence? riiiiiiiight.. your the one who needs to take the blinders on and get a grip man…and start blaming the PEOPLE WHO ACCUALLY DID IT!

  • Nestor

    fin, everybody that “needs” healthcare gets it. They go to the emergency room sand don’t pay their bill. Hospitals cannot turn them away. If they are poor, they can already get on the SCHiP program that all states have for a very small monthly fee, based on income. Furthermore, ObamaCare does NOT cover all Americans for healthcare. There will still be millions that will not have insurance coverage when and IF ObamaCare starts. You DID hear that the employee mandate and reporting has been delayed for a year, right?

    With regards to Benghazi, was it a terrorist attack or wasn’t it? If it was, why did Obama send Ambassador RIce out to 5 TV shows to claim it was not, that it was a result of a protest that got out of control? There was no bad intel from the CIA on this, Obama said he knew right away it was a terrorist attack.
    Furthermore, if there is “nothing there”, explain this:
    After the attack, CNN reported that a Benghazi security official and a battalion commander had met with U.S. diplomats three days before the attack and had warned the Americans about deteriorating security in the area. The official told CNN that the diplomats had been advised, “The situation is frightening, it scares us.”[34]

    On September 14, CNN correspondent Arwa Damon found Ambassador Stevens’ diary at the unsecured site of the attack. In it, Stevens expressed his concern about the growing al-Qaeda presence in the area and his worry about being on an al-Qaeda hit list. The U.S. State Department later accused CNN of violating privacy and breaking its promise to Stevens’ family that it would not report on the diary.[35]

    Why was there a cover up if there is NOTHING THERE?
    Take those blinders off!!!
    If there was no money to protect the ambassador, why did they leave him there under protected?
    “At this point, what difference does it make” if Hillary could not protect our people in Benghazi? What difference does it make if she knew it was very dangerous there, so dangerous that the Brits and the Red Cross pulled their people out? What difference does it make that they lied about why the attack happened, right?

    • fin

      WRONG yet again sport.. go into a hospital and tell them u need a kidney transplant but have no money and no insurance..they will laugh in your face and you will DIE a slow painful death… hospitals are only required to stabilize the patient and then send them on their way… YOU HAVE BEEN PROVEN WRONG!!! are u going to even acknowledge that fact or just ignore it like usual? and the people who do receive minimal UNCOMPENSATED care is the VERY problem with our healthcare system..your cute theories are nothing more then fantasy… there will be millions of people who refuse to get insurance reguardless of your little opinions on “personal responsibility” when those people receive uncompensated care the hospital is forced to shift the cost on to people like me.. and that is the sinlge biggest reason healthcare cost are rising out of control ( among other MUCH LESS significant things ) you conservative fantasies of tort reform and personal responsibility solves NOTHING and that’s a FACT… and your fighting for a healthcare system of ” if your rich u live and if your poor u get to die”<— with your logic someone who cant afford a kidney transplant is a lazy bum and doesn't derserve life.. whereas someone who is wealthy and rich deserve to live.. your disgusting and need to reevaluate your priorities as a human being..its gross… u think we have a god given right to have a gun but not a god given right to have healthcare.. and that mentality is filthy and indefensible.

      I want you to provide PROOF of your wild claims that people who want healthcare get it for free ( REAL healthcare..show me an example of someone with no money and no insurance who got a free kidney transplant , not someone who showed up to the ER with the flu and got a script of pencilin)

      I PROVED your dead wrong about the IRS scandal and PROVED the person who ordered the targeting of conserve. groups was a REGISTERED conservative with a LONG republican voting history

      I proved you wrong about people getting REAL healthcare for free

      I proved you WRONG about Benghazi bcos you REFUSED to answer my questions who which unit was available and which aircraft crarrier was available for air support

      I proved you wrong about credit default swaps

      I proved your logic wrong about bloaming the government for the private market exploiting the government and instead of blaming the private market for their EXTREME negligence,greed,corruption, and exploitation you blame the government for "allowing" people to abuse the government. which is EXACTLY the same as blaming the sexy girl for getting raped and not the rapest for not being able to control himself

      I PROVED you wrong about people being forced to pay union dues. nobody is forced to take a union job and nobody is forced to stay at a union job, if walmart is forcing people to work for substandard wages then neither is the union forcing people to do ANYTHING. if a corporation doesn't fulfill its obligations and promises it made pre-hire then u should quit, same logic applies for the union

      I proved you wrong about the SnL bailout and I blew your argument out of the water about just "letting the banks fail" and that's why u ignored and refused to even address the detrimental affects that would haveforced the middleclass to endure.

      there hasn't been a single a single talking point u have spewed thast hasn't been thoroughly debunked.

  • Nestor

    fin, how did “they” know how much time they had to save them? Do they have a time machine or something? Maybe a crystal ball? They had no way of knowing how much time they had, did they?
    Hindsight doesn’t count because they had absolutely no idea how much time they had, did they?
    In addition, I see that you dropped the responsibility issue. Great Britain and the Red Cross pulled their people out due to the dangerous situation. Now if Hillary knew that they did not have enough money (which, by the way is not true) to protect our ambassador, why didn’t they just close the consulate? STILL her responsibility!!!
    Or didn’t she care that they were in danger?
    Again, why the coverup? Why the false movie protest story?

    • fin

      what exactly was the “cover up” no simple minded conservative can ever tell me that…. what were they trying to cover up EXACTLY? and you people weren’t saying a god damn word when over ten consolates got attacked and 50 americans/America allies were murdered under bush..those don’t count..only counts if a black democrat is in power huh? and I see you COMPLETELY ignored the question like u have EVERY single time this entire thread.. you just go str8 to fox news talking points….verbatim. … I want you to tell me which unit was capable of reaching them in time and which carrier was availabke to for air support.. don’t dodge the fucking question.TELL ME.. don’t spin, don’t spew talking point. don’t ignore it.. answer the freakin question

  • Nestor

    fin, once again you resort to distorting what I say.
    First of all, After being in a union (and I have been in more than 1 union (they were corrupt too, but not as bad as the one I have been mentioning)) for over 3 decades, I have had experience with more than 1 union boss. In fact I bartended for one union bosses wedding for free, and she did the same for me many years ago!
    I can back up all that I claimed. I have papers and witnesses.
    But you just can’t see that it is true because of those blinders you wear.

    • fin

      why are u ignoring every question that is asked of you.. you condemned me for generalizing the union as GOOD based on my personal expierence but then your doing the EXACT same thing in reverse.. please tell me how YOUR logic doesn’t also appy to you and your argument? ANWER THE QUESTION, don’t just ignore it and dodge it… your a disgruntled employee with a story,nothign more.. and if u can stereotype and generalize the union based off your LIMITED personal expierence then please fucking tell me why I cant do the EXACT same thing? why is only your exp. and generalizations vaild? I want you to explain you blantant hypocricy and double standards once and for all…

      lastly, even if what u say is true,whcih I highly doubt, the bottom line is that EVERY institution has people within it that exploit and take advantage of their position.. are u suggesting that your precious “market” is free os such people? are u sguggesting the corporations don’t have the SAME exact type of bosses doing the same EXACT same thing? why aren’t u saying ALL corporations are greedy scumbags ,corrupt,ect,ect.. why aren’t u saying the “market” as a whole isn’t COMPLETELY corrupt and morally bankrupt,ect,ect,ect.. the same type of things happen and the same type of people exist in the corporate world and in the precious infallible “market” so why the fuck aren’t u condemning them as a WHOLE like you are with the union? is it bcos you cant see bcos of the massive blinders you have on? or that doesn’t count for conservative hacks like yourself?

  • Nestor

    Well thanks for proving my point again fin. When you resort to name calling, it proves that you lost the argument and have nothing else to offer!

    I didn’t say that people arbitrarily decided to create a bubble. I said that many investors assumed that the government would bail them out due to “the implicit backing” of Fannie and Freddie.
    You are obviously not a seasoned investor so no little about investing and risk/rewards.
    Again, you’re whole rape/rapist scenario is a bogus comparison. I still believe that there should be personal responsibility. The government should not have bailed out these financial organizations. The government should have reminded them about this often.
    Implicit backing by the government was often mentioned in the news during this time.

    • fin

      “many investors assumed that the government would bail them out”<–based on what fucking evidence? based on what fucking historical example? why wont u ANSWER THE QUESTIONS that you are asked? I just don't get it.. you dodge everything that is asked of you.. you just blantantly ignore them and move directly onto talking points and repeating the EXACT narrative,word for word, that you started out saying weeks ago… doesn't it get tiring just hitting the repeat button? fannie and freddy didn't back the MAJORITY of the loans..so what the fuck are u even talking about.. private banks made 3 out of every 4 sub prime loans sport.. so please tell me what the hell u are talking about? and again I know you think the gov shouldn't of bailed out the banks.. but why do u just KEEP IGNORING my answer for that? why why why why why? do u think I liked the fact that we bailed them out? do u think I wanted to bail them out? do u think I wanted to bail them out to save them? I want you to explain to me how the fuck the country as a whole would of survived if the largest banks in the WORLD and corporations that dominated their market and had 90% market shares and were involed in EVERY aspect of our ENTIRE economy, from toilet seats to boing 747's..and the ONLY reason they were so big was bcos of people like you who pushed the deregulation agenda ..to big to fail is a product of YOUR MENTALITY and your digusting view on how your precious market should be hands off… people like YOU created to big to fail banks/corporations and then have the gall to condemn the government for being FORCED to bail them out… don't just ignore this issue..fucking address it!!! how could those banks/corps of collapsed and not of eviscerated the middleclass? tell me scooter..explain this to me!!!!!! "implicit" backing by the government//muahahaha.. so basicvally what your saying is that people just assumed that the government would bail them out, regaurdles sof the FACT that it has NEVER happened b4 and the government never mentioned any such thing and they had no evidence what so ever to back that claim up..so they just hada a "hunch" huh? and on that hunch the scumbags in the "market" exploited the government to no end,abused the system, acted negligently without regaurd for anything or anyone else, and you have the audacity to sit there and blame the government? get real man..get a grip..and please explain to me how that is not the exact equivalent to blaming the girl for dressing to sexy and not the rapist for not being able to control himself? and did you really just say that im not a seasoned investor? as if you are ? muahahah you didn't even know what a credit default swap was… and now your just ignoring that and not even acknowledging you were wrong and moving str8 back to the libertarian talking point of " well derp..the government shouldn't of bailed them out ..derp" as if nobody would notice your just trying to shift the focus ….

  • Nestor

    Seriously fin? You know for a fact that no one could have gotten there in time to help after the first calls came in? Weren’t there people in Tripoli? Why were people told to stand down? And exactly how did the State Dept. know exactly how much time they had after the alleged protest that never happened started?
    If you don’t know how much time you have, how do you know that no one can get there in time?
    As far as Obama knowing about it, he said in the debate that he knew right away that it was a terrorist attack. He claimed he mentioned it in the Rose Garden the next day. Yet on Sunday he sent Amb. Rice out to insist that it was a protest that got out of hand due to a video. In fact, that is what they told our dead soldiers parents as well!

    Stop drinking the Kool Aid already!
    If Obama didn’t know that it was a terrorist attack, was he lying at the debate and in the Rose Garden? Or was he lying when he said that it was due to a video?
    You only get to pick one here buddy!
    Again, why the cover up? And why hasn’t anyone been held responsible for this Obama disaster!
    And you are one again wrong about the head of the IRS being a registered republican. Bush appointed him, but the FACT is that he gave money to Democratic Convention.
    Wow, talk about being “low information”!

    • fin

      wrong again sport… “additional transcripts show the head of the Cincinnati office to be a self-proclaimed “conservative Republican,” which appears to directly contradict Cong. Issa’s claims that Democrats coordinated the entire investigation.”
      “the man who runs the IRS’ Cincinnati field office, that targeted the Tea Party, is a “conservative Republican.”
      “But in the interview excerpts released by Cummings, the charge of political motivation is refuted by the Cincinnati manager, who described himself to investigators as a “conservative Republican.”
      “Issa claimed that the entire investigation was coordinated by Democrats in Washington, and the local head of the office that actually did the investigations said not only did he have “no reason to believe that,” but that he was in charge of the investigations, and he’s a conservative Republican.

      So, actually, contrary to what Cong. Issa just said, the new testimony directly contradicts everything Issa has claimed to date.”

      now what were u saying sport? I can cite dozens of sources to confirm this EXACT americanblog dot com claims….. you fail miserably…. and why don’t u explain to everyone on this board why issa was not releasing the FULL transcripts?

    • fin

      I honestly thought u were a real libertarian at first due to your total lack of empathy and compassion for people who need healthcare but the more you expose yourself the more I realize you just a full fledge fox news viewer and nothing more.. are u honestly repeating the Benghazi talking points man? when your reduced to talking points its a good indictor you lack depth on the issue and cant think for yourself…. the day in the rose garden NOBODY knew nothing but obviousally Obama thought it was an act of terror and HE SAID ACT OF TERROR, regardless of your cute little theories on what he “accually meant” or you opinions..they are usless and its nothing more then speculation..he said ACT OF TERROR and nothing he said in the debate contradicts anything he said during the entire Benghazi issue… the Obama admin. was feeding the public IMMEDIALY in real time as they received intell from their sources… bad intell from the cia made Obama claim it was from the protests and the very SECOND he found out it wasn’t from the protest he updated the public and gave the intell that he was privy too.. there is no more to the story..stop trying to make something where there is NOTHING… your speculation is useless….

  • Nestor

    fin, Really? Is that the best you got for defending Hillary?
    The problem with that defense is that a State Department employee testified under oath that money had NOTHING to do with the reduction of security in Benghazi!
    IF money was “the problem”, and there was a security risk (as has been determined BEFORE the attack since they requested more security) why didn’t they just pull up stakes like Britain and The Red Cross did?

    Lame excuse fin! Try again!!!

    Here is Charlene Lamb’s testimony:
    Consider this exchange from the congressional hearing on Libya last week:

    “It has been suggested that budget cuts are responsible for a lack of security in Benghazi, and I’d like to ask Miss Lamb,” said Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R., Calif.). “You made this decision personally. Was there any budget consideration and lack of budget which lead you not to increase the number of people in the security force there?”

    “No, sir,” said Lamb.

  • Nestor

    fin, apparently Clinton and Obama don’t care about the 4 murdered in Benghazi since they did NOTHING to help them and have not caught nor tried ANYONE that was involved in the attack. They have videos of part of the attack, do they not? Why wasn’t help sent?
    And no, I do not claim that Obama authorized the targeting of conservative groups by the IRS, however, he didn’t do anything to stop it, did he? In fact the person in charge of that division has been rewarded with a long term paid vacation, hasn’t she?

    • fin

      you re the epitome of low information voter… please do me a favor and tell me who was in THAT AREA that could have been sent in time.. .. go ahead scooter… do your fox news research and fucking tell me which unit could have made it there in time… the FACT is that there was not one single unit that was capable of helping.PERIOD… and Clinton DID authorize help and tried to get it.. the person in charge of the army ( I forget his name right now ) said he did not have anyone or a single unit that was availabke.. the only ones that were even remotely close enough would have had to leave their area unattended and defenseless… but that doesn’t count right, bcos that doesn’t fit your narrative so youll jjst ignore those FACTS.. and the person in charge of the IRS division was a REGISTERED conservative with DECADES of republican voting history.. that fact pretty much blows up your entire story…. you have no argument what so ever.. and please PROVE that Obama knew that guy was targeting tea party groups and refused to do anything or stop it… don’t just make shit up or give me your opinion… PROVE Obama knew about it and chose not to do something.. you haven’t provided real proof of anything during this entire thread.. just wild bogus theories and stories .. just like the story about yoru exp. with ONE peticular union and the ONE peticular union boss that didn’t like you.. so that must mean the union as a whole is exactly the same right? muahahah… and don’t just ignore my question.. tell me which unit was in the area that could have helped and wouldn’t have had to leave their area defensless and unprotected….

    • fin

      “A: I called — when we knew that — I talked with the Defense Attache, Lt. Col. Keith Phillips, and I asked him, “Is there anything coming?” And he said that the nearest fighter planes were Aviano, that he had been told that it would take two to three hours to get them airborne, but that there were no tanker assets near enough to support a flight from Aviano. “<– right from the congressional hearing testimony…. go ahead sport tell me who was available… you fail miserably.. all the other testimony that counters that FACT is nothing but OPINION and speculation and starts out with " I think.." or " I believe"…. speculation and personal opinions on which unit could have been there in time are USELESS and nothing more then SPECULATION… but your just goping to refuse to even acknowledge this and focus on the few people who said " I THINK we MIGHT have been able to get there in time "

  • Nestor

    fin, the writing was on the wall while these risky investments were available, Why did they invest in them? Several reasons, they were chasing bigger returns and “everybody was doing it”. Well, not everybody, the smart ones stayed away.
    Many investors take too much risk in an attempt to make a few extra bucks when the risk is not worth it.
    The point is that many of these “investors” figured ahead of time that the government would bail them, along with Freddie and Fannie out if things went bad. The message should have been that the government will not bail out Fannie or Freddie or anyone else that bought these risky investments.
    Again, even those “financial wizards” (sarcasm) in Congress knew they were risky. If they thought otherwise, Barney Frank would not have used the phrase I want to roll the dice a little longer” regarding Fannie and Freddie.
    The swap didn’t make them a safe low risk investment, did they? And many people, including myself knew that. And no, I am not bragging.

    • fin

      lol.. is your argument really reduced to this now? are you really trying to argue that people just arbitrarily decided that if they created a bubble and it crashed that they thought the government would just bail them out? that really funny considering the fact that the government has NEVER done such a thing on that scale and they would of had ABSOLUTLEY no reason to assume the government would do it this time.. you fail miserably..muahahah.. your wild speculations are not proof of anything..its nothing more then a desperate attempt to blame the government for your precious market taking advantage of the government good will and exploiting the system.. again this mentality and your argument is EXACTLY the same as blaming the girl who dressed sexy for getting raped and not the rapist for not being able to control himself.. what ever happened to your bullshit “personal responsibility” arguments sport? that doesn’t count now that it doesn’t fit your narrative? the bottom line is I have gave nothing but fact and you have gave nothing but assumptions , theories and SPECULATION.. basically your just making shit up.
      and NO the swaps didn’t make them low risk.. that’s what ive been arguing this whole fucking time idiot… because of scumbags like you who pused the deregulation agenda bankers were able to pawn high risk investments off on ionvestors under FALSE pretenses.. you just PROVED me right… dude. stop digging .. face it your wrong this time… man up and admit it. the bottom line is you have no idea what your talking about.. I suggest you read the book I.O,U or accually I don’t think you will be able to comprehend it ( it doesn’t blame the government for every aspect of the crash so I don’t know if youll even be able to understand it considering you view everything thru your distorted lense of biases and libertarian fantasies ) since you are prob incapable of reading I guess you could watch the movie “to big to fail” it is also a FACT that the deregulation agenda CREATED to big to fail banks and that’s the CORE reason those banks had to be bailed out.. all thanks to people like you those banks had Americas very livelihood in their hands… but that doesn’t count either now does it?

  • Nestor

    fin, yes, unions can pick who they represent even though they still confiscate dues from all workers. Those stories were NOT made up. They and a couple others really happened. It does NOT say in the bylaws that they can choose who they represent, but they do so anyway. Why? Because they are intolerant of opinions that do not agree with their own.
    It is simply amazing that you think it never happens because it never happened to you. The union is ethically inept and morally bankrupt.
    Your claim that the union would be forced to represent non dues paying members is simply a false argument. Make it so they do not have to represent those that do not pay dues. SIMPLE solution! The worker can choose if they want representation or not! But I guess you are anti-choice, huh?
    My “generalization” is valid because I have seen it happen several times, and it wasn’t done subtly!

    • fin

      It is simply amazing that you think it always happens because it happened to you. <– please tell me why your EXACT logic doesn't invalidate your own bogus arguments? are u really that dense that you cant see how that arguments workds against you? your comdemning me for doing EXACTLY what your doing …literally EXACTLY.. that's the problem with simple minded libertarian fantasizers like you, the blantant use of double standards and hypocricy… your story means nothing and I can just as easily argue that the union NEVERS does anything like what your claiming.. but I know that is not a valid argument..u seem to think hearsay and adecdotal evidence is a valid argument..muahahahahahahah you have been part of ONE union and had exp. with ONE local union boss , nothing more.. and u think that's enough to make claims regaurding the entire union and all the unions that even exist? lol.. your funny man.. I have been in THREE different unions and have a vastly better knowledge and exp. with the unions, you have not. your stories don't mean shit and they don't prove shit and that's just the bottom line.. like ive said u have offered no proof of any of your claims this entire thread.. just your personal opinions ,assumptions, speculations and literally making shit up… you cant back up a single thing you say.. so you just keep repeating it non stop..

  • Nestor

    Ok, so “What difference does it make?” that it was known that these were risky investments, right?
    And either way, it was not out of context. Thus she made up the If it was a couple of guys going out for a walk and decided to kill some Americans or it was due to a protest getting out of hand. Both of those situations were completely false and she knew that from day 1!

    Are you defending H. Clinton on Benghazi now? Really?

    • AATTP

      Of course I’m defending her. She is, after all, the one who requested more funds from Congress to protect overseas embassies, only to be shot down by Republicans.

      “Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans’ proposed cuts to her department would be “detrimental to America’s national security” — a charge Republicans rejected.”


      And it IS out of context in addition to not even being complete! Are you defending your inability to even quote people correctly now? Really?!

    • fin

      lol.. at first I thought u were a real libertarian.. now im realizing your just a fox news watching right winger, nothing more… righties are more mad at Hilary and Obama then the actual people who murdered 4 American in Benghazi… its DISGUSTING… next your going to tell me Obama authorized the irs to target tea party groups .. muahahahahahahha

  • Nestor

    fin, I’ll make this short so maybe you can understand it:
    The risks were not hidden! The writing was on the wall that these investments were very risky!

    • fin

      yes, the risk WERE hidden,thus the credit default swap.. I mean why do you think credit default existed then? for fun? for show?.. why are u fighting this so hard? just admit you were wrong. grow up, act like a man and take it on the chin. better luck next time sport… I mean you wont even concede to what everyone ,including yourself, can see that u were wrong about.. get a grip man.. its ok to be wrong once in your life.. there will be other arguments you can “win” but not this one…. “the writing was on the wall” <–very easy to see in retrospect huh? if the writing was on the wall is that why the worlds top experts didn't pull their money and the worlds smartest hedge fund managers and most talented individulas "saw the writing on the wall" and is that why those banks didn't need a bailout and millions of peoples pensions/401ks weren't in jeopardy? gotcha…. you are so smart and could see the writing on the wall but you didn't even know what a credit default was until this thread..muahahahahahahah

      and are u still trying to say there is no difference between low risk safe investments and high risk investments? or are you just ignoring that little comment you made now bcos you realized how ridiculous you sounded? credit default swaps insured risky investments against default thus making them SAFE LOW RISK INVESTMENT.. but in reality that was a LIE and when they defaulted the insurance companies couldn't meet their obligations thus crashing the economy.

  • Nestor

    What are you smoking fin? I never ever said that everyone is always represented unfairly. Go back and read what I really said. Unions pick and choose who they want to represent. It depends on if they like the member or not. I was a member of that union for over 3 decades, they sure liked my money, but when it came time to represent me, they refused to do so! So they didn’t “like” me, but they really liked my money every month! Hypocritical of them, isn’t it? And you, for that matter if you think that it is perfectly alright to break your contract of representing someone because to just don’t like them!
    If you are such an expert in unions, show me, if you can where it says in ANY union contract where it says that the union can choose not to represent a member because they do not like them.

    • fin

      so let me get this str8.. ALL unions pick and choose who they want to represent bcos you had ONE bad expiernece with PEOPLE that ran your peticular union? lol… that’s called over generalization and bullshit hearsay.. so lets use your exact logic and just spin it around.. the three unions I belonged too didn’t pick and choose even one time and they represented ALL members equally regaurdless of their personal opinions of said members, thus ALL unions and the union as a whole is perfect in every way and doesn’t discriminate ever ,not even once and the union as a whole doesn’t “pick and choose” who they want to represent and I know this is a fact bcos it didn’t happen to me….tell me why my assertions are not valid but yours are even tho they are EXACTLY the same. im still waiting for REAL PROOF and not some fake stories.. show me where in the union bi-laws or federal laws that says unions are allowed to pick and choose who they wish to represent… go ahead show me this law. you want people to be able to not pay unions dues but the union will be forced to represent them in their negotiations thus making that employee a mooch and a leech and a free rider.. disregaurd everything ive said here bsides my assertions..i want your answer on why your generalization of the “union” is valid based on your personal expierence but mine isnt

  • Nestor

    Oh, fin, so because YOU were represented every time that you requested that means that EVERYONE has always been represented! Typical liberal illogical theory there buddy!
    I am not a disgruntled employee, I am a disgruntled former union member because the union was and in ethically inept and morally bankrupt. They have broken all kinds of standard rules like not negotiating fairly or honestly. They only represent members they want to represent and not people that disagree with them. Then they lie outright to the members about the union contract they are negotiating. Bottom line, they only represent the sheeple and not people that can think for themselves.

    Your story cancels out mine???? What a foolish theory you have!! No one in their right mind would believe such a comparison! You are really getting desperate here and looking foolish doing it!

    • fin

      “Oh, nestor, so because YOU were represented unfairly every time that you requested that means that EVERYONE has always been represented unfairly! Typical conservative illogical theory there buddy!”<–please tell me how your own logic doesn't refute your bogus argument? I have been a part of three different unions I have a vastly superior knowledge and expierence with them then you. you sir, are the one who knows not what you speak of. and I can totally see why the PEOPLE who worked for the union hated your guys , NOT "THE" UNION… are u ready to give real proof yet or are you going to keep spewing the same tired hearsay and adecdotal evidence and wild sotries?

  • Nestor

    Wow fin, first you say that those subprime mortgages were not risky, and now you say it doesn’t matter that they were high risk! I see you are taking the Hillary Clinton line “What difference does it make!” now.
    If they were insured against a default, how did all those defaults occur mr. smarty pants! Where was the insurance?
    It DOES matter, and the investors knew, or should have known what they were investing in. THAT is the responsibility of investors! Those bankers wanted a bailout because they got stuck holding those RISKY investments when no one else would buy them anymore. The housing bubble popped, people couldn’t, or refused to make their promised monthly payments because their home went down in value or other financial situation. Somehow they thought that their home value was guaranteed.

    • AATTP

      Wrong. She said, “What difference, AT THIS POINT, does it make?”

      Typical conservative/libertarian maneuver to take something out of context in order to support your fallacious narrative.

    • fin

      did you really honestly just ask me how all the defaults occurred? muahahahahahahahahahah how many times are you going to expose your limited knowledge and embarrass yourself? the insurance companies that insured these subprime loans couldn’t meet their obligations once they started defaulting.. I just cant even believe that I have to explain this to you man forreal..and then u have the audacity to say that I don’t know what im talking about as im literally educating you on what a credit default swap is.. just face it man.. for once in your life act like a man and admit you were wrong and didn’t think credit default swaps played a roll…a MAJOR roll and prob one of the biggest rolls… and btw sport I never said the subprimes THEMSELVES were not high risk..if u think so then please quote me..i specifically said over and over and over again that credit default swaps HID THE FACT THAT THEY WERE HIGH RISK.. I said that 67 times and now your saying I never said that? lol how desperate are you man? you cant save your face and your ass at the same time… man up, and admit when your wrong. and those banks didn’t “want” a bail out ..duh.. they were forced to take a bailout or collapse entirely thus bringing down our ENTIRE economy with it along with eviscerating the middleclass…but you don’t give a shit about the working middleclass.. as long as we let those banks fail and followed Milton freidmans bogus theories of how a “true” free market works is the only thing that matters right? those banks had to take a bailout reguardless of your little cute theories and wild assumptions.. they dominated the market and had OVER 90% market shares in their respective areas along with employing the vast majority of the middleclass, 70% to be exact ( not just the banks themselves but the other companies they financed also ) combined with having their tenacles in EVERY sector in the ENTIRE economy from toilet seats to jumbo jets… do u honestly fucking think they could have ” just failed” ..I mean get real man..wake up..stop with the ridiculous feel good talking points… think for yourself.. use yoru brain…think about the consequence that would have happened if they collapsed and think about how many other companies would have been destroyed in the process.. but as long as your precious bondholders and ceo’s got away scoot free then fuck all those middleclass jobs right?

  • Nestor

    No fin, some might have “thought” they were safe, but obviously they were not. If you want “safe”, stick the money in a bank account. Anything much more than that is risky!
    There is no guarantee with investing, that is why it is imperative to do ones homework and understand exactly what one is investing in. That is even on of Warren Buffet’s rules of investing. Most people consider him an “expert” about investing.
    You are the one that is wrong fin, especially since investing in mortgages is never completely safe. Then when people see houses being sold for more than they are really worth, and these people were the investors, the writing was on the wall that they were unsafe.
    With all due respect, you do not know what you are talking about. Anybody with their eyes open knew that these investments were very risky.

    • fin

      lol.. you are the densest person I have ever came across.. it did not matter if the subprime morgages were high rish u fool. they were fucking insured againast default thru a credit default swap.. what don’t u get about that? why cant your little brain comprehend that FACT? is it bcos you refuse to bcos it debunks your bogus claims? and now your argument is reduced to ” derp…well all investments are risky”…. hahahah.. there are safe low risk investments and there are extremely high risk investments are you honestly trying to argue that there is no distinction between the two? muahahahahahahah

      how desperate are you man forreal? are you really that afraid to admit your wrong fo ronce in your life?

      ” the writing was on the wall ,everybody knew” lol.. is that why the worlds largestest banks with the worlds most repsected high level finanacial and market experts didn’t collapse and need a bailout?

  • Nestor

    fin, so are you saying that any job that is non-union is paying substandard wages? No, that is not the case.

    And yes, a union CAN refuse to represent a member. As I have said, I have seen it first hand. All they have to say is “Gee, I don’t see a case here”. And you know that they just don’t mean it when the union president threatens the workers job. The union president actually said “We don’t like you, we don’t want you working here, why don’t you go find another place to work?”. Then later, the shop steward threatened the worker again by saying “If you don’t stop making waves, it doesn’t matter what the contract says, we will make you look bad to the management in order to get you fired.” So yes, they can and do refuse to do their job and represent ALL members. That is what dues are for, isn’t it? They are ethically inept and morally bankrupt! Case closed on THAT one!
    You are right, no one is forced to take a union job, but they are forced to pay dues when for “protection” when they may not really be “protected” at all.
    So tell me, if you can, why should an employee have a CHOICE to join the union at the place of employment? Then the union can only represent the people that willingly pay for protection? Or are you anti-choice?
    If people WANT TO belong to the union, fine, let them pay their dues willingly. If they don’t, that should be fine as well!

    In addition, you make it sound like it is the union that should control the business, who they hire and fire. Shouldn’t that role belong to the owner of the business?

    • fin

      didn’t I already invalidate your anecdotal hearsay evidence about unions? your a disgruntled employee with a story, nothing more .. I have been in unions multiple times and I was represented to the fullest EVERY TIME without exception and NOONE was EVER discriminated against.. what makes your story superior to mine? it doesn’t!!! therefore my story cancels our your story and we are back to square one.. so please provide REAL evidence of your claims

  • Nestor

    Wow fin, what part don’t you understand? The rules should be the same for unions and businesses.

    Oh, and one other point about those corrupt unions that you love so much. Since businesses are not allowed to discriminate against people why should unions be allowed to discriminate against people that don’t like unions?

    • fin

      lol.. you just couldn’t answer the question because you know YOUR answer is no, you loathe the fact that unions are allowed to do that and you feel as though they shouldn’t be allowed to donate to any politican of their choosing and politicans shouldn’t be allowed to hide that donation from voters… but you wont say it bcos you know I will pounce on your for your blantant disgusting hypocricy because libertarian drones support the citizens united bill and think corporations should be able to do anything they want and are infallible god-like entities incapable of failure… sorry sport unions aren’t allowed to discriminate.PERIOD.. just bcos there were PEOPLE in your old union that were corrupt or broke the rules doesn’t mean that’s how the union is as a whole…. what your sayng is exactly the same as saying if I went to walmart and the cashier stole my change that walmart as a whole is corrupt and steals.. just bcos one person or the people in your union weren’t fair or broke the rules doesn’t mean shit. your anecdotal evidence is just useless… your just a disgruntled ex employee with a story, nothing more

  • Nestor

    Wow fin, you really ARE closed minded aren’t you? Explain, if you can, why someone should be forced to pay union dues, especially when the union refuses to represent that person. So do you disagree with the first Amendment regarding freedom of association? Why should the union and not the employer have the right to hire who they want to hire? Isn’t telling the employee that they must pay protection money whether they agree with them or not just wrong? Isn’t that what the Mafia did to store owners in the old days? Are you saying that people don’t have a right to work where they want to unless they toe the union line? So only liberals or quiet conservatives are allowed at certain workplaces?
    You sound just as intolerant as those union workers and union officers where I used to work.
    And here I thought you were part of the party of tolerance. You are pretty intolerant of other peoples opinions when it comes to politics, aren’t you? Typical liberal!!!

    Oh, and unions CAN refuse to represent a member. I have seen it done several times.

    • fin

      so ill take it u think people are forced to work at walmart for substandard wages then? regaurdless if they were told PRIOR to applying at walmart what the pay rate would be …. so ill assume u think walmart is forcing people to work for them and work for substandard wages right? the union can NOT “refuse” to represent that person..PERIOD.. if u think so PROVE IT.. not some story from from a disgruntled ex-employee.. show me the union b-law that says this or the federal law that says this.. those are the ONLY two acceptable forms of proof.. everything else is hearsay and anecdotal third party BS or people like you with an agenda bcos you had a bad experience w/ the union..
      NOBODY is forced to apply at a union job, NOBODY is forced to stay at a union job and NOBODY is forced to take a union job. there is no way around that. unless your trying to say people are forced to work at walmart also.. paying union dues at a union company ( that you KNEW was a union company BEFORE u even applied ) is a condition of employement.. just like a condition of working at walmart is that youll starve bcos you wont be able to feed your family… what ur saying is exactly the same as saying ” why should walmart force people to work for minimum wage that do not want to work for minimum wage” lets reword everything you say.. let replace “union” with walmart or “corporation” and we’ll see just how assine you are and how horrific your double standards are….

  • Nestor

    fin, you are right, these big corporations had high priced investment people that must have known that these were risky investments. Some just fooled themselves by thinking that there were so many slices of mortgages in each portfolio that the risk wouldn’t be so high. But they were getting a high interest rate.

    You see, this is how it works, if the interest rate sounds too good to be true, or any return for that matter, then it usually is. That is investing basics 101! It was no secret that these were risky, especially considering the higher interest rate that was involved! If these investments weren’t more risky, why was the interest rate paid higher for these investments? Can you answer THAT sport?
    You’re in way over your head here fin. Stop digging that hole.

    • fin

      lol.. I think I just realized that you have no clue what a credit default accually is or what or accually does.. ” thinking that there were so many slices of morgages in ea. portfolio that the risk wouldn’t be so high”<– muahahahahahahah.. that is NOT what they thought brpight their risk down .. what brought their risk down was the FACT that credit default swaps INSURED SUBPRIME MORGAGES AGAINST DEFAULT.. so even if they did default it would matter bcos bankers had insurance on them….n ow they were free to pawn them off on investors under false pretenses.. bcos it didn't matter.. the subprimes were high risk regaurdless if the bankers HID that fact.. once they all started defaulting the insurance companies couldn't meet their obligations and that's what caused the melt down to start… this is getting brutal man forreal.. I honestly in my heart don't think you knew what a credit default swap was nor do I think you knew how important of a roll they had.. and I might go as far as to say this forum is the first time you ever even heard of this aspect…. bcos you live in a bubble where only right wing rhetoric floats around and you just repeat bogus talking points ad nauseum

  • Nestor

    fin, if I knew they were high risk, most other people knew, or should have known that they were high risk. These investors have had much more formal education in investments than I have. If I could figure it out , they knew it as well.

    • fin

      lol..this is getting brutal.. credit default swaps made it possible for the bankers to transfer the risk OFF THEIR BOOKS.. do you get that? investors thought they were investing in low risk dafe investoments that were freakin INSURED AGAINAST DEFAULT.. your just flat out wrong man..just admit it and stop being so stubborn.. thisa time your wrong… take it like a man and admit it. deregulation allowed the credit default swap to intensify this bubble by 500% and investors were hoodwinked into thinking the morgages they were investing into were insured against default thus making it a safe low risk investment… just face it man you are wrong this time… I know it hard for a right winger ideaologue like yourself to face the truth but this time you have to.. tuck you tail between your legs and admit your were wrong this one time

  • Nestor

    fin, if these were not high risk investments, how the heck did so many people lose money on them? They were high risk. I knew they were high risk and I am just a lower middle income worker. Those guys making the big bucks should have known that as well and should not have been bailed out either!

    • fin

      your comprehendsion skills are appalling… YES they were high risk investments and NOBODY would invest in them.. ( only people willing to take a huge risk, not millions of americans and DEFINITLY not millions of pension fund managers who were reposnbile for peoples retirements )…. so the bankers used a fucking CREDIT DEFAULT SWAP to HIDE the fact that they were high risk investment..what don’t u get about this? they FASELY labeled them low risk investments so they could pawn them off on investors… investors thought they were investing in low risk safe investments but little did they know they were hoodwinked bcos people like you who support the deregulation agenda allowed bankers to HIDE THE FACT THAT THEY WRRE HIGH RISK INVESTMENTS…. how many times must I repeat this exact same thing…Ive said this 30 times and you just reply with the same tired bullshit further exposing your total lack of knowledge and insight into this finanacial crisis..this convo is WAAAAAY above your pay grade sport and its quite obvious….. let me repeat this one more time bcos your a slow learner.. Credit default swaps allowed banksers to TRICK THE FUCKING INVESTORS into thinking they were investing in LOW RISK SAFE investments but in reality they were very high risk but there was no fucking way to find that out ( on the investors side ) get this thru your head because it is a FACT that is irrefutable…. you have been schooled so many times that I cant believe your still opening your mouth.,.you must be a gluten for punishment….

  • Nestor

    buddythedog, you have no idea what you are talking about. Investors knew about those risky investments, It was mentioned all over the business networks and news! I heard and read about it often, I chose not to invest in those due to the high risk. The thinking was that there were so many mortgages (or mortgage tracts) in one investment that it was very likely that they would be profitable. Again, if the government would not have been buying these securities, there would not have been as many created or sold.
    No, I am saying that GM did not go through regular bankruptcy. I am saying they should have. And no, the bail out did not “save millions of jobs. Many dealerships that were profitable were forced to close, thus those employees lost there jobs. And yes, some people did have that kind of money to take over GM through a “normal” bankruptcy. Just off the top of my head, Warren Buffet comes to mind.
    And yes, it was about paying the union back. Tell me, if you can, what percentage of GM did the union own after said bailout?
    In the government-managed reorganization of GM, bond holders (secured bond holders, who normally are at the top of the pay-out chart) were given equity in the carmaker at a price of $2.7 billion per one percent ownership. The government ended up paying $834 million for every one percent it claimed; the UAW paid only $629 million.
    Read more at http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2012/10/17/Obamas-Auto-Bailout-Was-Really-a-Hefty-Union-Payoff.aspx#TaluLAwbOgyoYEEr.99

    Now, as you were saying?
    What do you mean if all the companies that were bailed out were left to fail? I got news for you, just because companies file bankruptcy, it doesn’t mean that they go out of business, it means that they reorganize their debt so they can try to STAY in business.
    You know not of what you speak, sir.

    • fin

      lol..this is getting to funny… ive said this 67 times and u just refuse to even address it or acknowledge it… credit default swaps HID the fact that they were high rish which allowed bankers to FASELY label them low risk safe investments and proceed to hoodwink investors.. what you were hearing on the tv wasn’t about subprimes morgages backed securities being high risk u fool, what u were hearing was that all the subprime lending was causing a bubble and that it was due to burst very soon making any investors high risk… if you had a clue you would have understood what you were watching and hearing but u didn’t and now can only look back in retrospect and try to put the pieces together but thru your lense of double standards hypocricy and EXTREME bias….

      your story it pretty cute.. the problem is that we weren’t dealing with a few mom and pop companies u ignoramous..we were dealing with companies that make up the largest part of our economy..what don’t u get about this? and it wasn’t just one company…you have no clue what your talking about and live in a fantasy world if u think all those mega corporations and banks could of just failed and we all would have lived a happy go lucky life with no affects to our economy and wouldn’t of eviscerated the middleclass// we aren’t talking about kmart going thru bankruptcy sport..we are talking about companies who DOMINATED our economy and had something like 90% market shares in their market combined with the fact that they were inter-mingled with EVERY part of our economy and part of every single sector that even exist…this collapse was so intricate and complex and its so painfully obvious you barely have a youtube education on the subject…..get a fucking clue man… your cute little theories work great in your head and its so halariousally funny that u focus on the FEW dealerships that “had to close” who employed a few hundred people ( most of which are BACK OPEN TODAY ) and just ignore the LITERAL million ..LITTERALLY A MILLION American middleclass jobs that the GM bail out did fucking save… your hatred and bias is blinding you so unbelievable bad that u cant think str8.. you pounce on the few little factiods that fit your bogus naraative while refusing to even acknowledge the ones that don’t..the gm bailout saved OVER ONE MILLION MIDDLECLASS JOBS , both union and NON union.and that’s an irrefutable FACT..but lets just ignore that right? and lets focus on the few dealerships that went belly up… and if GM went thru full bankruptcy what the fuck do u think would have happened to those dealerships then sport? and what happened to your cute little answer that we shouldn’t bail out anybody and if a company is in bad shape they should be left to fail? lol..now that it doesn’t work for your argument it doesn’t count? why the fuck shouldn’t those dealrships of closed up,with your logic they deserved to close and should have closed and the fact that they did go bankrupt was the right thing..your hypocricy is worse then anyone I have ever witnessed in my ENTIRE life…double standards and hypocricy is the only thing I see spewing out of your mouth… and like I said sport the union donations to Obama accounted for the SMALLEST donations out of his donors and that’s a FACT..i guess that little factoid doesn’t fit your argument so youll just ignore that one too..he didn’t bail out gm bcos of the union and if u think so then your just a simple minded bafoon who is foaming at the mouth to make Obama and the union look bad… and btw scooter.. THERE WAS NO PRIVATE CAPITAL AVAILABLE TO TAKE GM THRU REAL BANKRUPTCY and that’s also a fact..regaurdless if someone “HAS” the money to do so … are u really that fucking dense that u think bcos someone had enough money to do it they would have? are u joking me? there was NO ONE WILLING TO TAKE GM THRU FULL BANPRUPTCY..there was NO PRIVATE CAPITAL available to do so.PERIOD PERIOD PERIOD…. and even if there was,which there was NOT, it would have destroyed peoples pensions and evaporated their jobs that they relied on to feed their families and children..but u don’t give a fuck about them right? as long as the shareholders get their full returns back ,that’s all that matter right? fuck the middleclass workers and all those jobs right?

  • Nestor

    fin, I think that unions should have to follow the same rules as businesses when it comes to donating money to political organizations.
    However, I also think that unions should NOT be able to force workers to pay dues if they choose not to belong to the union.
    I don’t hate the middle class, far from it. In fact, I was a union member for over 30 years. The union I belonged to and was forced to pay dues to is ethically inept and morally bankrupt. They play favorites with their members and have different rules for different workers in the same classification. But that is a long story.

    • fin

      are people FORCED to work at walmart for substandard wages? yes or no? is walmart forcing people to work for them? its a yes or no question..dont give me any libertarian spin or talking points.. DOES WALMART FORCE PEOPLE TO WORK FOR SUBSTANDARDS WAGES OR NOT? do people have a choice to work at wallmart and do they have a choice weather or not to quit if they dont like their pay? if they KNEW BEFORE they applied what their hourly pay rate would be do they have a right to be angry about their pay rate and where they forced to take the job at walmart for said pay rate? yes or no? NOBODY is forced to pay union dues.PERIOD. end of discussion..there is no room for debate on that.nobody is forced to apply at or take a union job just like nobody is forced to work at walmart…. if you don’t want to be a part of the union then why the fuck would u apply to a union job? if u didn’t want to belong to a union then why the fuck would u stay there?…if u don’t like paying union dues then why would u take a job that required you to pay union dues and why would u stay at a job that required you to pay union dues? unions are NOT forcing you to work at their companies and they are not forcing anyone to take the job therefore they are not forcing a single fucking person in this entire country to pay union dues..IT IS A CHOICE.. if unions aren’t allowed to exclude the person who doesn’t want to pay union dues then why the fuck should that employee be able to exempt themselves from paying union dues? you double standards are shining again sport..only outmatched by your hypocricy bcos im SURE your going to tell me no one is forced to work for walmart but somehow magically everyone is forced to take a union job….

    • fin

      you cant follow simple directions or your incapable of simple comprehension…. it was a yes or a no.. should unions be able to donate unlimited amounts of money to any politican of their choosing and do so secretely? furthermore should the politicans who received the unions donations be able to keep that a secrete and not have to disclose that info to voters so that voters can properly assess said politicans motives? yes or no.. should unions be able to do those things and should politicans be able to keep that IMPORTANT informations from voters? yes or fucking no

  • Nestor

    Wow, William, you are really stretching here comparing a private takeover with borrowing money to a company! There is a huge difference between the two.

    Furthermore, you seem to be confused about bankruptcy law. Secured creditors get paid BEFORE shareholders do, thus the term SECURED!
    Perhaps you need to take an investment basics course. Bonds are loans, that means they are debts of the company (the owners). Secured loans get paid first in a bankruptcy, NOT the owners of the company (debtors).

    William, just because a company files bankruptcy, it does not mean that they shut down, does it? If Ford can get money to help get on better financial footing, why couldn’t GM?

    You should really get your facts straight before you come on here!

  • Nestor

    fin, are you claiming that people went bankrupt because they filled their portfolio with subprime mortgage backed securities?
    So you think that all those portfolio managers that get paid the big bucks did not know that subprime mortgages are risky? They certainly knew what kind of mortgages were in the portfolio they were buying!
    If nobody knew that those investments were risky, where did they think those subprime mortgages were going?
    Millions of jobs being wiped out with a bankruptcy?
    Sorry, didn’t GM file bankruptcy? There were still jobs after that, right? Many other companies file bankruptcy and operate afterwards, do they not?
    Now, you really don’t know if there was no private capital available to take GM out of bankruptcy, do you? At the right price, there would have been. The private sector was not even considered because the president wanted to give more control of GM to the union, thus paying them back for their endorsement and contributions!. Ford did not go thru a government sponsored bankruptcy, did it? If Ford did it, GM could have as well! They were both in rough shape! Ford traded for as little as $1 a share during this time!
    As far as Fannie and Freddie go, by buying these (known) risky loans, were they or were they not creating a market for more of these loans? None of the companies should have been bailed out for their risky behavior. Furthermore, you are completely wrong in your comparison to the rape victim scenario.

    • buddythedog

      there is absolutey no possible way you are this dense man.. they DID NOT KNOW THEY WERE SUBPRIME HIGH RISK MORGAGES..get this thru your head once and for all.. the bankers used a CREDIT DEFAULT SWAP to HIDE the fact that they were high risk and thats a FACT…they were NOT labeled “sub prime mogages” anymore bcos as far as the bankers were concerned they WERE NOT SUBPRIME anymore they were garunteed against default.. THEY WERE NOT LABELED HIGH RISK INVESTMENTS and the investors had no fucking clue what was going on ..and they DID NOT KNOW THEYU WERE INVESTING IN SUBPRIME MORGAGE BACKED SECURITIES.period period period period..get that thru ur head..the credit default swap made it possible for the bankers to claim they werre NOT HIGH RISK SUBPRIME MORGAGES..do u get this? how many times have i repeated this exact same thing..its so painfully obvious this is the first time u are hearing about credit default swaps and its even more painfully obvious you have no clue what ur talking about..as for GM..muahahaha now your claiming GM went thru regular backruptcy huh? i guess since your got completely embarassed now it fits your argument to say gm went thru a regular bankruptcy huh? the last comment u were arguing “gm should of been forced to go thru bankruptcy” man u are pathetic. “for the right money” first of all your condemning me for only assuming there was no private capital while your fucking doing the EXACT SAME THING and just assuming there was priovate capital..your hypocricy is seriousally hyterical man…it is a FACT that there was no private capital available to sustain over a MILLION american middleclass jobs..PERIOD end of discussion…and why u keep latching on to the union aspect but complete fucking ignoriong the FACT that HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of NON UNION jobs and NON UNION comanies were also saved in that bailout? they dont count? lastly obama was not “paying back the union” you ignoramous..the american workforce is less then 8% unionized and union donations account for the SMALLEST percentage of obama donors and thats a FACT….your assumptions are so assine and just purely outragous that they dont even deserve to be adressed..your spewing TYPICAL right wing FOX NEWS STYLE talking points which is making you look so completely desperate and foolish that you should be embarrassed…and how many times do i have to repeat this .. if all the companies that were bailed out were left to fail it would have imploded our entire system..it would have eviserated the middleclass and thats a FACT.. we would have been forced to live in the waste land created by your precious market while all the ceo-class scumbags got off scot free and thats also a FACT… furthermore the rape analogy is spot on.. your blaming govenrment for the “market” exploiting the government programs and extorting millions of people by hoodwinking them into bad loans… that is the EXACT equivilent to blaming the girl who dresses sexy for getting raped.. let me repeat this again .. SUBPRIME LOANS were not high risk investments anymore bcos scumbag nakers used a credit default swap to FALSELY make them a LOW RISK investment..and investors DID NOT KNOW THIS. they thought they were investing in low risk investments..why cant u fucking comprehend this? i just dont get it….after the credit default swap the subprime morgages WERE NOT FUCKING HIGH RISK INVESTMENTS ANYMORE..do you get that? can u read? investors were NOT taking risks and they were NOT investing in high risk investment… but the truth is they didnt know they were,it was unbenounced to them all bcos of the conservative agenda of deregulation which made it possible……

    • fin

      since you hate any middleclass job that pays a decent wage i see why your so hardcore against unions.. so this question is perfect.. do you think unions should be able to donate unlimited amounts of money to any politican they wish and shouldnt have to disclose that information nor should the politican who recieved that donation have to disclose it? yes or no..its a very simple question..i dont want no talking points ..not ” but barney frank said roll the dice” bullshit..i dont want any ” its govenrments fault and wallstreet did absolutley nothing wrong” stories ..i want a yes or a no….should unions be able to donate unlimited amount of money to any politican they wish and do so SECRETLEY? and the politican who recideved donations from said union shouldnt have to disclose that info to voters…yes or no?

      and lastly ive asked u ten times but u just ignore it…. do u suport the libertarian and conservative endrosed citizens united bill ?

  • Nestor

    How would they know??? You can’t be serious! They knew because they were SUB PRIME. The investors knew they were risky mortgages. But they bought them anyway because they thought that only a small percentage of them would default. All those professionals surely knew about them. Even Congress knew about it! Barney Frank surely knew, otherwise he would not have used the term “roll the dice” when talking about letting Fannie and Freddie continue to buy these risky vehicles!

    • fin

      oh my god..this again? how many times are u just going to keep repeating yourself even after being PROVED wrong time and time again.. once the credit default swaps were in place the fucking subprime morgages backed securities WERE NOT FUCKING HIGH RISK INVESTMENTS.PERIOD PERIOD PERIOD PERIOD PERIOD..get that thru your head …bankers were able to HIDE the fact that they were high risk investments all bcos of people like you who support the deregulation agenda

  • Nestor

    Oh boy, fin! Where to start, you spout out so much misinformation. You DO know that Cobra insurance is much more expensive than what you could buy insurance for from the insurance companies, don’t you? I guess not! You can’t even bear to look up the facts at an insurance website!

    Yes, when people buy “sub-prime” mortgages, what the heck do they think it means? Obviously it means they are below (thus sub) safe (thus prime) investment vehicles!
    The point is, if you do not understand the investment, you should not invest in it. That is one of the first rules of investing!
    Now who was it that bought these risky investments, rookie investors or seasoned professional investors (including Fannie and Freddie)?
    In FACT, the SEC charged the executives of Fannie and Freddie of misleading investors about the risks of these subprime mortgages. They bought these up to increase their market share so they could get bigger bonuses. And again, at that time, Barney Frank and others “wanted to roll the dice a little longer”!

    I NEVER said that everyone is getting free healthcare! Where did I say that? I said people do get free health care at the emergency room when they choose not to pay. Do you deny that that is what happens?
    And why don’t you answer the question of how will they pay for their insurance after the Obamacare mandate if they cannot afford it now? WHY should they sign up for it instead of paying the low tax for not having insurance when they can wait until they need the insurance and get it for the same price when they definitely need expensive health care?
    And again with the name calling that proves you have nothing to add to your losing argument!

    • fin

      how many times do i have to repeat this.. you just keep digging deeper and deeper.. NOBODY INVESTED IN SUBPRIME MORGAGES..get that thru your head… they investe din morgaged back securities that had a LOW RISK label on them..please tell me how the hell someone could possibly know they were investing in high risk sub prime morgages when the credit default swap HI THAT FACT and hid that ON PURPOSE…. and please tell me how hard working americans with pensions and 401k’s MILLIONS AND THEM knew that their hedge fund manager was investing in these FALSELY labeld low risk morgage backed securites? please explain this to me… and your so worried about the preciosu “bond holders” that rely on their pay outs each month to live on but you dont give one shit about the MILLIONS of middleclass jobs that would have been wiped out with a “real” bankruptcy..and secondly it is a FACT that GM couldnt go thru a true and real full bankruyptcy bcos there was NO PRIVATE CAPITAL in the scale that was needed at that time and that is IRREFUTABLE… and i love how u just gloss over the fact that ,moral hazard or not, that your precious “market” and the private capitalist who dwell within it EXTORTED minipulated lied and took advanatge of the good will of the government ON PURPOSE…and then u have the gall to blame govenrment instead of the people who ACCUALLY perpetuated those crimes.. i mean is your fucking argument honestly that your mad at government for making it possible for scumbags on wallstreet to exploit them? your argument is the EXACT equivilent to saying a girl who dressed sexy deserved to be raped and blame her for dressing sexy,not the rapist for not being able to control himself… that is the EXACT equivilent of what your saying…EXACT!!.. and concerning obamacare..now your changing up your story and dont think everyone here didnt notice..u SPECIFICALLY SAID the people who make 9$ an hour.. now your changing it to “everybody”….get ur story str8 them come back to me scooter…and i love how you dont adress all my points..u just just repeating the same exact things u have been saying over and over again.. u take one or two points i made and run with them and u neglect the rest bcos you KNOW you cant refute them …and BTW sport..the other guy who replied to you completely embarassed you and litterally eviserated everything u have said thus far point by point…i say bravo to him… i have never seen an asswhopin like that… you should be ashmaed of yourself…. your such a hardcore ideologue that ever after your PROVEN WRONG youll just refuse to accept it and continue spewing the samer tire REFUTED lies and talking points non stop..
      why are u only citing fannie and freddy..like the guy said before me they made 1 out of every 4 subprime loans.,… why are u refusing to even mention the other players? bcos in your warped world view they dont count bcos they arent partially owned by the gov? and they did nothing wrong bcos they are god-like and infalible bcos they are private corporations? and i still want you to answer my question about the PRIVATE prisons that are sprouting up like wild fire..something LIBERTARIANS endorse.. please tell me how that isnt a moral hazard..why are libertarians such filthy hypocrits who use double standards to suit their ideological nonsense?

      • AATTP

        You should save this entire back-and-forth with Nestor and publish it as a book! Highly entertaining–in a good way.

  • Nestor

    Wow fin, you really hate people that have more money than you, huh? You should see someone about that.
    And no, risk does not go away with the swaps, someone else just takes on (willingly) the risk. People chose to take on that risk and should never have been bailed out. That created a moral hazard that got way out of hand.

    What??? I don’t care about workers??? Guess what I AM a worker! You are so delusional it is funny.

    You are also wrong about the GM bailout. GM could have been bailed out legally instead of the government stealing assets from bond holders and giving them to the unions. Ford didn’t get a bankruptcy bailout from the government and is doing well, isn’t it?
    See, you are living in a fantasy world full of misinformation here.

    So you say you care about the middle class and “the poor”, just not those execs and CEOs.
    Well what about those retirees that held those secured GM bonds that got wiped out and now do not get their interest checks they depended on for their groceries? I guess you don’t care about them so much, huh?

    See, two can play at that game!

    Wrong again about “the market” destroying the economy. It was the government (in part) implying they would bail companies out for their foolish behavior, including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. People were saying at the time that Fannie and Freddie would never go under because the government would bail them out of their bad loans.
    Guess what, the government DID bail out companies that made terrible business decisions.
    When you believe that someone will bail you out when you make poor choices, you are more likely to make said bad choices!

    And, by the way, when you stoop to all that name calling, it shows that you have no point to make and have lost the argument.

    • http://twitter.com/Jkirk3279 William Carr (@Jkirk3279)

      The Delusions are strong with this one…

      GM WAS “bailed out” legally.

      You’re reciting the Mitt Romney spin; those that know the truth are aware that the Bankruptcy Court apportioned assets to the shareholders, as is customary, and the Unions just happened to be a big shareholder of GM Stock.

      Once you hit Bankruptcy Court, the Judge is in charge.

      The President doesn’t have any authority over the Bankruptcy Court and can’t tell them what to do.

      GM only got in trouble because after the Economic Crash Banks refused to lend money, even to good customers.

      They came to the Government and said “a million American jobs are at risk and we need help”.

      So the Government did what it’s supposed to do; it protected American Jobs.

      Ford was the exception; they decided to risk going it alone and it worked out. More power to them.

      What YOU and Mitt Romney would have preferred was forcing GM into FULL Bankruptcy. They would have closed their doors, and been auctioned off for pennies on the dollar.

      All those jobs would have vanished overseas, and the jobs of their American Suppliers would have hit the chopping block next.

      But hey; Mitt Romney wanted that to happen. Because it would have been a WINDFALL for Bain Capital.

      The opportunity to profit by scavenging from other people’s hard work ?

      Picking up factories for pennies on the dollar?

      Priceless !

      Mitt doesn’t give a rip; he’s done it many times before. 22% of the companies Bain Capital took over and ran into debt collapsed or shut down within eight years afterward.

      An interesting statistic; 92% of the companies that took loans from the Department of Energy program are successful and still providing Americans with good jobs.

      So; Bain Capital, 78% success rate; the Department of Energy, 92% success rate.

      Hm. Sounds like the DOE is a better business partner than Bain Capital.

      “Well what about those retirees that held those secured GM bonds that got wiped out and now do not get their interest checks they depended on for their groceries?”

      A Bond is an investment; they’re safer than Stocks, but they’re still a risk; don’t take the risk if you can’t afford it.

      Most of the bondholders were offered stock in “New GM” as an option.

      You’d prefer GM went “Full Bankruptcy” so those bondholders would get 100%, right? And the jobs be damned.

      And BTW; Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack together accounted for only 25% of the high-risk loans that were packaged and resold as “credit-default swaps”.

      So your declaration that the collapse of that market happened because people had faith nothing could go wrong… it’s a bit hard to support.

      Three out of Four of those bad loans were NOT from F & F.

      The collapse happened because the Government didn’t regulate Credit Default Swaps, a market about four TIMES the size of the GDP of the entire United States !

  • Nestor

    fin, what? People do not buy their own health insurance??? Where exactly do you get your misinformation? I have bought my own health insurance when working at a job that does not subsidize it or the policy subsidized in not a good policy in my opinion. In fact there are millions of people that buy their own health insurance because they are responsible. My girlfriend works for a major health insurance company in the billing department. They process policies mostly in the Midwest region but also process policies from California when they are backed up. She says there are literally millions of people in the US that buy their own policies!

    LOL, she just asked me to ask you if you are smoking crack if you think that people do not buy their own policies!
    She says that just in this state, they get applications from 675 people a day for individual policies!
    And no, once again you are wrong, this time about the cost of a policy for one person. I know from personal experience that good policies are much cheaper than that. To see for yourself, just go to esurance or similar website to compare policies.

    Your crazy ranting really makes you look bad, fin. I do not hate poor people, but it appears that you do.

    So tell me, if someone that makes $9 an hour cannot afford health insurance now, how will they possibly be able to afford it when they are mandated to buy a policy that must cover more things than they need?
    The FACTS are that since Obamacare forces insurance companies to cover more things and gets rid of caps, that increases the costs of the insurance for the company which then passes the cost onto the, in this case forced consumer.
    And no, forcing people to buy something does not count as “personal responsibility”. Buying it on your own because you believe it is needed is personal responsibility.

    In addition, can you show me ANYWHERE in the Constitution that says that healthcare is a right?

    And no, I do not think that “the poor” should have to choose between food and health insurance. I think they should have to choose between their color TVs, unlimited cell phone, other things like maybe booze and cigarettes (in excess) and health insurance.
    Are there times when people are down on their luck and need a little help? Sure, so I have no problem with giving some short term help, but unlike you, I don’t believe that government dependency is a good thing.

    • fin

      first of all..you just wasted your entire day typing all that nonesense..where did i EVER say that NOBODY would buy their own insurance? i never did!! i said if there was an opt out style system then JUST AS MANY PEOPLE wouldnt buy insurance as prior to obamacare.. people wouldnt buy insurance and thats a FACT… the same amount of people who buy their own insurance now would buy their own insurance then and we would be in the EXACT SAME SITUATION so your cute little suggestion would be USELESS and would change NOTHING…and ive been on conbra THREE TIMES ..ive bought my own insurance numerous times and for a decent plan it cost between 800-1000 per month and thats a FACT…anything else is a bogus plan that has extremely high deductibles that people wont be able to afford in an emergency situtation so again that little suggestion is useless also…. lastly why do u people always demonize the poor ? people like you assert that all poor people in this country are living the high life with huge big screen flat screen tv and extraordinary microwaves and they sit around spending any cash they have left on drugs and booze…. does that make u feel better about yourself or something ? does that make u feel less guilty for denying poor people healthcare bcos u think they are drunkards with 70inch flatscreens? when i was in college and broke ands “poor” i had a 50$ tv from the salvation army, a 20$ microwave from craigslist and when i drank ( which was rarely ) i bought natrual ice for 4.95 a 6pack.. so lets add that up.. 50 plus 20 plus 4.95.. so are u honestly fucking suggesting that i could of bought insurance with 70 dollars u prick? you are seriousally hopeless and need to stop generalizing and demonizing an entire group of people..its pathetic….maybe 5% of poor people are doing the things thast u speak of the other NINETY FUCKING FIVE PERCENT are not doing anything like that..but u dont give a shit about the 95% bcos it doesnt fit your narrative..u focus on the insignificant small minority and capitalize on that so you can feel better about yourself….and CALIFORNIA AND MASS. pretty much DEBUNKS your bogus theories about how much cost will raise for insurance companies prices.. we dont need your theories bcos we HAVE REALITY to referr to..but to a libertarian logic and theory trump relaity right? yes the insurance companies will have to cover more treatments and no caps so their cost will rise and the EXUBERANT number of NEW customers will FAR FAR FAR FAR offset that cost…but u leave that little factoid out bcos it doesnt fit your narrative again right? and u leave out the little factoid about the exhcnages will force competeition which will drive prices down,unless of course u dont beleivew in the principles of the market? and u left out the fact that the new laws force insurance companies to spend atleast 85% on their customers or give a rebate to them….. and then u go on to have the gall to say “how are people making 9$ an horu going to afford obamacare if they cant afford insurance now” ..u said that AFTER U JUST condemned obamacare for giving people liek that freehealthcare? again u leave out these FACTS whenever it suits your argument and its very easy to tell what ur doing..whatever happened to all the “free healthcare” you were spewing on about in the earlier comments? that doesnt count anymore bcos it refutes your current argument? your hypocricy and double standards are so clear its astonishing that you even beleive yourself..people who make 9$ an hour and their companies arent mandated by obamacare starting in 2014 to provide insurance then they will qualify for the medcaid expansion program which will be of NO COST TO THEM…if they make a little bit more and work for a small business that doesnt provide insurance then they will be able to shop on the exchanges and recieve a huge tax rebate which will make their out of pocket cost minimal…. is there anything else u need to be schooled on sport? your embarassing yourself over and over again….. i mean earlier you said everybody knew they were investing in subprime morgages and swaos didnt exist..muahahahahahhahahahahahaha..then u asserted everyones getting “free healthcare” untill that didnt work for this argument then u changed it up to ” how are they going to afford insurance “… i just schooled you every step of the way and everyone here can clearly see that..you bias is blinding you …thats why ud dint mention a thing about any companies besides union companies and government companies… btw sport.. libertarians endorsed citizens united bill … your credability about the consitition is shot.. and i beleive in the “living document” school of thought regaurding the constition just like SOME founding fathers beleived in..they were very divided about how the const. should apply to future generations… and its OBVIOUSALLY an antiquated document that need improvement..thats why the founding father inckluded the RIGHT to make amendments… i mean the fucking document says we have a right to a gun but not healthcare..what a great document that shouldnt be changed right? your priorities as a human being are skewered and disgusting……yeh we should all have guns and no healthcare ..what a great system… more guns and less healthcare..sounds like the libertarian dream land of somalia….

  • Nestor

    fin, there was no “hiding” of the subprime loans. Investors knew when they bought them that they were high risk. That is why they were called “sub-prime”! One of the problems was that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were supplying a market for all these loans. If there is no buyer (especially the government) for these loans, these loans. Then, the government felt they had to bail out Fannie and Freddie (remember, Barney Frank said he “wanted to roll the dice on these loans a little longer”). Fannie and Freddie should never have been bailed out and the board of directors for those companies should have never gotten their bonuses. They should have gone to jail for all their shenanigans. The investors in those risky loans should not have been bailed out. All those government “bailouts” have hurt the economy as well, including those at GM and Chrysler! They let people take extraordinary risk while knowing that the government would bail them out if they bet wrong. And yes, most of those people that bought houses that they could not afford should not have been bailed out either. They made the decision to buy an unaffordable home. No one forced them to do so. I have always made my house payments on time. I never bought more house than I can afford, even though some real estate agents (and banks) wanted me to do so.

    I’ll give you an example of a bank making a loan to someone they thought (or so they implied) was “risky”, and they wanted to jack up the interest rate on them as well!
    When I bought my first home, I was going through a first time homebuyers program with TCF. I applied for the loan, only needing to borrow $30,000 as I saved up enough to put a good size down payment on the house. During their long game playing process, they told me that I could not afford to borrow $30,000 for the mortgage at 8 3/8%, BUT, I could afford to borrow $50,000 at 10 1/2% for the same amount of years!

    My payments at 8 3/8% were $255 a month! TCF was TRYING to make my payments unaffordable to me. After a long process, and some arm twisting, I got my terms on the loan.

    As for the “deregulation” of the S&Ls, fine, let those S&Ls fail then, let the investors in them lose their money. Again, the problem was with the government bailing them out! The customers of those S&Ls should have gotten their savings back up to the insured amount, but not a penny more. The problem was too many government bailouts, thus creating the government will protect my bad decisions moral hazard.
    Sorry sir, it is you who knows not of what you speak.

    • fin

      once again nestor u have expose your total and WILFULL ignorance… i suggest u google what a CREDIT DEFAULT SWAP is …. the bankers used the credit default swap to insure the subprime morgages against failure and they did that for ONE REASON..so that they could turn the high risk rating into a LOW RISK investment..a FALSE low risk rating mind you and that is a FACT..period end of story..they then proceeded to take those FAKE low risk morgages and bundle them togther and sell them as “morgage backed securities” you litterally have no clue what ur talking about and u have absolutley no idea how intricate this bubble was or what caused it… its so incredably easy to see right thru you and you lack of depth on this issue….NOBODY KNEW THEY WERE INVESTING IN SUBPRIME MORGAGES..and thats a FACT..they didnt know bcos of the credit default swaps…combined with the scumbag conservative and libertarian types making it legal for investment bankers to use OUR own despoits to buy up those FAKE low risk investments with…yea fannie and freddy should have gone to jail but u didnt even fuckign mention all the wallstreet bankers and brokers who perpetuated this bullshit and did ILLEGAL things every single hour of the day…yup those people who work in the private free market are off limits right? only the banks that are tied to the govenrment should be punished right? you double standards are only outmatched by your hypocricy..its pathetic….and your anectoal evidence of some bank that you had dealings with is a total waste of breate ,if u dont know why anecdotal evidence is useless then your hopeless…. and nobody “bought houses they couldnt afford”..im sure a few MINORITY of lendee’s did..but they were such a small minority that it was insignificant..most people were sold the “dream” by some scumbag banker working on a commission who pushed those bogus loans on people and told them they had nothing to worry about ..why the fuck would a plumber know a damn thing about the legality and financials of a 300 page morgage contract ,especially if they trusted their agent? they were hoodwinked and u have the fucking gall to blame them and not the dirtbags who extorted and lied to themso they could make a hefty profit..your priorities are seriousally filthy man…u need serious help…u lack empathy which makes u a sociopath…and your cute little opinion that ” we should have let all thebanks just fail ” is almost as assine as the rest of the bullshit u have spewed on this page…if we let them fail the middleclass would have been WIPED OUT overnight..destrpoyed..we would have been in such ecnomic pain and dispair that america may have NEVER recovered..but fuck it right? as long as we follow the theories of the precious “market” then its all good right? fuck people lives and their families and their well being.fuckl the economy..the only thing that matter is rich people and preserving the “market” right? what ur suggesting is this … the bankers took advantage of government programs..tricked people into taking bad loans..gambled on the stock market with our own deposits, INTENTIONALLY hide those risky investment so they could again trick people into buying them then they collasped our entire economy..and ur answer was to let them go out of biz,take their millions,live a perfectly happy well to do life in another country while leaving the working class here in america to suffer thru the carngae that THEY CREATED out of greed? if we let them all fail america may have failed and the working class would have been eviserated and thats a FACT..but u dont give a fuck about the working class right? and to think u accually have the fucking balls to invoke “moral hazards” hows that libertarians endorsed and conservative endorsed private FOR PROFIT prisnons system working out scooter? if that isnt a moral hazard then your just lying to yourself bcos u refuse to even entertain something that goes against ur bogus narrative….and bailing out gm saved HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF MIDDLECLASS JOBS and thats a FACT.end of story…i know u dont giv a shit about workers but i do..i could careless about gm execs or ceo’s….and it didnt just save union jobs..its saved thousands of non union jobs and hundreds of small business that were suppliers for gm…your theories are just so freakin cute..like a little chihuahua or something..too bad that can work in reality where the grown folk live..u just keep playing these little games in your head where no externalities exist and everything is perfect and human nature and greed cease to exist….and btw sport..the problem was NOT too many govenrment bailout…the crash and the problems happened BEFORE THE BAILOUTS u ignoramous….the bailouts were a byproduct of your precious market destroying our economy all thanks to the deregulation and privatization agenda of people like you….and i must point out how stupid you are that u said “sub prime morgages werent hidden they were high risk investment” muahhahaha u just exposed your total lack of knowledge..again i suggest u look up what a credit default swap is… u havent a clue what ur talking about and its very evident..ur just regurgitating right wing talking point ad nauseum

  • Nestor

    Oh fin, once again you show you do not know what you are talking about. Of course there are millions of people that get free health care in the US, it’s called Medicaid. Well, in a way you are right. It is not free, SOMEONE has to pay for it!!! It’s just that the recipients of the healthcare get it for free! Then there are all those people that go to the emergency room for all their healthcare needs and do not pay the bills. It’s free to them, isn’t it!

    And once again you are wrong, I don’t think healthcare is a right. I think health insurance is a responsibility!!!

    These low income people that you talk about can afford a low priced health plan if they budget their money and prioritize their expenses. I know because I have to do it! So don’t tell me it is not possible! I buy my own health insurance through work, and before that, I bought my own health insurance on my own. Sure, I had to give up other things I wanted, but health insurance is a priority.
    They way to make health insurance cheaper is to allow companies to once again sell major medical policies where all the “little costs” are picked up by the consumer and anything major would be covered, thus people wouldn’t have to file for bankruptcy.

    Furthermore, if all these people that you claim could not afford health insurance before Obamacare, how in the heck can they afford the forced Obamacare premiums they will have to pay?

    • fin

      all the forced premiums that obamacare is going to impose? you mean like CALIFORNIA is expieriencing after they implemented the exchanges? you just got EMBARRASSED!! california just debunks your entire bogus OPINION.. and whats really funny is that your assumptions only work in THOERY but not in reality..its really cute that u think u know what ur talking about… healthcare should be a responsbility huh? not a right? it is a FACT that people will NOT take “responsibility” and get insurance..therefore they WILL show up to the ER and recieve uncompensated care then the hospital will transfer their loss ONTO YOU to make up for it.. SO YOU WILL PAY REGAURDLESS!! so that completely anniliates your little cute thoery of people “should take responsbility” it will NOT HAPPEN PERIOD!! wake up .get a clue..thats the problem with simple minded libertarians..their ideas only work in thoery but not in reality….it will cost us MORE when the hospital shifts the cost on to us then if they just got medicaid and we paid with it thru our taxes and THATS A FACT!!! you will pay REGAURDLESS… secondly is are u honestly fuckiong suggesting that people are just being “irresponsbible” and dont want insurance? so a person who is in school full time and working part time at a job THAT DOES NOT OFFER INSURANCE is being irresponsbile? go try to buy insurance NOT THRU UR JOB on the precious “market” , i HAVE DONE IT NUMEROUS TIMES..it will cost u 800$ a month MINIMUM for a half decent plan and thats WITHOUT A FAMILY…your so self rightous and disgusting that its astonishing… the system ur advocating for is ” if your rich u get to live and if your poor u get to die” and then have the fucking audacity to try and condemn obamacare? you are pitiful and thats the bottom line..and btw obamacare is the LITERAL definition of “taking personal reposibility” you should be jumping for joy..it is a mandate that u buy your own insurance…except people who make 9$ or less and their job doesnt provide insurance…but seeing as how much u hate poor people i guess thats why u hate obamacare so much..u think poor people should be forced to choose between food and childcare or health insurance right?

  • Nestor

    fin, it is you that appears to be brainwashed.
    First of all, Social Security benefits are also capped, are they not? So I am OK with the Social Security taxes being charged to all earned income as long as the Social Security benefits rise accordingly. That is “fair”, is it not? Let’s get rid of BOTH caps then!

    It is not “us people” that loathe the middle class and poor”, it is “you people” that loathe the people that live within their means and invest in businesses that create jobs and opportunity!

    By the way, according to the last IRS data I just looked up, your claim that the top 5% account for over 90% of capital gains is very wrong! Where do you get your misinformation? First of all, mutual funds and pension funds make millions in capital gains. Those go to those middle class workers.
    Why don’t you go to the IRS website and look up the information yourself about what percent of capital gains is made by the top 10%. It is nowhere near 90%!

    Where are all the jobs? They are not here because of all the new regulations and the INCREASE in the capital gains rate from the current administration. And by the way, since Obama INCREASED the capital gains rate, that meant that we do NOT have “the lowest cap gains tax in American history”, that, sir, is simple logic!
    The current economic climate was due to many reasons, most of all it was due to the housing bubble. You see, the democrats took over the House and Senate for the last two years of the Bush administration. It was the democrats that “wanted to roll the dice a little longer” with subprime mortgages (google that with Barney Frank). It was the Democrats that played the race card when Bush wanted to rein in the risky loans bought by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Meanwhile the democrats that ran those organizations paid themselves million in bonuses!

    You sir, are the brainwashed one. You need to get facts, not misinformation from questionable sources.

    • fin

      oh i love you libertarian drones who REFUSE to even entertain something that doesnt fit their bogus narrative.. ” derp it was the democrats who pushed sub prime lending..derp”.. listen sport.. even if EVERY SINGLE sub prime loan went into default it STILL wouldnt of been capablke of bringing the entire economy to its knees u simpleton… did u just happen to forget the massive deregulation agenda that allowed bankers to use credit default swaps to HIDE those subprime loans and HIGH RISK investments so they could pawn them off on the entire country..pawn them off on investors,on our pensions,ect,ect…. combined with reagans deregulation of savings and loans which allowed those same bankers to use our own freakin deposits to gamble on the stock market with and buy those HIDDEN sub prime morgage back securities.. this ecnomic melt down was so complex and intricate that idiots like you cant comprehend it so you regurgitate the same tired bogus narrative of ” derp clinton,affordable housing act,dems,fannie freddy,.subprime loans,poor people whgo couldnt afford houses but got them anyway.derp” you litterally have no clue what ur talking about and its pititful…subprime lending ALONE did not collaspe our entire economy and bring the worlds economy almost with it and thats a FACT..and btw sport.. almost none of fannie and freddies failures happened untill AFTER it was partially PRIVATIZED….once your precious “free market” scumbags and ur privatization agenda took hold it went down hill ..thats a FACT..and i would like u to cite one single bank that was forced to loan to people who didnt qualify..name the bank,name the person..and name the specific democrat policy that forced banks to do this…give me an example that exist in reality and not some assine opinion or anecotal evidence of some guy u knew one time….as for social security….again to reiterate ..u think its perfectly acceptable that i have to pay ss tax on 100% of my income and a millionaire only has to pay ss tax on 10% of his income yet he can collect just as much as me? and then u have the audcaity to claim ur name just a mouth peice shill who is pandering for the rich and loathe middleclass working people…and vtw sport..those investments and those “job creators” DO NOT CREATE JOBS.PERIOD END OF DISCUSSION.. demand in the eocnomy creates jobs.nothing more…period! and demand is created when the middleclass and the working poot SPEND THEIR MONEY.unless you think that rich people will magically create jobs out of the kindness of their hearts? they hire for ONE reason adn one reason only..to satisfy demand..if they dont then they will loose potential profits…CONSUMERS create demand and DEMAND creates jobs..the working middleclass and the working poor are the largest block of consumers who spend the MOST money in our economy therefore they are the REAL job creators..that is irrefutable fact…. trickle down is a laughing stock and a joke..the biggest scam ever perpetuated on the middleclass…and scums like u try to keep it alive at all cost….you are seriousally hopeless man….you need to seek professional help

  • Nestor

    fin, first of all, everyone gets healthcare whether they can afford it or not. No one is deprived of healthcare in the US … yet. What I said about supply and demand is that under Obamacare, the supply of doctors will not meet the demand when 20 million more people get their “free” health insurance. Since the supply of doctors will not keep up with the new demand for them, what do you think will happen?
    Think about that instead of repeating my words out of context. Now, health insurance is a responsibility, NOT a right.
    Who is suggesting free healthcare? That comes with Obamacare!

    The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will significantly expand both eligibility for and federal funding of Medicaid beginning on January 1, 2014. Under the law as written, all U.S. citizens and legal residents with income up to 133% of the poverty line, including adults without dependent children, would qualify for coverage

    • fin

      first of all NOBODY gets free healthcare in this country and thats a FACT…. the law simply makes hospitals stabilize you.nothing more….if u show up to the ER with no money and no insurance u get billed for it..and OVER 50% of all bankruptcies in this country are due to medical bills..people loose their houses,their vehicals,their credit rating.EVERYTHING..due to medical bills… go into a hospital and tell them u need a kidney transplant but u have no money and no insurance..they will laugh in your face and u will die a slow painful death..please show me where these people are that are getting free kidney transplant sport? your so utterly blinded by your hatred for the working class that its making your brain into mush…your against obamacare and universal healthcare and u would repeal and reject those at all cost so u can have a system like we currently have which is ” if your rich u live and if ur poor u die”<–that is the system your fighting for which makes u disgusting..pure and simple…you libertarians are sick..u think corporations should have "rights" to use unlimited amount of money to "lobby" and should be protected ..u think corporations should have all the rights in the world and treated as a human being and an american citizen ( citizens united bill ,libertarian endorsed ) but u think healthcare should be a right? your filthy…. and free healthcare DOES NOT COME WITH OBAMACARE … the federal poverty rate is 12k…133% brings that figure up to about 15-20k depneding on how many dependants you have… so we are talking about people who make 9-10$ an hour…they are the ONLY people who will get your so called "free healthcare" which still isnt free bcos it will benefit us tremendousally…when those people didnt have insurance bcos they made a whoppin 9 bux an hour and didnt qualify for medicaid they showed up to the ER and recieved uncompensated care..uncompensated care is the NUMBER ONE reason for the staggering increase in medical cost..hospitals are forced to shift the cost onto us….so we are paying for the unisured REGAURDLESS. but u dont give a shit about that..but now that we are paying for the unisured thru our tax money yoyur outraged? you have no insight and are incapable of rational thought..its very obvious u have a medicre knowldge of the things we have discussed so far…you have no right to cirtize ANY form of healthcare when ur advocating for " if your rich u deserve healthcare and get to live but if ur poor and cant afford healthvcare then tough shit you will die"….peoples LIVES should not be measured against the laws of supply and demand….PERIOD.does it get tiring getting proved wrong every time u open your mouth?

  • Nestor

    Well, iamjoeychan, if one chooses to live in a city where the cost of living is high, then you better find a job that pays more than the minimum wage. Come to think of it, California has a minimum wage higher than the federal minimum wage.
    And since when is the minimum wage supposed to be a “living wage”? Why should high school kids make a “living wage”? Don’t a great majority of high school students live with their parents and thus do not need to make a “living wage”?
    What percent of households are living on a minimum wage job? It is an extremely small amount.

  • Nestor

    Well, first of all C. Huus, I am not a Paulbot. In fact I am not a fan of his at all.
    Secondly, whose responsibility is it to take good care of yourself, you or the government?

    The government is NOT your mommy and daddy. It is called personal responsibility C. Huus. That needs to be taught once again.

    Thirdly, if you really understand economics as much as you claim, think about this: If millions of more people get “free” health insurance, and there is no corresponding increase in primary care doctors to see them, what happens to the price to see them? What happens to the waiting time to see them?

    • fin

      so people who need medical care should first be subject to the laws of supply and demand to see if the precious god-like “market” deems them worthy? peoples healthy should be based on the laws of supply and demand? you sir, are filthy and u just validate EVERY reason why i loathe libertarian drones….. and please please please tell me who is suggesting “free healthcare”..go ahead sport…give me an example

  • Nestor

    Sure C. Huus, poor people pay Social Security and Medicare taxes, but don’t they get that back when they retire? In fact, don’t they get a better “return” on that money than those that pay the maximum? Ye, they do, C. Huus.
    Now if you want to raise the cap on income that Social Security is taxed on, OK, then to be fair, the cap on the amount paid out when retiring should also be raised by a corresponding amount. That would be fair, wouldn’t it?
    And by the way, the tax is on income up to $113,700, not $100,000.
    Now as far as your rant on capital gains taxes, “the rich” do not make all their income from capital gains, they make a salary as well and are fully taxed on that. There is a reason for a lower tax rate on capital gains. First, is increases the incentive to invest in businesses (that create jobs). Secondly, and it has been proven time and time again (and even Obama has admitted as much) that the government gets more revenue when the capital gains rate is lower than the earned income rate.
    Maybe it is you that should do a little more reading about economics and not me.
    And no, it is not the job of the government to step in and make economic transitions less volatile. They try that in Cuba and Venezuela, how is it working out there? Not working out too well in Greece either, is it?

    • fin

      you are so completely brain washed and beyond help that i dont even know where to start..u pick and choose examples that fit ur bogus narrative but leave out ALL the factors of that example besides the ones u think validate ur bullshit libertarianism…. first-social security… if i have to pay social security tax on 100% of my income then SO SHOULD EVERY PERSON IN THIS COUNTRY!! period ! end of discussion…weather u make 10k or 10 mill a year..all of ur income should be subject to the social security tax..why should i have to pay ss tax on 100% of my income but a millionaire only has to pay ss tax on 10% of his income? then u have the audacity to defend that regressive tax? get real man..stop being a mouth peice for the rich and for corporate america…and no matter how much u paid into the SS fund EVERYBODY is entitled to exactly the same max payout.period.. just bcos ur rich doesnt mean u should get special privledges and get to recieve extra bonus social security…u people are all the same..u loathe the middleclass and the poor and think they get to much money..but then in the same breathe advocate for GIVING the ceo-class even more money..and the capital gains tax rate is a fucking joke…reagan didnt think cap gains should be set lower then income tax…and btw sport…. the top 5% in this country account for OVER 90% of the capital gains…again u just want to give special tax gifts and givaways to millionaires and billionaires but your outraged that the middle and lower class dont pay enough federal income taxes? your hypocricy is just filthy..please please tell me why someone who does hard labor for a living should be taxed at a HIGHER rate then someone who sits in the a/c trading stocks or investing? please explain that to me..and save the double taxation LIE and if u say it incentivises investment which creates jobs then PLEASE tell me where the fuck are all the jobs? right now the cap gains tax is the lowest in american history and stock markets are setting WORLD RECORD HIGHS….with YOUR logic the middleclass should be swimming in good paying stable jobs from all the “trickle down” we are getting rained down with…supply side ecnomics is a JOKE..and the current ecnomic climate just PROVES it…OWNED!!!!.lastly..lets look at greece..greece didnt fail bcos of gov. intervention scooter..they failed bcos thier economy was heavily dependant on USA and the world economy..when libertarian and conservative types destroyed our economy it brought them down with us…instead of looking at those countries how about we look at our own country… saint ronald raegan did MASSIVE government intervention… and during/after ww2 was the best example of keynesian deficit spending and the most government involvement in united states history and america’s middleclass ( which was CREATED during those times ) has NEVER seen such extraordinary expnasion and success… what has unbidled capitalism brought us with no government intervention? slavery? it was more cost effective to buy a human being then it was to pay them…how about child labor.. how about the robber barren era? before government intervention the middleclass DID NOT EXIST….and thats the system ur fighting to return too..oh yea and ur healthcare system is just as horrific… if u had a choice u would have a system like it was/is b4..” if ur rich u get to live and if ur poor u get to die”<–that is ur ideal healthcare system and then u have the gall to critisize our ideas? lol….go into an ER and tell them u need a kidney transplant but have no money and no insurance..they will laugh in ur face and u will die a slow painful death..unless of course..ur wealthy then i guess u deserve life right? what a great system ur fighting for

  • Nestor

    Velska, if I gave you a quarter, would you buy a clue? You need one.

    First of all the government does not give me the internet, my internet provider does. Secondly, it is NOT free, I pay for it every month. If I stopped paying the internet bill, I would not have the internet access I have.

    As far as paying a “fair share of taxes”, goes, the bottom 47% are not paying their “fair share” of federal income taxes! In fact, many get more back than they pay in.

  • Pingback: A Question to Ask Libertarians Who Try to Use Abortion to Change the Subject | Cryptic Philosopher()

  • Velska

    The f**king moron Austin whatsis is really trying to sound sane, but he’s really insane.

    First of all, do you, Austin, think that everyone who’s not rich hasn’t worked hard; or the corollary, which is that those who are rich have worked hard. Fucking idiot, not true!!

    Second, Austin, you say you have website. Who provided the Internet for you? The fucking government did! If it hadn’t been the government, who gave it to everyone free, a s**tweasel like you wouldn’t have a website, believe me, no matter how hard you worked.

    Now, you’re in a building that hasn’t collapsed, and you don’t have to be afraid that it will. Think about that Bangladeshi factory, 8-story building that collapsed on top of the garment workers and salespeople, who were there despite the building, that was cracking apart the previous day, having been pronounced dangerous. Those workers had no choice about it. Why? They had not enforced any standards when the building went up.

    I’m sure that the building company made more money off the unsafe building than a safe one, because they were cutting so many corners and leaving out stuff that was supposed to be there. That’s all government regulation that is enforced, or then not, as in the Bangladeshi case.

    And you would probably say that regulations kill the business? Moron! Deregulation kills the people!!

    The people, do you hear!!

    But of course to you, the profit you make is more important.

    Further, when you leave home and go on a public road, what if we tell you that you can’t use it, unless you pay your fair share! And get off my fucking lawn!!

    And for that matter, who built the water mains? Who takes care of the still-shitty electric grid, that is insufficient because for so many years no infra investment has been made. Bridges, railroads, et.c are all stuff that the government provides. Either by itself, or by paying private corporations (the ones who gave the most lavish bribes) to do it.

    Let me see, I’ve lived in an area where the roads were private, and the upkeep was originally more or less voluntary. Then, more people moved in, and more traffic was rolling on our streets, and the new people weren’t paying or helping. Well, we had to tell them to build their own road (fat chance) or pay for using ours.

    And those roads were still pretty shitty. I’d much rather let the city take care of it, as it now does.

    As long as people have lived together, there’s been some form of taxes. It used to be extracted by violence sometimes, but usually when people got smarter, they figured that to have peace in their communities, they must pay their share to provide some basics. Like policing.

    So, go to Iraq. There you might be able to live without paying taxes. Somalia is starting to organise itself again. Go to DR Congo, that’s a good alternative. I’m sure the bodyguards won’t cost you much more than your taxes in the U.S.

    How can you be such a s**tweasel! Your ideology has blinded you to logic altogether and you take far too many things for granted. YOu think really that the rich would be able to stay that way long without having us drones collecting their gold from others? You think YOU would not need others?

    A Moron! Richter 10 Moron!

  • Nestor

    Well there you go Jim, we all know that once you resort to name calling, you lose the argument.

    • C. Huus

      And when you start arguing symmantics, you sound like a moron. Let’s be clear. There is a MARGIN OF DISPOSABLE INCOME gap between the poor and the wealthy. Many poor could not afford to LIVE without their federal income tax refunds. Secondly, the poor still pay into the state, and Medicare, and social security. Social security is a percentage of income capped at 100,000.00. This is what is called a REGRESSIVE tax. The OPPOSITE of what you stated above “the bottom 47% are not paying their “fair share.” In fact, they pay more than their fair share – they pay everyone’s share. Another example of this regressive tax: Your wealthy top earners in this country pay a measly 15% capital gains tax while the rest of us pay almost 30% of our income. Again, who isn’t paying their fair share?

      The problem with you libertarians is this: Free market is all well and good, but you only see it from the supply-side perspective. Any reasonable economist will tell you that economic growth is most prosperous when there is trickle down AND trickle up. The problem is there isn’t enough money in the hands of the consumers, and it is the job of the government to step in and make economic transitions less volatile – that is to say stimulate the economy during a recession, and slow the rate of growth to controllable levels.

      The last thing that just PERTURBS me about you damn Libertarians is that you’re nothing more than anarchists who prance around and pretend to be economic scholars because you one day decided to pick up a copy of Atlas Shrugged and read 5 pages. Good for you. Reading will do you people some good. The problem with that is just about everything Ayn Rand has to say has been and is refuted by every economic scholar and political philosopher from Thomas Aquinas or even fucking Aristotle. Plato would tell libertarians to quit living in the “cave” that is this one-dimensional perspective on government and economics; Hobbes would say people will always willingly give at least SOME liberties in exchange for safety, and Locke would tell you central government is the state of nature. Thomas Jefferson – the anti0federalist himself – would laugh in your face and thumb his nose at Ron Paul for how absurd and hypocritical the notion of “libertarianism” as it exists today.

      Something tells me though, that you won’t read this and the point is moot. Heaven forbid you pick up any written word other than Ayn Rand or the Bible.

  • http://www.minicatracingusa.com Jim S

    The libertarian guy is a poor excuse for a human being. The libertarians are hateful people that are selfish and greedy. Only what suits them and to hell with everybody else. They try to hide behind the constitution but their stances are so disingenuous it is pathetic!

  • http://www.facebook.com/oeaspence Omar Spence

    Libertarians are f#%&ing retarded. Half assed, blind ended circular logic that doesn’t work outside their little minds. They are essentially spoiled selfish little brats disguised as adults.
    Ever notice that there are no poor libertarians?

  • laura

    Thom’s guest said this his parents never took anything from the state, and perhaps they didn’t in regards to his mother’s illness, but they most certainly were subsidized in having children. They received tax breaks and tax credits per child (and that’s not even assuming that this guy went to public school). Someone had to pay more so that his parents got those subsidies (as a single person who has no children, I certainly don’t get tax breaks). These libertarians forget that everyone benefits at one time or another from the state.

    There’s also the fact that in many cases, people are priced out of the system, medically speaking. It’s too expensive to visit the doctors and health insurance is becoming out of people’s reach (especially now when you have more and more companies manipulating the system to avoid offering that benefit).

    As for his specious attempt to use Thom’s argument about a right to life and compare it to abortion, technically then, the fetus doesn’t have a right because since it’s not yet born, it’s not yet a citizen. Libertarians are the ones beating the Constitutional drum. I would think that would be important to them. But then, they don’t care what happens once the kid is outside the whom.

  • Charles

    Libertarians care only about themselves… they are the Herb Spencers to the Liberals’ Charles Darwin. (Herb Spencer was an asshole)

  • Nestor

    dan, your claim was that the government gets back $1.73 for every dollar it spends on food stamps. Are you doubling down on that claim?

    The editorial that you linked to states otherwise.

  • Nestor

    dan, you obviously missed this sentence in that article: “But by 2022, according to the CBO, 3 million fewer people will have health insurance through their employer, while 17 million Americans will be added to Medicaid and 22 million will be getting coverage through government-run exchanges.”

    Now, explain, if you can how adding 17 million people to Medicaid won’t cost taxpayers more money? How will adding 22 million people to government run exchanges cost taxpayers less money?

    Oh, and you have yet to explain why the economy isn’t booming if handing out food stamps improves the economy since we have a record number of people on food stamps. And yes, that includes children, because they are people too!

    • dan

      muahahahahahmuahahahah u dont know what a government run exchange is….mauahahhahahahahahha this is getting to be fun now sport..u just keep embarrassing yourself

    • dan

      “In fact, Moody’s Analytics studied the effects of various fiscal policies. Food stamps were the most effective with a multiplier of 1.73, meaning that for every one dollar government spends on food stamps, another $1.73 is created in the economy.”<——so is moody not a credible source now either ? im sorry that the TRUTH has a liberal bias sport……but there is NOTHING u can say and no matter how much u WISH it wasnt true, it is a FACT that for every one dollar in food stamps it generates a 1.73 ……PERIOD…..
      http://www.thedaonline.com/opinion/welfare-should-not-be-focus-of-cuts-1.2973397<—and if u dont like that source then go DIRECTLY to a moodys website….OWNED…u should be embarrassed of yourself sport…i would be if i was you…this is fun..anything else u need me to debunk?

      • Nestor

        dan, who is a major owner of Moodys, do you know?

  • fin

    so tell me again how people have to take off work and give up a days pay and wait in a waiting room for black friday deals? as of NOW the average ER wait is 2 hours…and u spend about 5 hours total time in the ER from the time u enter untill the time u leave..tell me again how thats like black friday? that is a false equivilency and makes u look desperate to support your position….the bottom lione is that you have hypothetical scenerios and theoretical situations that u THINK will happen..i have EMPIRCLE data collected over DECADES from reputable and credible sources that PROVE through statisics that when people who were uninsured become insured all of the sudden they DONT frequent the ER any more often then they ALREADY were before they got said insurance…..people will go to the hospital and the doctors for emergencies and when they are sick..JUST LIKE THEY ARE NOW regaurdless if they have insurance…..so unless your telling me obamacare is going to spread the full and cause medical emergencies ( which you conspirocy theoriest redneck conservatives probally will soon) then your point is moot…..and its a mere opinion..what makes your opinion,that isnt supported by FACTS superior then ACCUAL RESEARCH that exist in reality?

    • Nestor

      FIN, which group of people visit the doctor more, people with insurance or people without insurance?

      Why is it that people without insurance visit the doctor less often? Is it because they are healthier than ones with insurance?

      What I said was that there will be an increase in demand for doctor visits because more people will have insurance.

      WHERE did I say that ER visits would increase?

      If you don’t understand that there will be more of a demand for doctor visits when everyone gets subsidized health care, and that the result will be higher prices and longer waits since there is no corresponding increase in the amount of doctors, then you do not understand basic economics.

      • dan

        that is a false equivilency and bogus question..u asked who goes to the hospital more,people with insurance or people with out insurance? that is a bogus question,here is why…only approx 5 million people dont have insurance and our population is in excess of,i think 300 MILLION..right? so u have to do it by percentage and statisics and NOT person for person..and when put in the proper context its about the SAME..people go to the doctors about the same…so ur point is moot and your theory it debunked., what else ya got?this is fun……

        • Nestor

          DAN, your numbers are incorrect. But let’s go ahead and go with those numbers, just for the sake of argument.

          You claim that 5 million people (does that include children?) out of 300 million people do not have health insurance.

          Quick, what is that percentage?

          Well let’s see, 30 million would be 10% and 3 million would be 1%. So 5 million is less than 2%, right?

          So we have to force everybody to pay thousands more in taxes because 2% of the population won’t buy insurance?


          Pretty immoral, isn’t it?

          • dan

            how many times do i have to beat this into your head..you libertarians and conservatives REFUSE to accept the FACT that u will NOT be paying thousands more in taxes.PERIOD..if u have insurance u will NOT PAY THE PENALTY TAX….period..ill repeat…if u have insurance then you will NOT be taxed…should i say this again? the penalty tax is just that,a PENALTY..if u refuse to get insurance the government will make u pay a tax…and they make u pay that tax bcos u are REFUSING to get insurance which LITERALLY means u are FORCING me to pay for YOUR healthcare when u show up to the ER and receive uncompensated care.forcing me to pay for your healthcare is pretty immoral isnt it? and my numbers arent off i made a mistake and i conflated the TRUTH with your BOGUS references u cited…..your bogus reference is just arbitrarily assuming that the 5 million people who dont have insurance right now magically will refuse to get insurance after obamacare kicks in….5 million people right now have no insurance,understand so far? and your bogus reference just assumes they will refuse to get insurance,why? (because it fits their narrative) they are making stuff up like most conservatives propaganda websites…..the ACTUAL number will be about .005% of the population will refuse to buy insurance..anything else u need me to debunk sport?

          • Nestor

            Dan, where do you get your misinformation? What about the medical equipment tax? Who is going to end up paying that, whether you have insurance or not? Do you think that the only tax in ObamaCare is the not having insurance tax?


            You are not very good at math, are you dan?

            First you say that a very small amount of people will be paying more, to cover an even smaller amount of people without insurance!

            So tell me, why is it that those people that go to get medical treatment pay for what they use themselves? Why cant they have their income garnished if they refuse to pay for the services they receive?

            And how is it moral to expect others to pay for the services that others received?

          • J

            Immoral? What’s really immoral is spitting on the lower class, telling them to go F themselves because you want to save a few extra bucks a week. Immoral is sentencing an impoverished family to death because you read 1984 too many times and it changed your life. Immoral is living in the richest country in the world, with one of the lowest tax rates, and then throwing a fit when they suggest you buy insurance. Yes, it is a suggestion. There is an alternative penalty for not buying it. That penalty is not equal to breaking the law.

            If you seriously think allowing people to die because they can’t afford to visit a doctor is worth reducing your wait by an hour, please move to Israel. Their version of genocide is much faster and I think you’d be happier there.

          • Nestor

            Dan, no one is allowing people to die. By law, hospitals must treat all patients whether they have insurance or not.
            No, if one does not buy insurance, a fine (aka tax on “the poor”) is levied. Tell me, if there people cannot afford to pay a doctor should they fall ill, how are they going to afford insurance?
            Here is a thought regarding people that get healthcare and do not pay their bills: How about we garnish their income (like we already do for deadbeat parents) to pay for their medical bills?

            It is people like you that are “spitting on the lower class” by keeping them dependent on the government and not encouraging them to better themselves. You pat them on the head, give them money and benefits (paid for by others) , and put their children further in debt.

            And if YOU think that the healthcare system is better in England or Canada, you are welcome to move there as well!

          • dan

            too bad i didnt write that scooter…

      • C. Huus

        ER visits increase because less people go to see their primary physicians f**ktard. Goddamn, go troll somewhere else. Quit pedaling your libertarian Paul-bot s**t here.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000907279043 John Baker

      Dude, it’s ‘you’, not ‘u.’ We’re supposed to be the smart side, remember?

  • Todd Murrell

    All Americans should have access to the same health care our government has and for the same price! How hard can that be?

    • Nestor

      Todd, why should all Americans have access to the same healthcare?
      Should we all have the same access to the same housing? How about the same transportation modes? What about food, should we all have the same access to steak and caviar?

      • Todd

        Why should elected officials get free healthcare for the rest of their life is a much better question! Our taxes can pay for their health care but not our own?

        • Nestor Riano

          You are right, Todd. They should have the same type of insurance, with the same premiums as we do.

  • Kellie

    This is advocating the worst kind of “survival of the fittest” – I am certain that each of us know someone who just isn’t intelligent enough to complete a college degree…therefore someone who will not be able to make over minimum wage is not able to get health care then. A single adult making minimum wage is making too much to qualify for medicaid (in fact most states won’t cover an adult on Medicaid unless they are extremely low income and disabled), but making too little to afford health care coverage (because most minimum wage jobs don’t offer it and those that do, usually the employee cannot afford their portion of the premium as well as rent and food), so screw ’em right? What has become of this country that that would be the mindset?

    • Nestor

      Kellie, I make minimum wage and buy my own health insurance. What the heck are you talking about? It is called prioritizing your expenses. It may be a little expensive to buy health insurance, but it is MORE expensive to gamble without it.

      • dan

        bull! and if it is true then you live with your mother or your husband supports you…..here in philadelphia min wage is about 8$ an hour..thats 320 a week if u work full time BEFORE taxes…minus 30% for all state,local,and fed ..minus at least 5% for your supposed healthcare that u pay for and that leaves u with prob LESS then 200 a week…800$ a month..the average cost of an apartment here in philadepia is 950$….so tell me again how your doing it all on your own?

        • Nestor

          Dan, I know how much I get paid. I make minimum wage. I own a house. I just live within my means. I drive an old truck, I don’t take expensive vacations, nor go out for expensive dinners.

          By the way, if one makes minimum wage you pay very little, if any income taxes! I don’t know where you get this bogus 30% figure!

          My house payment is much less than $950 a month!

          • fin

            min wage is about 8$ an hour and even WITHOUT taxes,which u DO tax..u may get a federal income tax RETURN but u pay ALL state local and sales taxes regarudless of your income….secondly even if u paid NO taxs what so ever u still only make 1280 a month BEFORE u pay for you own healthinsurance….. if your house payment is less then 950 then u live in some backwoods town no where near any major city…..therefore your scenerio is A-typical..the average american doesnt live out in the boondocks where u do…..they are born in or near a city usually not very wealthy and are more then likely finanacially incapable of moving down to the bayou where u live….the average rent here in philadelphia is about 900$ a month.RENT..the average morgage is 1500$..and its twice as much in NY….and thats LOWER middleclass mediocre nieghborhood..the badlands is a little cheaper…as in 500$ for a studio and 400 to rent a room. and morgage is 800$…but that is the dire wastelands and ghettos which is again a-typical…..anyway this is to just prove your expeirnce is utterly pointless in comapring to the average american….

          • Nestor

            FIN, For your information, I live in a first ring suburb of the Twin Cities, hardly a “backwoods town”. According to the 2010 census, this suburb has over 30,000 people.

          • http://gravatar.com/iamjoeychan iamjoeychan

            Well, you probably don’t live in an area like Philly. In some places (eg. Texas), one can live on minimum wage just fine. In other places (eg. California), it’s impossible to pay for a TRAILER working on minimum wage.

    • blkcat

      We, also, all know individuals who choose to have drug habits, rather than to pay for their own basic needs, and then go to the government for handouts to cover those needs. So now its my obligation to pay for their food, medical, rent, so on and so forth, because they choose to drug themselves up rather than pay for what they need?

      What happened to the mindset that through personal sacrifice and hard work that you could do better for yourself and your family? Bleeding heart liberals like you think everyone else is obligated to cover for yours, or others, shortfalls.

      • dan

        first of alll save your BS hypothetical drug adict stories..u just want to justify being a cold hearted scum with no ethics or morals..but you prob. claim to be a “christian” ..riiiight….secondly…who cares if someone is adicted to drugs….if they need medical treatment to save their life they should be refused in your sick and twisted world view? so if u happen to mess your life up you deserve to die? edgar allen poe,drug addict,freud,drug addict, i could go on for DAYS naming influencial and prominent people who were once addicted to drugs…..but that is pointless right now…..because for me healthcare is a MORAL issue …for people like you its a FINANCIAL issue and a for-profit issue…thats why we will never see eye to eye…..your disgusting and i am not….you think someones salary or net worth should dictate weather they live or die..u think somones “choice” to get addicted to drugs should bar them from recieving medical treatment….you encompass everything that is wrong with the current system….

        • Nestor

          Dan, if healthcare is a moral issue for you, feel free to donate your own money to those who would rather spend their money on drugs, big TVs, smartphones or vacations instead of paying for their own health insurance.

          It is about personal responsibility Dan! I don’t earn a lot of money, but I pay for my health insurance instead of not buying it and going on the dole. The government does NOT owe me healthcare!

          OK, so Edgar Allen Poe had drug issues, Did he have universal healthcare to take care of him? Did Freud?

          Health insurance is a responsibility, NOT a right!

          • fin

            yes they BOTH had the equivilent to universal healthcare. OWNED!!!!…..”feel free to donate to those ………”<—i do donate my time and money..and i have no problem paying taxes to help the needies among us,like REAL christians are supposed to do…….OWNED on that one also…..u just keep embarrassing yourself….and NOBODY is condoning fraud u simpton..if they can afford smartphones vacations,big screen tv's..ect..then they are NOT poor and are scamming the system..so again your point is moot….u people want to gut the wellfare system and hurt EVERYBODY for the fraud of a FEW….and only 1.8% of the population gets "free rent" as u put it..and only 2% of the population get food stamps…so tell me again how rampant it is?…."health insurance is a responsibility not a right"<–that is why people like u are disgusting and your views are unamerican and immoral….u put PROFITS above peoples LIVES and that is filthy….and that very mentality is why obamacare will ALWAYS win the dicussion and WILL be the law of the land from here on out….healthcare is a MORAL issues to argue otherwise is inexcuseable and indefensible and just plain dispicable irrehensible,filthy,disgusting..ect.ect.ect…

          • Nestor

            FIN, 2% of the population gets food stamps??? Where do you get such misinformation?

            The fact is that 1 out of 6 in the US are on food stamps! That comes to about 15%!

            Here is the proof: http://www.nbcnews.com/business/report-15-americans-food-stamps-980690

            I’ll go along with your healthcare is a moral issue if you go along with paying for healthcare is a personal responsibility issue!

            Explain, if you can, why it is immoral and un-American to expect people to pay for their own responsibilities?

          • dan

            EVERYBODY has to pay for obamacare,therefore EVERYBODY is taking personal responsbility when they pay for it and the people who refuse to pay for it are the ones who are NOT taking personal responsibility..and really your not getting taxed for obamacare…its a penalty tax..which means if u refuse to “take personal responsibility” and get healthcare insurance then u will be taxed..but if u have insurnce then u will NOT be taxed..so really your personal responsility argument supports MY position and DEFNEDS obamacare….thanks.the only people who dont have to pay are the people who are already on welfare because they meet the criteria for poverty but thats not any more people then there is now…..

          • Nestor

            DAN, now you know it is not true that everybody has to pay, certainly you must admit that.

            Government forcing someone to buy something is NOT personal responsibility, as the Supreme Court has ruled, it is a TAX!

            And illegal aliens won’t have to pay either, will they? So it is really more than just “those in poverty” that are getting free healthcare, right?

            By the way, you DO know that unions are starting to realize that ObamaCare is a bad deal for them, don’t you?


          • AATTP

            Zero Hedge has about as much credibility as Info Wars or God Like Productions. Maybe less.

          • Nestor

            Ooooh!!! Look, dan has to get the cavalry to help him from digging his hole deeper.

            aattp, care to comment on the link quoting the CBO and yahoo! ?

            Are they not credible either?

            You really don’t want to jump in the hole with dan, do you?

            I guess two shovels do dig quicker than one though!

          • dan

            as for you food stamp stats..they are BOGUS……first they count children as “people on foodstamps” and although we had a sudden spike in food stamps that not the typical scenerio …EVERY SINGLE TIME we have a recession a spike in food stamps followers bcos all of the sudden more people qualify…but the average person stays on food stamps for nine months..that is a FACT and t is also a fact that food stamps help our economy bcos every single dollar our government gives to people in the form of food stamps gets spent and put back into our economy and taxed…so our government MAKES money on foodstamps…accually some say we make as much as 1.73 for every 1.00 spent on food stamps

          • Nestor

            Dan, now THAT is funny!!!! Wow, they are counting children as people???? When did children cease from being people? When, exactly do children become people in your mind?
            And as far as food stamp increasing during a recession goes, we have been out of a recession for 3 YEARS!!! Nice try though!
            Or are you admitting that the Obama stimulus was a failure?

            So food stamps help the economy??? AND there is a 73% multiplier on food stamps? If that were the case, the economy would be booming right now, and that is clearly NOT the case!

            I suggest you stop digging, get rid of that shovel DAN!

          • AATTP

            He’s not saying children aren’t people–he’s saying that the number you’re using makes it sound like multitudes of able-bodied adults are mooching off the system and that’s simply not the case. The majority of people receiving TANF, SNAP and Medicaid are either children, disabled people, the elderly or THE WORKING POOR.

            As far as us being “out of the recession” for 3 years, there’s something interesting called “inertia.” Look it up.

          • Nestor

            Ummm, no, attp, children are people and they are getting food stamp benefits. They count as people on food stamps. Has the way of counting people on food stamps changed recently?

            As far as your “inertia” claim goes, we have been out of the recession for over 3 years. This has been the WORST economic recovery EVER!

            The stimulus failed, “those shovel ready jobs weren’t really shovel ready”, were they?

            When, if ever does Obama start to take responsibility for his actions and policies? Or will he be known as “The Irresponsible President”?

            Inertia? Seriously???? Is that the best you can come up with?

          • AATTP

            Yes. Too bad we didn’t have another World War so that we could spend a boatload of money and get ourselves out faster. “The Irresponsible President” will surely go to Bush Jr. Wait, no, he’ll get “Lying Murdering Scumbag.” And, is “The Irresponsible President” the best YOU can do?

            I’m only jumping in because you are so incredibly obtuse.

          • AATTP

            The only reason it “failed” was because it wasn’t enough. If he’d not acquiesced to Republican demands our recovery would have been much faster. If he’s guilty of anything, it’s being too wet behind the ears politically to understand how terrifically stupid and hell bent on making him look like a failure at all costs they were.

            And, name calling, really, Nestor? If you’re that sensitive maybe you shouldn’t be arguing with people on the internet.

          • Nestor

            attp, Obama is doing a fine job all by himself at making himself look like a failure, the list is long!

            We could start with Gitmo, is that closed yet? What just happened with his Gitmo Council? As long as we are talking about Councils, what just happened to his Jobs Council? The stimulus failed! At least you admit that. We have had 2 credit downgrades (first time in our history) because we are borrowing too much money…. and you think we should have borrowed more???
            Didn’t Obama say that increasing the debt by $4 trillion was “unpatriotic and irresponsible”? There’s another failure!!!

            Obama said he would not raise ANY taxes on people that made less than $250,000 a year, that didn’t happen either, did it?
            Obama said he would end the Patriot Act, but he fought to keep it in the Supreme Court, didn’t he?
            And the fact remains that this is the worst economic recovery ever. Median income fell more during his recovery than it did during the recession.
            We have a record number of people on food stamps, but the stock market is reaching 5 year highs, right? So that means that under Obama, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer!

            Need I go on?

          • AATTP

            Your grasp of basic civics is devastatingly underdeveloped.

            Gitmo – President Obama needed Congress’ support to close Gitmo and he didn’t get it. Republican-led bills cut off funding to move detainees to foreign countries, and bringing them to the United States was impossible since Congress blocked Obama’s attempt in 2009 to try those accused of war crimes in a civilian court.

            The credit downgrade occurred, again, because Republicans in Congress held our economy hostage and would not compromise on the debt ceiling last year. It was a maneuver specifically designed to make malleable idiots believe and parrot what you’re saying right now.

            You are aware that the President isn’t a totalitarian dictator (regardless of what your whack job sources may say) and there are two other branches of government that must cooperate if anything is to get done, right? I feel like I’m teaching third-grade.

            Obama didn’t raise taxes on anyone making less than $250K a year. If you bring up The Affordable Care Act, I will just laugh at you, so don’t.

            The Patriot Act? I think you mean NDAA, but I seriously don’t have time to teach someone so clearly inflicted with dichotomous thinking patterns the nuances which would be akin to trying to teach a chimpanzee calculus. In a nutshell, his hands were tied which was why he added the Signing Statement.

            The rest of what you said has already been thoroughly refuted, but you are too mired in your own repetitious nonsense to understand, apparently.

            Yes, please, go on. This is still, least at this point, mildly amusing.

          • Nestor

            aattp, wow, so you don’t hold Obama responsible for anything!

            Regarding Gitmo, did he or did he not only campaign, but sign an executive order to close Gitmo by the end of his first year in office? He didn’t follow through… failure! Obama didn’t have ANY qualifiers when he made that promise, did he?
            Are you blaming a lack of leadership by the president for not getting GITMO closed because he refuses to compromise with republicans?

            With regards to the credit downgrade, Why is it that Obama is not to blame? Didn’t Obama vote against raising the debt ceiling and say increasing the debt was “unpatriotic and irresponsible”? What, do we have new (double) standards now that a democrat is in office? In addition, are you implying that the US credit rating would go UP if we just borrowed more money without a plan to pay for it?

            How does that work in real life? Do businesses (or peoples) credit rating go up when they go deeper into debt?
            Yeah, go to your bank on Monday and ask the banker if your credit rating would go up if you increased your debt to income ratio.

            Let me know how long he laughs at you about THAT one!

            You know, MAYBE another reason that the debt rating went down (first time in US history) is because for the first time, we have not budget passed in now over 4 years! The republican controlled House have passed budgets. The democrat controlled Senate has refused to do so! Oh, and how did the Senate vote on Obama’s budget turn out?
            Now tell me, do successful businesses have budgets? What usually happens to businesses that don’t have budgets? Any guesses?

            So after you ask the banker about the increasing your debt consequences on credit rating. Ask him/her about if they would loan millions of dollars to a business that refuses to have any budget plan.

            And no, I mean The Patriot Act that, when running for office, Obama said was wrong, but then fought so hard to keep at the Supreme Court.

            “Obama didn’t raise taxes on anyone making less than $250K a year. If you bring up The Affordable Care Act, I will just laugh at you, so don’t. ”

            Really, what about the tanning bed tax? What about the cigarette tax? Didn’t Obama raise those? Do people that make under $250,000 smoke and use tanning beds? So their taxes went up, right?

            Since when is raising taxes (on cigarettes) not increasing taxes on the people that use them? Remember, Obama promised that he would not raise ANY TAXES, NOT ONE DIME, on anyone making less that $250,000 a year.
            Those that smoke ARE people, aren’t they?

            It is really very simple. Did Obama raise taxes on cigarettes or did he not? Do people that make less than $250,000 smoke cigarettes?

            You are really struggling here in defending Obama and his lies.

          • dan

            you really have no grasp on reality nor do you understand politics..when a president says “raises or lower taxes” that LITERALLY MEANS FEDERAL INCOME TAX AND/OR CORPORATE TAX and has NOTHING TO DO WITH SALES TAXES…this is such a common WELL KNOWN FACT that obama ,nor ANY POLITICIAN IN THE RECENT HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES has to clarify……when obama talks about raising taxes its within the context of INCOME TAX and corporate tax….let me repeat this…..when a PRESIDENT or a PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE talks about lowering or raising taxes he SPECIFICALLY and ONLY means INCOME tax and CORPORATE taxes..do u understand this? and only a simple minded buffoon like yourself needs clarification on this …the fact that u are conflating to EXCLUSIVE and separate issues says a lot more about your political awareness,or lack thereof,then anything else..u should really be embarrassed..u should be ashamed and embarrassed …for real im not even kidding anymore this is getting pathetic……..when your hero reagan said he is going to lower taxes,what was he talking about? INCOME TAXES AND CORPORATE TAXES!! he was NOT talking about sales taxes….and if u want to say obama raised taxes then u would have to admit that reagan raised taxes more times then any president in united states HISTORY…..so tell me sport…did reagan raise taxes on the middle class? a simple question for you…DID REGAN RAISE TAXES ON THE MIDDLE CLASS AND THE POOR? as for the credit downgrade…again u should be ashamed of your total lack of understanding and knowledge..we are NOT borrowing more to spend more!! we had to borrow more to pay for the things we ALREADY CONSUMED..do u understand this? we were NOT borrowing more money to further fund the government…we were NOT borrowing more money and going more into debt to fund the government for longer..we had to borrow to pay our outstanding bills that were ALREADY incurred..do u understand this? and bush reagan and EVERY PRESIDENT in united states HISTORY has raised the debt limit with NO PROBLEMS and NO opposition EVER! do u understand thus far ? u dont put our national security in jeopardy to make a point and object on principle,that is filthy and is a common tactic used by people like u and other conservatives..its despicable…conservatives have NEVER ever opposed to the debt limit under a republican president..so you claim about obama being a hypocrite is MOOT bcos conservatives hypocrisy far outreaches obamas….our credit down grade happened for ONE reason and that reason was CONSERVATIVE EXTREMIST who hijacked the republican party and held us hostage and opposed obamas on PRINCIPLE,and ONLY principle….they have never done it when a repub was president but all of the sudden its a huge issue? riiiight..and if they wanted a budget they should of found another way to get dems to pass one..u dont hold america hostage and put our national security at risk..that is absurd and indefensible….and your bogus claim about the ” they havent passed a budget in 4 years”<—u understand that conservatives fought tooth and nail to keep extended bushes budget and dems have passed MULTIPLE budgets resolutions every single time they were supposed to..what your referring to is the long term budget..and the fact that u didnt make the distinction ,again,PROVES beyond any reasonable doubt that your just parroting talking points that u really really dont understand…and the reason they havent passed LONG TERM budget is bcos,with a conservative extremist majority in congress,it would be utterly USELESS,pointless and a total waste fo time..unless youre saying that the extremest would pass such a budget? or should the dems do things like conservs and do POLITICAL STUNTS and introduce bills for the "principle factor" like the republicans do for show?

          • Nestor

            dan, wow, talk about having no grasp on reality! Look, why don’t you google Obama’s speech. He said he would not raise ANY taxes on anyone making under $250,000. He did NOT say only income taxes. If he meant only income taxes he would have said income taxes and not ANY taxes.

            Don’t you get tired of misrepresenting the truth in order to protect Obama?

            Here you go dan, watch it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8erePM8V5U

            What are the last five words?

            Now, care to admit you are wrong?

          • dan

            this isnt even funny anymore..at first i was having fun…but now i actually feel sorry for you…..obama did NOT raise taxes on the middleclass.PERIOD….and since u cant grasp the simple concept of taxation within context it says more of your intelligence,or lack thereof,then anything else…..obama did NOT raise taxes on anyone making less then 250k..PERIOD(actually its 400k,450 married)he raised taxes on THINGS! not on PEOPLE..do u understand the difference? do u understand the difference between taxes coming out of your check involuntarily and taxes u pay on goods that u WILLFULLY choose to buy? can u grasp this very simple difference ? EVERY SINGLE president in united states HISTORY,including yoru hero raegan talks about taxes within the context of FEDERAL INCOME TAX and CORPORATE tax..do u understand this?your bogus criteria of taxation would make reagan the highest tax raiser in american history….so will u agree that reagan raised taxes on the middleclass? answer the question,did reagan raise taxes on the middleclass? and dont tell me about net taxes..i want to know if he ever raised taxes ont he middleclass,like he said he WOULDNT…..if we used your EXACT logic and your EXACT criteria that would mean reagan raised taxes on the middle class more times any any president in united states history….so is that true?…. i just cant even believe that people like u are allowed to vote..your are the epitome of low information voter…your probably one of the simpletons who thinks obama raised social security tax on jan.1.2013..muahahahahaha……i just cant even believe u dont understand what presidents,not just obama,EVERY PRESIDENT ..means when they say “taxes”..with your logic,if new york raised state income tax on its residents then that would mean OBAMA raised taxes on them right?….you are either a troll and trying to use talking points to stir up people,or your willfully ignorant,or your intellectually dishonest..there is no way your serious..there is no way u dont understand what the presidents of the united states are talking about when they say “taxes”….EVERYBODY ( except you obliviously)understands what the president is talking about when he says taxes that its not even on his mind to make sure he differentiates between federal taxation and sales tax on goods for people who WILLFULLY CHOOSE to buy those goods…he really doesnt even think people like u exist who dont understand the difference…….simple questions..did bush raise taxes on the middleclass,..he implemented the bush tax cuts…but did he raise taxes on the middleclass? did reagan raise taxes on the middleclass more time then any president in united state history?

          • Nestor

            Is that the best you can do dan?

            Cigarette taxes and tanning bed taxes were raised. Middle class people smoke and use tanning beds. Voluntary or not, those taxes went up.

            Again, Obama said ANY TAXES! He did not say income taxes, watch the video!
            “Voluntary taxes are included in ANY TAXES, whether you want to admit it or not.

            You are really getting deserate here dan, trying to defend the indefensible.

          • Nestor

            Well there you go aattp.

            Thanks for admitting that you lost the debate. LIberals often resort to name calling when they cannot argue the facts.
            If you want to stop being misinformed, I suggest you find real news sources.

          • AATTP

            Touché, Nestor. Now, let me go ahead approve your comment so everyone can see just how badly you beat me–because that’s definitely my motivation.

          • Nestor

            Go right ahead aattp, then they will see your debating skills, including the name calling.

          • Nestor

            dan, the job council FAILED! Where are the jobs? Why didn’t Obama meet with his Jobs Council if it was so important, for at least 6 months?

            So when Obama blamed Bush for the increased debt, and called him irresponsible and “unpatriotic”, Was that an accurate statement?

            If it was, then it must be true now! You must be watching MSNBC or CBS way too much. Or maybe Air America, oh wait, they went bankrupt because no one listened to them!

          • dan

            JOBS council failed? how so? how exactly did they fail? and tell me WITHOUT using google…if u are reduced to google to figure out why they “failed” then that PROVES beyond any doubt whatsoever that ur just regurgitating conservative talking points and bogus narritives that u really really dont understand…WITHOUT google tell me how the jobs council failed? are we NOT adding over 120k jobs per month/ simple question….are we adding OVER 120k jobs per month? very simple simple question,yes or no, are we ADDING jobs or LOOSING jobs? have we been adding over 120k jobs per MONTH every month for the past 35 months STRAIGHT? yes or no? has there been even ONE month in the past 34 months that we havent ADDED well over 100k jobs? yes or no?…..was unemployment at,like u said, 10% before and is it at 7.8% now? yes or no? does that mean unemployment went up or down? these are simple question u should know the answer to WITHOUT google…..although this recovery hasnt been fast,thanks to unprecented conservative extremist, the jobs council is in no way whatsoever a failure..PERIOD…..and again WITHOUT google give me even one example of a recomondation from the job council that obama didnt follow or try to follow?…if u are reduced to google to cite an exampel then that PROVES you just parrotting talking points…….and WITHOUT google tell me exactly how the jobs council has been a failure if we have been ADDING jobs the ENTIRE time the council was active.? how are they a failure EXACTLY and without google….and btw…this level of obstructionism and vitriol has never been seen in the history of america…and i can substantiate that,repubs have fillibusters and blocked more times and things then ANY time in united states history..they hold the record..are uu disputing that?….those FACTS prove beyond a doubt that conservatives are destroying any chance of us having a speedy recovery and putting the entire country in jeopordy ,just to meet a political end..which is to make obama “look” bad at any and all cost,including at the expense of the middlelclass….that is filthy and inexcusable….

          • Nestor

            The jobs council failed, dan , because we have less people working now than when Obama took office! We still have a high unemployment rate after 3 years into a recovery! We wouldn’t need to be giving people 2 years of unemployment checks if the jobs council was successful, dan!

            Where are the jobs dan? 120,000 a month doesn’t keep up with population growth. In fact, we are half way into a recession now, with the GDP shrinking during the last quarter.

            As far as “obstruction” goes, we did see a whole lot of obstruction in the 2nd Bush term. Was it or was it not the democrats that obstructed the reining in of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under the Bush administration? The democrats played the race card on that. In fact, it was Barney Frank that insisted that Fannie and Freddie were financially sound and he “wanted to roll the dice a little longer” with regards to the risky loans that Fannie and Freddie were buying up.

            If only you knew what you are talking about dan!

          • dan

            muahahah….u couldnt refute a SINGLE thing i said nor did u answer a single question i raised…..and how many times do i have to repeat this…u said there are more people unemployed now then when obama took office….are u still clinging to that fatuous notion? would u like to get embarrassed again on that claim? when obama took office unemployment was 8.3%..TODAY IS IT 7.8%..do u understand?if it makes obama look good u marginalize it,if it makes him look bad u POUNCE on it….its pathetic…..and your bogus claim about “not keeping up with population growth” only further demonstrates your total ignorance….it does NOT matter how fast the population grows. what matters are three things……how many people left the work force, ie: retired, became disabled, how many people are now entering the workforce, and how many jobs are being created……the fact that u cant grasp this simple concept or put job numbers within context speaks very ill of you sir. are u literally embarrassed that i have to explain all this stuff to you? basically what ur saying is since people are having babies that somehow cancels out all the new jobs being created? what were u thinking when u said the job growth isnt keeping up with population growth? are u saying there isnt enough jobs being created because there are more newborn babies then they are jobs being creating? muahahamauahamauahaha…so let me get this str8…120k jobs is insignificant bcos the number of new born babies offsets that and cancels it out? muahahaamauahahahahahahha…..let me explain again….u take the amount of people who left the work force,aka-retire or became disabled, and then u factor in how many people are entering the workforce, then after u get those stats u then compare them to the 120k jobs per month on average we are adding….but keep in mind it has never gone UNDER 120k in over 30 months and has been as high as almost 200k some months….120k is a lowball number…..nonetheless u just got schooled sport…would u like help with anything else? this is getting easier every time u reply….now im back to having fun….and are u still trying to say obstructionism was the same during bushes admin from dems as today ? muahaha…..do u understand that more bills have been blocked and more filibusters have been implemented then ANY OTHER TIME IN AMERICAN HISTORY? do u get this? the FACT that repubs hold the all time record for filibusters and blocked bills pretty much DEBUNKS your claim about the obstructionism being equal……man ..u should be paying me for tutoring you..

          • Nestor

            Really dan? So it doesn’t matter how many people ran out of unemployment or gave up looking for work? No one is talking about children being born with regards to “the workforce”, dan! There are laws against child labor.

            The FACT is that the unemployment rate now is higher than when Obama took office.
            The unemployment rate in January 2009 was 7.8%. It is now 7.9%, which number is higher, dan?
            Under Obama, unemployment reached 10% in October 2009. this after Obama promised that the unemployment rate would NOT go over 8% if the stimulus passed. Even using Obama’s own measurements the stimulus failed!

            You are not going to claim that the BLS is “right wing”, are you?

            Don’t you ever get tired of being wrong?

            And again, if the stimulus was such a success, why does the FED have to pump $85 million every month into the economy?

            The only one being “schooled” here is you.

          • dan

            man u people are so disgusting and willfully ignorant about the FACTS that its pathetic..u have second hand HEARSAY from partisan hack sources..the “shovel ready jobs” u are referring to in the infrastructure program..and GUESS WHAT? i PERSONALLY benefited from that along with 90% of the construction tradesmen here in Philadelphia..my ENTIRE family has benefited from the infrastructure stimulus and it has been a wild success here in philadelphia..i have personal REAL WORLD EXAMPLES that exist in REALITY while ur reduced to hypotheticals and hearsay that u parrot from bogus sources,prob fox news or the drudge…the shovel ready job stimulus HAS BEEN A WILD SUCCESS! This isnt an opinion this is a FACT..i was out of work along with the rest of my co workers and philadelphia had one of the highest unemployment rates in the country..NOW WE DONT…u cant walk around the block without running into a road getting rebuilt or a bridge getting repaired…im sorry this doesnt fit your narrative sport,facts rarely do tho.. I PERSONALLY GOT A JOB from the stimulous and THOUSANDS of small businesses,like the one i work for, has benefited tremendously…so tell me again how it wasnt a success? and concerning the worst economic recovery ever….THIS WAS THE WORST ECONOMIC DISASTER IN UNITED STATES HISTORY…including the great depression,but luckily,thanks to LIBERAL POLICES AND SOCIAL SAFETY NETS, the PEOPLE didnt suffer as bad as they did during the depression…but the collapse was JUST AS BAD or WORSE then the GD…so i would expect the worst economic disaster in united states history to take some time to rebound,especially when u factor in CONSERVATIVE obstructionist who literally block EVERY and ANY bill that obamas tries to get passed to help create jobs..they block his veterans jobs bills then condemn him for the high unemployment rate of veterans,..the hypocrisy is appalling and people like YOU endorse this behavior…its filthy…and if we have been out of the recession for 3 years then that DEBUNKS your bull claim anyway..bcos that would mean the recession only last about 1.5 years…and obama only had control for 6 months…so he was a WILD success if he turned the worst economic disaster and recession since the great depression around in 6 months and effectively stopped the recession? by your OWN admission he has been a wild success..he took a recession that he INHERITED and turned it around within 6 months……right? thats what your sayin isnt it? that the recession ended 3 years ago? so that means obama has been a sucess.PERIOD.

          • Nestor

            Seriously dan? The cost per job in the stimuls was $331,000! The Obama administration said that unemployment would NOT go over 8% if the stimulus was passed quickly! Dan, did unemployment go over 8%? The administration said that unemployment would be under 6% by now! Dan, is unemployment over 6%? This has been the worst recovery EVER! The fact is that since Obama took office, the median income has gone down 9%! Since the “Obama recovery” started, the median wage has gone DOWN 6%!

            Tell me, if the stimulus was such a success, why is it that the feds are now pumping $85 billion EVERY MONTH into the economy? The feds wouldn’t have to do that if the stimulus worked, dan.

            I told you dan, you should quit digging that hole.

          • dan

            first off the stimulus was jam packed with massive tax cuts as per the conservative demands……this has been the slowest recovery ever in history…and u know what else ? the is the first time in united state HISTORY that another party literally vowed to do anything and everything in their power to obstruct a sitting president in order to make him a one term president..that is indefensible and inexcusable…conservatives have blocked every single thing obama has EVER tried to do….they literally blocked the veterans jobs bill..i mean are u serious? they obstructed anything they came in contact with then condemned obama for not getting it passed? the hypocrisy is disturbing..and the infrastructure stimulus has been a HUGE success here in philadelphia,that is a FACT..im sorry this doesnt fit your narrative sport…how are u going try and marginalize the FACT that it put THOUSANDS of people back to work here in philadelphia? this has been the worst recovery because of CONSERVATIVE OBSTRUCTIONISM….there has never been this vicious and dogmatic attack on a sitting president in united states history…it is unprecedented..are u going to deny that too? u think the obstructionism has nothing to do with the slow recovery? riiiiiiiiiight…..and i would expect a slower recovery compared to MINOR recession …OBVIOUSLY it is going to take longer to dig out of the worst economic disaster in american history save the great depression then it took to dig out of a couple blips in previous years..get real….people like YOU VOWED to destroy obama and make him a one term president. and u think that obstructionism has nothing to do with he slow recovery? u are either just flat out lying or willfully ignorant.

          • Nestor

            Really dan???? You can’t be serious! What about all the attacks from the liberals in the House and Senate When Bush was duly elected president? Harry Reid called him A failure, he also declared that the Iraq War was lost even before the surge.

            Don’t start with the false claims that this is the first time congress tried to make a president a one termer.

            Secondly, this was NOT the worst economic disaster in US history, Jimmy Carters recession was much worse. Under Carter, we had a higher misery index with double digit interest rates and gas lines. People literally had to push their cars to gas stations to get gas in many parts of the country. There was also gas rationing under Carter.

            So you can stop with the false talking point of “the worst recession since the Great Depression”,

            Go ahead, look up the Carter Recession and you will see that all of my claims for that time are true.

            Maybe you will learn something if you take those blinders off.

          • dan

            nestor you should really be ashamed of yourself…..u OBVIOUSLY dont know the difference between economic disaster and personal suffering..i have ALREADY addressed this yet u fail to comprehend a single thing u read……carters recession wasnt HALF as bad as the last one,economically..do u understand this? do u understand the difference between personal suffering and economically? the reason we didnt have such devastating PERSONAL suffering is because of the LIBERAL agenda and social saftey nets…if we didnt extend unemployment,bailout banks,ect.ect..then the personal suffering would have been TWICE as bad and would of been worse then the great depression..this isnt an opinion its a FACT…..and economically the last recession was FAR worse then carters and 20 times worse then reagans…do u understand this difference between personal suffering and economically? the last recession lost MORE jobs, ( the actual number of jobs,so save your percentage comparisons)…the stock market took a WORSE hit,banks took a WORSE hit and people lost MORE of their personal wealth ,ect,ect..every economic criteria that even EXIST was FAR worse this recession then carter or reagans…do u understand this simple concept?

          • Nestor

            Oh, dan, you want to talk about personal suffering? Why are there so many people on food stamps now? Doesn’t that have to do with the economy? Or is it “normal” to have 1 out of 6 people in poverty 3 years into a recovery?
            No, dan, Obama has failed economically. Again, if the stimulus was a success, the Fed wouldn’t have to be pumping $85 million a month into the economy, would they?

            As far as “personal suffering” goes, wasn’t that because of the economy?

            But OK, let’s go with your “personal suffering was not as bad because of the liberal agenda” of having trillion dollar deficits in each of the last 4 years. Who is going to pay that money back, dan? It will be your children and grandchildren, Even Obama said that was immoral when he was running for president 4.5 years ago. Did he, or did he not say that it was “unpatriotic and irresponsible” to raise the deficit by $4 trillion in 4 years?

            Double standard here dan?

          • https://www.facebook.com/ObliterateTheGop Tommympt

            Your ignorance is showing. Considering the all-out attempts by the Republican Party to obstruct the recovery of the US economy we are doing quite well. The Republican 1750 mindset is something history will set in stone. You really need to wake up and realize you are on the wrong side of history and common sense. Shame on all the GOP and Tea Party for assuming we are as ignorant and misguided as you bunch of traitors.

          • Nestor

            Obstruct the recovery???? Sorry, didn’t Obama get his stimulus passed? You know, the one that he promised would keep unemployment under 8%?

            Sorry Tommympt, it is you that are showing the ignorance. The Obama stimulus FAILED, ObamaCare is failing, the democrats had full control of the House, Senate, AND the White House and haven’t been able to follow through with their promises!

            When one resorts to name calling it is the equivalent of admitting you lost the debate.
            Don’t you ever get tired of making excuses for Obama’s failed policies?

          • dan

            thats a false equivilency…..there has NEVER been this amount of partisanship and animosity in the history of the united state… this amount of vitriol is unprecedented.PERIOD….liberals were mad about bush bcos he lost the popular vote and he magically won the elction in a state where his family was in charge..do u remember hanging chads?..and that was a LEGITIMATE issue ,especially when the american people did NOT want bush..he won electorally and only by s small margin..and critizing a president is NOT the same thing as what the extremist are doing to obama now…..not even close….i want you to name me ONE leading liberal who litterally vowed to make bush a one term president……this congress has blocked and fillibustered more times then any congress in history…are u disputing this?….the simple FACT that republicans NOW have blocked and fillibusters more times then ANY time in american history PROVES this is unprecendented….would u like some FACTS and stats to back this up? im sorry the truth has a liberal bias…

          • Nestor

            dan, really??? Since when do we elect the president based on the popular vote? For good reasons, we have an Electoral College.

            The FACTS are that George W Bush was ALWAYS ahead in the Florida vote count. In fact, if Algore would have won his own homes state, Florida would have been a non-issue. Why couldn’t Algore win his own home state dan?

            Yes, I do remember the hanging chads issue. I remember democrats trying to “determine the will of the voter” purely by looking at a ballot without knowing who the voter was. I remember the Florida Supreme Court trying to change election law after the election was over. I remember the Supreme Court slapping down the Florida Supreme Court decision that made up new election law. Do you know what else I remember dan? I remember that after the election was over, the mainstream media did a total recount of all the votes in Florida and determined that George W. Bush had more votes that Algore!

            As far as trying to make Bush a one term president goes, we have heard all the lies about Bush and his policies during his time in office. You must surely remember those, “The war is lost” (Harry Reid), the economy is bad and the 5.5% unemployment rate is terrible (Nancy Pelosi), among many others.

            In fact, just last November, Harry Reid vowed not to work with Mitt Romney if he was elected President!

          • dan

            because children dont apply for wellfare or contribute to the system ( via taxes) so it is fatuous to claim them in your trying to get accurate stats concerning wellfare..and are u contesting the CBO when they cited the FACT that for every dollar in food stamps the government get approx 1.73 back? and why would those stats equal a booming economy? so with your logic,the only thing we need to do to get a booming economy is make sure government gets money? so if the government makes money that should automatically equal a booming economy? even tho we are paying for TWO wars that your hero bush and the rest of the conservative idealopgue hacks forgot to pay for?…and our economy is doing pretty good…retailers are setting RECORD profits and the stock market is hitting 5 year HIGHS and we are adding OVER 120k jobs per month STEADY now for over 35 months str8……..and now your claiming we are out of the recession? so which is it? are we out of the recession thus making obama a SUCCESS? or are we doing horrible and food stamps are up and unemployment is drastically high? your double standard and hypocricy is starting to get disturbing….when it fits your narritive to claim we are doing bad then our economy is horrible..but when that doesnt fit your narritive all of the sudden we arent in a recession anymore? i thought u were just telling me how bad unemployment was and how bad food stams was? and we have been out of the recession for 3 years? so the recession only last about 1.5 years? which LITTERALLY means obama was a WILD success..bcos by your OWN WORDS he effectively turned the recession around in LESS then one year? obama took office janurary.09…recession start late 07-08…so techniqally obama got us out of a recession within 6 months?

          • Nestor

            Oh dan! You are SO funny!

            IF every $1 of food stamps puts $1.73 into the economy, wouldn’t giving more people food stamps help the economy even more? That hasn’t been working, has it? The fact remains that this is the worst economic recovery EVER! The unemployment rate is still higher than when Obama took office. Obama said that unemployment would be under 6% by now. It isn’t there, is it? The economy contracted last quarter, didn’t it? It is not good for economies to contract, is it?

            But let’s go with your “stock market is reaching 5 year highs”, OK?

            So we have more people on food stamps, thus the poor are getting poorer, and the stock market is near 5 year highs, thus the rich are getting richer.

            So that is a good thing, right?

          • dan

            first of all obama took office in januray of 09..unemployment rate was 8.3% february first…..janurary 2013 7.8%…. ur bogus claims has been DEBUNKED AD NASEUM and your still clinging to it….the unemployment rate has NOT gone up since obama took office.PERIOD..no matter how you try and skew the numbers….obama was inaugurated JANUARY 20TH 2009…so LOGICALLY we would take february as the FIRST month he effectively took over….february unemployment rate was 8.3%…todays unemployment rate is 7.8….do u understand the difference between HIGH and LOWER? do you understand that 7.8% is LOWER then 8.3% ???????????/ can u understand this? and im asking u a simple simple question..i need you to answer this very simple question…is 8.3% HIGHER then 7.8%? or in your fantastical pipe dreaming world view is it lower??? simple simple question,ill ask again bcos u have a hard time following…when obama took office jan 20,2009 the unemployment rate was 8.3 for february…TODAY unemployment is 7.8%….simple question,is 8.35 lower then 7.8% or higher?….and lastly are u contesting the FACT that the government get back 1.73 for every 1$ they put out in food stamps? its a yes or no ..dont give me no bull ..just yes or no

          • Nestor

            dan, what are you smoking? The unemployment rate went up to 10% under Obama! Last time I checked, 10 was higher than 8.

            Are you using fuzzy math????

            I noticed you didn’t contest that the median wage has declined under Obama, even after his “recovery”.

            And yes, I am contesting that the government gets back $1.73 for every $1 they hand out in food stamps. If that is the case, our debt problem would be solved easily, all the government would have to do is give out thousands of dollars to every American and the government would get $1.73 back for every dollar they gave out!

          • Nestor

            No dan, the end of the recession happened within 9 months, not “the peak”. And since the “Obama recovery” started, median income has fallen more than what it did during the recession. That is a fact. Look it up!
            It was you that insisted that the unemployment rate did not go higher under Obama, and it obviously did.

            So dan, tell me, if you can, what percentage of people able to work are working now, and what was the percentage when Obama took office.

            So IF Bush caused the recession, who just caused the lower GDP for the last quarter? And if we have a lower GDP for the current quarter, we will technically be in another recession. Will that be Bush’s fault too?

  • Kellie

    This gentleman is a complete douchewaffle.

    • Nestor

      Well, Kellie, you prove to be a typical liberal. When you cannot argue facts you resort to name calling.

      That usually means you lost the argument!

      • https://www.facebook.com/ObliterateTheGop Tommympt

        The year is 2013.

        • Nestor

          Well, tommympt, what does the year have to do with liberals calling people names when they cannot debate the facts?

  • Isome

    Which successful country (by that I mean one that Americans would want to emulate) has a libertarian government?

  • Jennifer Weston

    When you have health insurance, it’s really easy to scorn people who don’t.

    That doesn’t mean you should.

    • https://www.facebook.com/ObliterateTheGop Tommympt

      It’s not your money it is ours when paid in taxes to form a more perfect Union. We must get our priorities straight. The greatest majority of Americans want to be the greatest Nation on Earth. We are nowhere near that now and it is getting worse due to The GOP, Tea Party, Libertarians and other such traitors to building a great Society. The very basic right to life includes equal health care for all of its citizens. It is a right, not a privilege. BTW, one must be born to become a citizen, so don’t try the “Pro Life” abortion stuff with me.

      • Nestor

        Really tommympt? We are not the greatest nation on earth? Which other country gives billions in aid to poor, starving countries? Which other country had given more to help people in Africa to people with AIDS?
        Why is it that so many people want to come here, risking their lives, every single day? You don’t see people risking their lives to go to North Korea, or Cuba or even Mexico! They come here for a reason tommy, why do you think that is, because this country is bad?

        • https://www.facebook.com/ObliterateTheGop Tommympt

          Everyone can and will get good health care. Why are you blind to the fact it happens in other countries? BTW many leave this country to live elsewhere everyday and they love it. Economic opportunity is not the only reason people choose to live where they do.

          • Nestor

            tommympt, “Everyone can and will get good health care. Why are you blind to the fact it happens in other countries? ”

            How do you figure that happening when ObamaCare adds 50 million people to the healthcare rolls but does not add a single doctor to see them? You think the wait to see a doctor now is long, just wait until it is free and there are no additional doctors to see these patients! Why are YOU blind to simple economics? More demand for medical care without increased supply equals what?

      • Nestor

        tommympt, equal healthcare for all???? So if everybody gets poor healthcare that is OK with you? How is that working out in Cuba? If Cuba has such good health care, why is it that Castro gets his healthcare somewhere else?
        In addition, if ObamaCare is so good, why id it that the politicians exempted themselves from it? Now remember, it was the Dems that voted for ObamaCare and their exemption. The GOP all voted against this expensive risky scheme that will bankrupt the country.

        • https://www.facebook.com/ObliterateTheGop Tommympt

          Bull s**t. I don’t care if you have to stand in line to see a doctor. I suggest you get in line just like the rest of us do now. Good doctors have lines now. Evidently, you have not been in a doctor’s office for years.

          • Nestor

            tommympt, I did have to go to the hospital a few years ago (and a doctor couple of times since then). So if people die while waiting to get in to see the doctor you’re OK with that…. Got it!!!
            If it was a family member that had to wait, you would be OK with that too?

  • Kel

    Libertarians are just anarchists with better PR.

  • Chris Richards

    I think there are a lot of misconceptions about healthcare on the “libertarian” side of this argument and a certain ignorance of history. Corporate, for-profit healthcare is a creation of the 20th century, particularly the so called ‘Progressive Era.’ Hospitals were established by charitable institutions and sponsored by local city or county governments in urban areas for most of the nation’s history. In rural areas, the doctor was essentially a public employee financed by a socialist support network. His house was provided by the community, he ate dinner in local homes, the community paid him a small stipend, and patients paid what they could when they could. Health care costs were kept low, ironically, by what would be called small-scale local socialism. In these days doctors made a successful living but health care costs were reasonable. Private practice doctors in urban areas tended to charge on the kind of sliding scale that is now reserved for “low cost medical clinics” that provide variable levels of care, not because they were necessarily charitable but because it was better business sense to help more patients for less money than to help a few for a lot.

    During the years just prior to WWI, big corporate tycoons like Henry Ford and Henry Kaiser began to establish either health care insurance or actual hospitals and medical support networks for their employees. This was less capitalism than it was feudal paternalism. They began to pay their doctors more and the result was the slow capitalization of the medical industry, as doctors preferred to make more money working for corporate overlords rather than doing business the old way. Private practice doctors began to charge more and refuse service to those who could not pay. Public and charitable hospitals began to lose quality employees and had to raise their own costs to compete.

    After WWII, flush with prosperity, the captains of industry spun their health care subsidiaries off into separate businesses that themselves sought to make a profit off the money of other corporations and those individuals who could afford to pay for individual coverage and the HMO, PPO, and modern concept of health insurance began to develop. Medical practice itself has been affected as medical students seeing dollar signs gravitate to the highest paid specialities: ‘urgent care’ and surgical specialties are popular basic general practitioners are rarer and rarer and “family medicine” once the core of health care is almost impossible to find.

    The problem is that the health plan being decried as “socialism” by the right is actually center-right state-financed capitalism that does nothing but funnel money into the very system that created the problem. Libertarians who say this are exactly right, even if they are wrong to blame it on “socialized medicine” as the actual historical process has been one of privatization and de-socialization of medicine.

    The problem is that, in attempting to achieve “compromise” with the Republicans, the Senate adopted a Republican health care scheme (“Obama-care”, better called “Baucus-care”, is actually the health plan advocated by Bob Dole when Bill Clinton was President. This is something both the right and the “left” would do a lot better to remember.)

    My only good comment about the health care reform that has been passed under the current administration is that it might be better than nothing for the people who need medical care and cannot get it, but observations about the ultimate cost of such coerced public funding of private industry are on the nose. This system offers the same risks as the privatization of juvenile detention in Pennsylvania, which led to a defrauding of the state and an abuse of children by both corporations and the state on a massive scale. The ultimate consequences of the new system will likely be the defrauding of the state and abuse of patients by both the state and corporations as well.

    What is needed is a real reform of the system. As much as I hate to admit it, both health-savings accounts and catastrophic care coverage are good ideas… the latter would at least be more true to the spirit of insurance. Which, by the way, is exactly the problem with the current system, with or without “Obama-care.” It is fundamentally financially unsustainable to actually make a profit selling “insurance” when every one of your customers will need to use that insurance on at least a semi-regular basis.

    Where libertarians (big or small “l”) are most wrong, however, is to think that a real reform of the system can happen without some kind of state coercion. When the perceived economic interests of those reaping short term gains from the current system are challenged, will they be willing to voluntarily acquiesce? Will wealthy doctors be willing to accept much smaller paychecks without some sort of legal pressure?

    Some kind of socialism would be necessary. Small-scale local socialism in the historical American tradition may no longer be possible and while state intervention is onerous, state socialism may be preferable to the health care collapse that simply pumping more money into the current system may not be able to prevent. The problem is that neither the “left” nor the right are willing to think practically about this issue. The center-right politicians are trying to placate corporate fears while preaching “liberal” ideals and the far right are trying to stave off any threat to The Way Things Are by preaching personal liberty. Neither side is willing to face reality.

    • Darius Smith

      I prefer a European or Canadian-style type of health care. Make it a Medicare-for-All system. In fact we had it during the healthcare debate, H.R. 676.

      • Penny Duff

        Darius, that just makes too much sense. It would provide 3x the healthcare for the same money. Alternatively, basic healthcare would cost 1/3 of the present cost. Our politicians (and I can’t excuse the Dems on this one) are bowing so much at the feet of the health insurance industry to care about the people. I hear people talk about how many Canadians hate their health care system, but they overwhelming vote to retain it every time it comes up. Those that don’t like it are the very wealthy, who then cross the border for the mercenary version.

      • Chris Richards

        I don’t think medicare for all is necessarily a bad idea. State capitalism requires a profit or it becomes state-sponsored capitalism, which is essentially corporate welfare. Which drains the public coffers far more disastrously than social welfare, because we are dealing with larger dollar amounts and we are actually acting against capitalist economic principles while refusing to embrace socialist political principles out of fear.

        I simply think that socialism has the same basic problem as democracy. The larger the machine gets, the less socialist or democratic it becomes. This is why the HIGHLY democratic rule by Soviets (elected officials who then elected their own leaders, much like our state assemblies) of the Russian Revolution gave way to the highly centralist system of rule by party committees in the Lenin-era, autocratic dictatorship in the Stalin-era, and rule by party bureaucrats in the post-Stalin era.

      • Nestor

        Darius, who is going to pay for free healthcare for all? Furthermore, how will all those people that will be using the free healthcare system get their free healthcare? There will be 45 million more people demanding free healthcare and not a single new doctor added to see them! You think waiting to see a doctor when in the office is bad now, wait until those 45 million all want to see the doctor!

        • Chris Richards

          First, Darius didn’t say “free health care.” He said “Medicare-for-all.” Medicare is not “free.” Quite a lot of things, in fact, are NOT covered by Medicare or only partially covered. Medicare covers a percentage of costs. Most recipients supplement Medicare with private supplementary insurance that covers the Medicare deductibles, but they pay for this themselves.

          • Nestor

            Chris, if these people cannot afford insurance now, how will they be able to afford insurance and/or paying for what Medicare does not cover under the mandate/tax?

            The question remains, who is going to pay for it?

        • dan

          u people refuse to even entertain something that doesnt fit your narritive..its disturbing…do u even consider reading any material that is FOR obamacare? OBVIOUSALLY,very painfully obviousally not….or u would KNOW that obamacare doesnt automatically create the need for extra doctors..there have been HUNDREDS of studies,before obamacare was even a concept, about this very issue u raise…secondly its not 45 million its more like 5 million…but that is debatable..either way its irrelevant..multiple studies PROVE the FACT that people who are uninsured only go to the hospital when they are sick or for an emergency..and the study PROVES that people who were once uninsured but then became insured do the SAME EXACT THING…when people all of the sudden get healht insurance who once didnt have it they dont rush to the hosoital arbitrarily..nobody is going to flood the doctors offices or ER’s…..people will ONLY go to the hosital for an emergency and/or if they are sick..which is EXACTLY what they were doing PRIOR to being uninsured…so the “demand” factor will be EXACTLY the same as it is RIGHT NOW….when people finnally get insurance they arent going to just show up willy nilly to the ER for no good reason…they arent going to takje a day off work and sit in a waiting room and pay co pays and waste a days pay for the fun of it….NOBODY is going to do this…..but some may start to take advantage of preventive care measures that obamacare offers..which would be a BLESSING for our country and would help reduce the cost of healthcare all togther..bcos it is a proven fact that preventive care cost LESS then the care that would be needed had one not took advantage of preventive care…this subject has been debated ad naseum and the fact that u never even heard about it exposes your total lack on intellect and knowledge regaurding obamacare. there are REAL WORLD stats to back up my claims while people like you are reduced to hypothetical scenerios that have no basis in reality and are just assertions and theories..but things that can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence..there are REAL concerns with obamacare..there are REAL issues we could be discussing but people like you restrict the possibility of moving on to bigger issues that are grounded ion REALITY bcos u REFUSE to educate yourself or read material that doesnt fit your bogus narritive ….

          • Nestor

            Dan, so you think that adding at least 5 million people (but really 45 million of higher) getting “free healthcare” will not require more doctors to see them? Who will treat them, the receptionist?

            If a restaurant gives free food away, will it be busy? Will they need to have more staff on? If any business gives away free stuff, will they be busier than normal and thus need more staff working?

            For that answer, look to the Black Friday sales, Stores give away free stuff or stuff pretty cheap, and the stores are overly crowded and they have a lot of staff on due to increased demand.

  • Darius Smith

    I find Libertarianism to be a flawed ideology and here is why I do. Most of the ones I have met (I live in an area of the U.S. where they are quite prevalent) tend to heavily dislike government based on the predication of it expanding its powers outside the LETTER of the Constitution (in some ways I agree, with the passage of the PATRIOT Act and the relevant provisions of the NDAA regarding indefinite detention); however, these very same folks who do so use government services on a daily basis, whether it be driving on roads, going to a school and borrowing money, and/or using Social Security, ALL paid for by your fellow citizens! I laugh when any of you say that we MUST shrink government down to what it says in the Constitution because they cleverly leave out the parts where the Fathers had said it was ok to change the Constitution to passing times. A constitution, by design, has powers delegated to an authority, or set of authorities, and certain parts that can’t be changed but only through a voting process that allows for them to be amended. We have done this to ours 27 times. BTW didn’t one of the foremost Fathers say, and I will quote here, “On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished then in their natural course with those who gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.–It may be said that the succeeding generation exercising in fact the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law has been expressly limited to 19 years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be indeed if every form of government were so perfectly contrived that the will of the majority could always be obtained fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves. Their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils. Bribery corrupts them. Personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents: and other impediments arise so as to prove to every practical man that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal”? That, if you didn’t know, was Thomas Jefferson writing to James Madison about the Earth belonging to the living and not the dead, like he was going to be. Another one, Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 15, “Government implies the power of making laws. It is essential to the idea of a law, that it be attended with a sanction; or, in other words, a penalty or punishment for disobedience.” In another part, he also says, “Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice, without constraint.” So you see, there are many different, and from what I find, conflicting details as to what they wanted. They proclaim our rights being from God and that they are unalienable, yet they take other people’s lives in bondage. They wanted government to be limited, yet say it is ok for the future generations to determine what their society should be. And the very same guy that wrote the said document opposed the Bill of Rights on the predication that the rights were already in there. Now all of you probably will seethe at what you feel is a “revisionist” interpretation of these “sacred” words, but the fact of the matter is that we have a government predicated on the idea of We the People! WE give the government (a collective entity of representatives elected by the democratic process) power. I find that WE are to blame for the government supposedly being big and “tyrannical”. Don’t put the blame on the folks in Congress if you voted for them, because YOU are the problem. I have also learned that Americans preach all about individual rights and private property and that if anyone tramples on them, they are tyrannical and ought to be dealt with, yet in the very same argument, it is ok to do such things as make abortions illegal, gun control unconstitutional, many other social welfare programs unconstitutional, taxes being a fraud and “forced theft” and the like. Do you realize Americans, even with all the myriad number of taxes, pay a VERY low tax burden against most of the world? Stop defending an unequal system where money is more important than people because it is how the capitalist model works and anyone who is against that is a goddamn commie Socialist (not the same actually). I implore you to go find out about the Nordic countries (Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland) and see how an egalitarian society that does what many over here call “socialist” and “un-American” has a better way of life than folks over here (look at the stats regarding health care, life expectancy, income EQUALity and so on). American ignorance will be the downfall of this country. Don’t say we’re exceptional unless you want to support policies that do that. Otherwise you’re wasting MY time and OTHER people’s time. Libertarians also feel it is ok that everything SHOULD and MUST be privatized, based on the predication that the government is wholly inefficient at doing the same thing, but again ignoring the fact that Medicare overhead, for instance, costs 2.7% while private insurance is around 13%, or SS overhead is about 1%, or the TANF program having 5% waste. Where is the inefficiency in that? And by the way, if you privatize everything, you enable the profit motive to take over, which means that those duties you entrust with the private sector will worry about their bottom line more than you. Don’t believe me? Look at the Fortune 500 companies. They receive billions in OUR money to subsidize their activities, while we are trying to make ourselves sustainable on this planet and having the natural stuff cost more than the artificial crap. They have been shown to cause environmental damage and do so for the cause of “improving the lot of the disadvantaged masses of the world”. Yea so paying them dimes and quarters on the hour will REALLY help them, right? I guess you forgot that 1.5-2 billion live on an average of around $1-2/day, and that the idea of helping them out is tantamount to “handouts”. In conclusion, Libertarianism is a flawed philosophy based on the notion of freedom and liberty, yet feels that taxes are a theft to society (taxes are the prices one pays to live in a civilized society, according to Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.), single-payer universal health care is socialized medicine (it’s not; Medicare is a single-payer system for those over 65, where the public pays and it is privately delivered) and that charity is the best way to go (yes, just ask the folks who lived in the Depression if “charity” helped them out). Sorry, but I think most folks would want to keep what there is, because we like government more than you do.

    • Nestor

      First of all, the US IS exceptional, and here is the proof. Millions of immigrants risk their lives to come here both legally and illegally.
      How many people risk their lives to immigrate to Mexico or Cuba?
      You want to talk about Medicare overhead? OK, what about the fraud that occurs in Medicare vs. the fraud that occurs with medical insurance? Which has better control on the fraud? We see commercials almost every day on TV for “free scooters” if you are on medicare!

      Yep, there ARE billions that live on $2 a day, but you also have to take into account the cost of living. For example, it costs much more to live in California than it does in Mississippi, however homes cost less, taxes are less, and many other costs are less.

      It is funny that you complain about ” an unequal system where money is more important than people…” but then was “income equality”

      So it is greedy to earn and keep your hard earned money but it is not greedy to want some of their money for yourself even though you did not earn it? Really???

      OK, so you want to talk about business subsidies. You don’t like them right? Is that for all businesses or just ones that you don’t like? Should we get rid of the windmill and solar power subsidies? What about ethanol? Let’s get rid of those subsidies too, OK? What about all the farm subsidies?

      Oh, and sure, charity is a good thing, but forcing someone to pay for others is NOT charity.

      • fin

        first of all only mexicans risk their lives to come here..and that says NOTHING about america and EVERYTHING about mexico….if they bordered canada or the UK for instance,they would be risking their lives to go their also..they are NOT risking their lives to get here they are risking their lives to get OUT of mexico and that is a fact. secondly where else does this happen? EVERYWHERE AROUND THE GLOBE..example…people are flooding out of albania into italy and italy isnt even that good but albania is a disaster..people are flooding out of alabania to almost EVERY industrialized nation on earth….so with your logic since albanians are risking their lives crossing the border to get into italy,is italy exceptional? and about your “forced” bull..NOBODY is being forced to do ANYTHING..nobody is being forced to pay taxes.period….first off ,although u dont have a choice where u are born u DO have a choice where to live and if u CHOOSE to live here then u are CHOOSING to pay taxes..secondly the government cant “choose” to not let u use the roads therefore you shouldnt have a “choice” whether to pay for them….

        • Nestor

          FIN, is only you knew what you were talking about? Did you know that people from Cuba risk their live in little boats to come live in the US? Why do so many people stay in the US after their visas have expired? Any idea?

          Nobody is forced to pay taxes? Really FIN? What happens to you if you do not pay your taxes? Maybe you should ask Wesley Snipes or Willie Nelson what happens?

          You better quit while you are ahead….. nevermind, WAY too late for that!!!

          • dan

            the cuba argument is IDENTICAL to the mexican argument..they were NOT risking their lives to get here they were risking their lives to get OUT of cuba…and if the uk was 90 miles from cuba and the united states was where UK was,guess where they would be going? THE UK!!!!! if u deny that then your hopeless….and what happens if u REFUSE to abdide by the law? u go to jail..like you SHOULD…but u are CHOOSING to live where you do,therefore u are CHOOSING to abide by the laws of said place,one of which is taxation,therefore u are CHOOSING to pay taxes..if u dont not wish to pay taxes then u are allowed to move out of the united states..nobody is forcing you to live in the united states and nobody is going to put u in jail for moving to ,say canada? or better yet a libertrain uptopia,somehwre like somalia,where the government is “SMALL” and there are NO taxes….why dont u move to somalia if u love small government,no regulation,no taxation,no coercion from the government,ect…somalia has EVERYTHING u are fighting for ,why are u choosing not to live in a place that is the epitome of libertarianism?

          • Nestor

            Seriously DAN? So why don’t these people that are risking their lives go anywhere else?

            You gotta have a better explanation than THAT! Why would people in Cuba want to leave? They have free healthcare there, don’t they?

            OK, so you go to jail if you do not pay your taxes. SO it really isn’t optional as you claim then, is it?

            So you admit that you are wrong when you say that paying taxes is “optional”, right?

            Man!!!! This is just to easy!

          • dan

            paying taxes is not optional but it is OPTIONAL where u live…u have a choice where to live…if u choose to live here then u are choosing to abside by the law,one of which is taxation..this is an easy concept…if u dont abdide by the law u go to jail..you are CHOOSING to not abide by the law if u dont pay taxes.just like if u murdered someone u would go to jail because its against the law …..nobody is forcing you to live here…but by doing so u are agreeing to the social contract…a part of that social contract is TAXATION..and if u dont not wish to pay taxes u are free to leave.nobody is forcing u to stay here..therefore u are CHOOSING to pay taxes…this is very easy shall i repeat myself?

          • Nestor

            So the bottom line is that paying taxes are not optional, right?

    • Kain Anderson

      Wow. I didn’t know it was possible to cram so many straw men and misconceptions into a single paragraph. As a libertarian, I’m appalled at the level of ignorance of not just yourself, but most of the anti-tea-party and anti-libertarian ranters on this website. I’ll just pick a few items since it would take forever to point-by-point show where you are wrong on pretty much everything you posted.

      re: Using government functions. Anti-libertarians act as if roads, fire, police, etc. couldn’t exist without government. Private systems could replace virtually all of these functions. Most libertarians understand that you can’t just “cut off” everything because the system has developed over the years where many facets of life are completely taken over by government and the private sector completely squeezed out so these facets would have to be transitioned to a private system over time.

      re: Living constitution. No libertarian suggests that things should be locked in to the exact wording of the 18th century. We agree the Constitution was designed as a living document to change with the times. However, that process was lined out by the Framers (amendment process) and that’s all we ask you Progressives to honor. Quit ruling by fiat or using the power of the courts to twist the meaning of the Constitution, amendments, and passed laws beyond what they were intended. America was never intended to be a tyranny of the majority nor a place that property owners feared the government or voting blocs of the underclass. A great deal of the Federalist Papers dealt with how to protect property owners from mob rule and defend private liberty from the tyranny of government.

      re: Equality vs. Slavery. Slavery existed long before the Framers. They punted on the issue simply because the USA would have come apart had they attempted to deal with it then. As it was, they put the process in place (3/5 compromise) to weaken the southern states over the long haul until the country was ready to deal with slavery.

      re: Nordic countries. If you think they do it better, then move, you do not belong here. Our country is an experiment to do things differently than any other government in history by creating the most libertarian (i.e. Classical Liberalism) experience ever attempted where individual freedom (not collective) and individual property rights (not socialist or collective) trump everything. If you want to nibble around at the edges of the experiment, then do it via the political process and amendment process. If you don’t agree with the core founding principal and think Sweden is golden (or Cuba, or England, or France, or …), then you need to pack your stuff and get out of the country and quit trying to sabotage the experiment because YOU think you know better than the Framers and think collective is better than individual.

      re: Medicare overhead. I’m shocked how bad Progressives are with numbers. Do you want to know why the overhead for Medicare is 2.7% while private is 13%? It’s because you are using raw dollars spent. The most expensive patient, dollar-wise, is one at the end of his/her life. Medicare has a disproportionately large amount of those patients. Medicare, therefore, spends a disproportionately large amount of money for fewer patients making it appear more efficient when using raw dollars spent. If you switch over to a more logical measuring model, i.e. per-capita, then you find that private insurance companies beat the living crap out of Medicare not only in efficiency per-person, but also in fraud. Progressives switch over to the raw dollars spent model to try to hide the fact that Medicare, while better than nothing, sucks ass compared to private insurance on virtually every level. Also, your numbers on TANF are subject to debate. I’ve seen numbers where in 2005 NY had an improper payment rate of 28% and MI of 40%. In 2006 and 2007, OH had an improper payment rate of 21%. One other point, private insurance companies usually run a profit margin around 4%. Medicare wastes an estimated 2.5 times that (10%) meaning Medicare’s waste dwarfs any profits made by the evil corporations.

      re: corporations. Progressive policies are what makes corporations powerful. Regulations, tax breaks, intellectual property rights, you name it all give corporations a leg up to corporations vs. the competition. Coercive monopolies are not created by free-market capitalism, but rather the government. Government IS the major barrier to competition in the marketplace. Also, not all Fortune 500 companies are bad nor do even a large percentage of them receive subsidies from we the people. Tax breaks are not technically subsides (taking money from us to give to them). Bottom line is that you completely misrepresent what a libertarian free market would be like. Libertarians want a free market where everyone is treated equally and corporations have to survive competition from others without the Government to protect their market share. We also believe everyone (including corporations) must be held responsible for environmental damage they do (oil spills, etc.) or for harm they cause to others (dangerous product), but by that same token they should all be allowed to reap their rewards unhindered when they play by the rules.

      re: taxes. Libertarians aren’t against taxes. We all agree taxes were meant to be used to run the government. The problem comes when taxes are taken to be used to buy votes of a voting bloc by giving them something (like EIC). The other problem is when you take taxes to give someone “insurance” that’s not really insurance but rather subsidized medicine which is the primary driver of the health problem to begin with (see re: health).

      re: health. I think Chris nailed a lot of stuff above, though I don’t agree with everything. He left out, for instance, that one of the drivers of corporate provided health services was the Progressive attempts at wage control which left corporations scrambling to find other ways to compensate employees and thus “benefits” were born. Chris also missed that we arbitrarily limit our supply of health providers because of our ridiculous university accreditation system which prevents our education system from scaling with the population contributing to runaway education costs. Chris also missed that we arbitrarily limit our supply of health providers because of the board certification process for licensed medical providers. Both make it incredibly difficult to churn out new doctors to keep up with the population, and the ones that do have $100K’s of loans they have to pay back when they start their careers. Chris was correct about catastrophic and HSA’s. If insurance was really insurance and protected people from rare disaster (i.e. a very bad health ailment or surgery that would be financially ruinous), then we’d have a different landscape than we have today. Instead, a person gets either private insurance or a government plan and then pretty much don’t care what a doctor or hospital charges because they are only responsible for a small portion (copay or %). There is no competition or doctor/hospital shopping because the patient doesn’t pay the full bill and pretty much doesn’t care. Contrast that with laser eye surgery, for instance, that sees prices going DOWN every year because of competition of providers and technology improvements in the marketplace because insurance doesn’t pay for it preventing providers from padding their numbers. So Obamacare or any other single payer system will just make the problems even worse. A gradual move away from the current system into catastrophic only plans and HSA’s would eventually force the marketplace to begin to look like the laser eye surgery marketplace (assuming you fix the doctor shortage problem as well). Virtually all of this would be libertarian in principle because it’s actually the government interferences in the marketplace that has created the problem in the first place and prolongs it today.

      • Chris Richards

        There are several big inaccuracies in Kain’s statements but the biggest is calling “Obamacare” a “single-payer system.” A single payer system is funded entirely by taxpayer dollars and the government pays the medical bills. It is really just a matter of the government taking the place of the insurance companies. “Obamacare” is a government mandate. Coercive, yes, but designed to force everyone who can to pay their own share of costs to lower costs for everyone. This mandate puts money in private hands rather than public hands (it essentially coerces the public to buy the insurance company’s product regardless of its quality) and does not resolve the essential issue that the health insurance model as it exists now is unsustainable but it does not come even close to creating a single-payer system. One of the basic flaws of “Obamacare” is how little it actually changes the existing system, while forcing people to buy into it who were not before. It is similar to the auto insurance mandates in every state that have simply led to a proliferation of junk liability policies people spend money on just to obey the law. It is less a “single-payer” system than it is corporate welfare, the government forcing citizens to bail out the health insurance industry by purchasing a failed product.

        Almost as (or more, depending on one’s point of view) egregious is the intellectual dishonesty which Kain is repeating in the claim that we have a “shortage of doctors.” We have enough doctors. Our shortfalls fall into three areas: general practitioners (residents move toward higher paid specialties as soon as their residency ends because that is where the money is.), family medicine (for the same reason), and non-profit hospitals. Traditionally the majority of hospitals were non-profit, either public or charitable, now the majority of hospitals in this country are for-profit. It is the proliferation of for-profit hospitals that has most reduced general access to health care. The current system of medical insurance evolved to pay for care at these for-profit hospitals which, in turn, created a for-profit medical insurance industry that cannot cover its own costs. If anything, the current system is a perfect example of a failed privatization scheme.

        • Kain Anderson


          You’re wrong on both counts. I may have been lazy in my wording, but I didn’t call Obamacare a single payer system. I was saying that the two solutions of people on the left: Obamacare or some other single payer system all make the problem worse by not fixing the competition problem. The “some other” wasn’t meant to imply Obamacare was single payer but rather to say “some other solution like for instance single payer systems”.

          You’re also wrong on the doctor shortage part as well. Simply typing in “doctor shortage USA” in Google pulls up a list of articles both left wing and right wing echoing the doctor problem. I live in a metro area and finding GP’s are certainly difficult, but far easier than finding these greedy specialists you talk about. Worse yet, a lot of the specialists I run into are people who moved over here from India or something. I hardly see how that is the problem of the hospital system, for-profit, or privatization. Besides, your logic breaks down with just simple analysis. Most people who get sick simply need a GP, not a specialist. If most of the doctors decided they wanted to be specialists instead of GP’s because of greed and profit, they wouldn’t have enough work to keep them busy and would end up playing golf 3 days a week. Instead, almost every specialist here has a waiting list to get in to see them unless it’s life threatening. I can usually find a GP within 2-3 phone calls and get in same day. Point is, there’s not shortage of GP’s or FM’s because everyone is specializing for profit. There’s a shortage across the board. Even if what you are saying was true (which it’s not), in a free market system where there were more and more doctors available, eventually you’d have more doctors than patients in the “high profit” fields triggering either doctors moving to GP or FM due to lack of work, or simply price guts due to competition. Simple supply and demand.

          • Nestor

            Oooohhh! There we go, Kain, big evil “greed and profit”! In case you don’t know, doctors usually have HUGE school bills they have to pay for. Colleges don’t teach for free! Who is going to tell the doctors what type of medicine they have to practice? Who has the right to tell people what job they have to do?
            Last time I checked, people in the US have choices of what kind of job they would like to do.

          • Kain Anderson


            I said that sarcastically. I’m on your side. If it were not for better profits, why would any sane person decide to give up GP for a specialty that is significantly harder, the equipment often costs significantly more, and then you have the risks of lawsuits if things don’t go well. I’d rather see dozens of people a day with the sniffles as a GP if there were no rewards for the specialties.

        • Nestor

          Chris, you say “for profit” as if it is a bad thing! I presume you have a job, you work “for profit”, don’t you?

          So is it bad for anybody but you to make a profit?

          • Kain Anderson


            What kills me is these left-wing moonbats attack companies like insurance that have a 4-5% profit margin or hospitals that have a 6-8% profit margin (if they are lucky, 25% of hospitals lost money in 2010) as if for-profits are the reason the whole system is collapsing. It’s absurd. We pay more in sales taxes on items at Wal-mart than the for-profits skim for profits. Heck, the amount hospitals write off for treating patients for free or unpaid bills almost equals their profit margin every year. There’s no arguing that health costs are skyrocketing, but when you slice it all down, it’s not because of capitalism.

          • Nestor Riano

            Kain, the solution to people not paying their hospital bills is NOT forcing everyone else to pay for it. The solution it to give them 6 months to start making payments and if they don’t start making payments, start garnishing their income (no matter from what source), say 10% of their income until it is paid off or they work out a payment plan. Earnings are garnished for child support by many states already, so the system is in place already.

      • dan

        “anti libertarians act as though these things couldnt exist without government—pertaining to roads,fire,police,etc…..the hypocrisy is almost comical with you libertarians,u accuse the last poster of using strawmans and within the VERY FIRST argument u present and the very first sentence of said argument consist of a strawman….NOBODY thinks those things cant exist without government and we KNOW they could exist in one of your fantasy pipe dreams of libertarianism if it were applied in reality….we KNOW those thing could exist..the PROBLEM is certain things shouldnt be about profits and NONE of those things could exist in your twisted worldview without the profit motive..which means the fire department would be a for profit entity..which means they would have to charge u if ur house caught on fire…and who would open a for profit fire department in a the ghetto where people just dont have the funds to PAY the fired department….certain things are moral issues and NOT profit issues,such as healthcare..i feel as though healthcare is a moral issue,u think its a profit issue and that is disgusting and IMMORAL…again ill cite some hypocrisy of libertarians….u say taxation if forced through coercion..u say coercion is bad bcos it is immoral…..well putting PROFITS above peoples LIVES is the utter epitome of immoral..yet your ok with that and against universal healthcare? some things like fire,police,ect should NEVER be ran in a for-profit manner…image in the police were a for profit entity ..they would be arresting EVERYBODY willfully bcos they could fine them thus make more money..the profit motive would DESTROY any concept of protection or police…and now on to your bs argument about the medicare overhead…your condemning liberals for skewing the number and basically not comparing apples to apples..again the hypocrisy is APPALLING! bcos then u try to compare a RETIREMENT plan ( medicare) to a private plan that consist of EVERYONE….u INTENTIONALLY did the same exact thing your condemning us for…your skewing the number to support your bogus theory…when trying to compare private to medicare u have to do ONLY retired people at the end of their lives…OF COURSE medicare ,which is comprised of THE ELDERLY is going to loose per capita with private insurers whose clientele is OVERWHELMING not elderly…..so your argument is disingenuous at best and an INTENTIONAL lie at worst….so those two things are DEBUNKED…shall i continue? the doctors acced. system? are u delusional? so u think the doctors who have our LIVES and our CHILDREN’S lives in their hands should not have a strict vetting process? that argument doesnt even deserve a rebuttal…and 100k in loans is NIL compared to their DESERVED salaries,so that point is moot also..your just trying to use a form of scare tactics by invoking big numbers..but when put in scale and context its NOTHING.the average doctor makes TWICE that amount within 5 years of his practice PER YEAR..and some doctors make 5 times that amount per year….so its basically the equivalent of paying 5 thousand for your education if u made 25k a year…as for your bullshit argument about people not caring what they pay for medical procedures..that is utterly ridiculous and naive..if i get into a car accident and break my neck im not going to shop around for the best price first….and price should NOT be a factor when dealing with saving peoples LIVES…get real..again this goes back to the moral argument..u think healthcare should be a profit issues whereas i think its a MORAL issue…..and what makes your opinion superior to mine? u think taxation is force and coercion and coercion is immoral..i dont,what makes your opinion superior to mine? and why is coercion bad bcos its immoral but you sick and twisted view of how healthcare should be provided is immoral but thats ok? either things that immoral are bad,or they are not..u cant have it both ways..u cant cherry pick the shit u like and declare it ok while condemning other things u dont like as immoral therefore bad….its hypocrisy at its best and just arbitrary…and the problem with you false equivalency of laser eye surgery is the FACT that eye surgery is a CHOICE..an elective surgery whereas 99% of medical procedure is NOT….thats like comparing breast implants to heart surgery..heart surgery is going to be expensive REGARDLESS of competition..PERIOD..and the average person will NEVER be able to afford heart surgery. so your catastrophe idea is useless…the poor would be stuck going WITHOUT any medical treatment whatso ever bcos they couldnt afford it .EVEN IF IT WAS CHEAP..whereas the rich would get whatever they wanted,like they are now..but the poor will be confined to only getting medical treatment in the RARE instance of catastrophic emergencies…the infection rates would soar and there would be near epidemic rates of influenza pneumonia ect..bcos people wouldnt be able to afford treatment and would just suffer and ride it out..thus prolonging their illness thus spreading it to even more people who also couldnt afford treatment..the domino effect would be CATASTROPHIC..so maybe ur right..catasophric insurance would work wonders in that case….is there anything else u would like me to debunk while im at it? and its NOT government inference that causes the problems..its FRAUD,GREED and CORRUPTION all of which would still exist in your pipe dream fantastical free market society..unless your trying to HUMAN NATURE would evaporate in a free market and that corruption greed and fraud would just disappear and would cease to exist? well actually that goes along pretty good with libertarianism…just plain false and make believe and naive…

  • Ernie Capwell

    When it comes to libertarians here is an appropriate quote:
    “There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.”
    – Wolfgang von Goethe

  • Ernie Capwell

    “…rejecting government solves nothing. It’s like rejecting food: The real issue isn’t to reject food, it’s to eat healthful food, and to avoid poisonous food. Similarly, the real issue isn’t to reject government, it’s to support good government, and to oppose bad government.

    And so, too, the issue isn’t whether government should be “small,” or “big,” but rather that it should be the best size to serve the public, who must bear its costs.

    In other words: Libertarianism entirely avoids the real question, which is: What type of government is good? As an “ideology,” libertarianism doesn’t even make it to first base: it’s fake, from the get-go. That’s why libertarianism fails.”


    • Justin


      Show me a libertarian that advocates for rejection or abolishment of the state, and I’ll show you an anarchist … not a libertarian. Once again, you’ve proven that the modern American liberal mindset is largely incapable of thinking for itself and must instead rely upon canned conversations, manufactured articles, and divisive talking points.

      I’d present you with a true definition of libertarianism, but my guess is that you’ve spent much of your life and formal education being spoon-fed the information that you’ve acquired. Do yourself and the world a favor by researching the subject on your own. Then, feel free to report back to us on the libertarian positions relative to the size and functionality of the state.

  • Dee Theas

    Every Libertarian I have met at my University has been a spoiled rotten kid. Their parents pay for their education, they have never had a hard day in their lives,they have the newest IPADS, Iphones, etc. and have never held a full time job This kid is insane with his reasoning behind his mother’s death. I feel sorry for him and his future children. My parents are conservsative repubs and even they say the Libertarians are insane….

    • Daniel Tanure

      You should meet me, then. I used to go to the beach to dig out the bugs and eat them when I was a kid. And I thought of them as a delicacy.

      But that doesn’t matter the least. Obama was also born into a life of privilege and never had a hard day in his life. Are you grilling him too?

      A person’s experiences do not disqualify their opinions.

      • Chris Richards

        “Obama was also born into a life of privilege and never had a hard day in his life. ”

        This is a very interesting statement. Now justify it. Describe President Obama’s life of wealth and privilege factually. I do not deny that he has had political success that will likely make him quite wealthy when he leaves politics. Nor will I deny that he is more affluent than I am now.

        However he was born to a soon-divorced mother who supported him by working two jobs, sent him to live with her parents at one point because she could not afford to work two jobs and provide basic care on the level he deserved, and went to college on a scholarship he earned through hard work rather than being paid for by his parents.

        I am hardly a fan of the President. I think he is a center-right pragmatist who has more in common with the Scoop Jackson school of neoconservatism than with my own far more left-wing ideals, but try to get the facts of his biography straight.

      • Penny Duff

        Daniel, your source on your claim about Obama? He was the product of a single parent family. Believe me, it’s rare for that to result in a “life of privilege”. Oh, BTW, that source doesn’t count if it’s FOX news!

    • sean keough

      That’s is a pretty broad generalization.


    As usual, I am amazed by how brilliant Libertarians think they are while not comprehending basic logic.

    • Ernie Capwell

      Spot on! take conflation and distortion away from a libertarian and they are speechless!

    • Justin

      Almost every pro-libertarian statement to this point has included a definitive argument as to why their particular position is justifiable, practical, and applicable. Every pro-liberal and pro-conservative statement has been in the vein of yours – baseless, indefensible, and purely rhetorical. Seems to me that the libertarians have the upper hand when it comes to knowledge of the issues. Of course, you could astonish us all by simply revealing the “basic logic” that you seem to grasp, which simultaneously eludes the feeble-minded libertarians.

      So, spell it out for the world to read. How does a person’s perceived “right’ to health care trump another person’s natural right to freely associate?

  • Jason Mooneyham

    I don’t understand why it is that people have such a hard time with the concept of paying into a system so that we can all benefit from it. Seriously. It isn’t brain surgery. We live in a civilized society based on the enlightenment philosophy of Locke, Rousseau, and Montesquieu. We are a society that is based on the idea of the social contract, where we give up some of our natural sovereignty as human beings (and in a 21st century commerce- and credit-driven society, that includes MONEY) in order to have the benefits that come with living in said civilized society. We have also grown as a society in terms of what it means to be happy, healthy, and all those other really heart-warming buzz words that make people feel warm and fuzzy, so we don’t have an 18th century view of what that means. We have a 21st century view. I don’t mind paying into the system because one day, I will benefit from it in a significant way, as will man, woman, and child in the US. Unless, of course, you know someone who doesn’t age, doesn’t get sick, and won’t one day die.

    • Ernie Capwell

      Whoa Nelly, what are doing? Your bringing in philosophical ideas that libertarians don’t understand. libertarians regurgitate little more than nonsense and corporate propaganda. Locke, Rousseau and the Enlightenment, you really are taking the libertarians to task, they don’t know that libertarians were originally…Liberals.

      • Kain Anderson

        You mean just like how you don’t understand that the while Locke, Rousseau, and Montesquieu are all from the “enlightenment” era, they all had vastly different ideas and you can’t lump them in as all modern liberals or libertarians???

        For instance, Rousseau may agree with a modern liberal in a sense on private property rights, but his philosophy of government only works on homogenous societies where pretty much everyone has the same ethnicity, religion, etc. He was more city-state type of government than the modern liberal’s federal monstrosity that forces all to bow down to it for the “common good”. The city-state government was small enough for a homogenous people to collectively come to a government that benefited everyone because they were all, well, alike and thought alike and nobody was slighted by the government they all agreed on. I would also place Rousseau in with influences of the French Revolution (bad) vs. the American Revolutions (good).

        Locke, on the other hand, was big on individual property rights and a great influence on modern day libertarians. Much of his work runs directly CONTRARY to modern day liberals. He would be an influence of the American Revolution and modern day libertarianism.

        Montesquieu is mainly known for separation of powers believing that this would protect individual liberty from the tyranny of government. Some of the Founders borrowed from him for the 3 branches of government we have today. Montesquieu’s beliefs are somewhat naively utopian in that no government, separated or otherwise, in history has ever been prevented from going down the path to tyranny with even the British and American governments now being quazi-socialist soft tyrannies.

        Bottom line, classical liberal does not equal social liberal, but rather it more closely resembles libertarian. You liberals should really stop name-dropping philosophers whom you know nothing about or you might get schooled by a libertarian. You’re welcome.

    • Daniel Tanure

      No one has anything against paying into a system so everyone can benefit from it. What we’re against is being forced to pay into a monopolistic system that has no incentive to provide the best service for the cheapest price. Most of your tax dollars are used to fund the bureaucracies required to collect your tax dollars in the first place. They don’t go to anyone’s health care. That’s not to mention grafting, corruption, etc.

      Voluntary solidarity and charity are wonderful and noble things and everyone should do them. Taxation is theft and it’s never used they say they will use it.

      • Jason Mooneyham

        You mean like what we had before the Affordable Healthcare Act, where insurance companies had no more incentive than to protect the bottom line, which included practices like denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, managed healthcare that failed to provide the maximum benefit available for the cost, and astronomical costs to patients, and that’s just for starters, and that’s if you had access to coverage at all. Yeah…paying into a system that not everyone had access to, and that includes some people who paid into the system.

        Taxation isn’t theft. Taxation is the price of living in a civilized society and reaping the benefits of that society. Most of my tax dollars seem to go into a bloated defense budget, while a drop in the bucket goes into the “beaurocracies.” And what monopolistic system are you talking about? There is no monopoly in healthcare. There is a menagerie of private insurance carriers out there. I fail to see any monopoly there.

        • Nestor

          Jason, we see how well incentives are working at the federal government level now, don’t we? They have zero understanding of making programs financially sound, they just keep creating and spending money that we don’t have. As has been shown, the “Affordable Care Act” is not very affordable. Premiums have gone up since the law passed, but it was promised that premiums would go down.

      • Penny Duff

        Then avoid all local, city, state and national roadways, all libraries, all public schools from the youngest to the State colleges and universities, do not use fire or rescue services and remove all safety devices from cars, tools, etc. Remember, all those “socialist” evils are paid for with tax dollars, and have been for several thousands of years.

      • A

        While I am not a millionaire or billionaire, should I ever become one, I will appreciate you fighting for my right to refuse to pay for the upkeep of the society I am allowed to participate in every day and thrive in.

  • Charley Groth

    This is a simple matter: Either one is selfish, or one is not. Libertarians are selfish. Period.

    • Daniel Tanure

      Yeah, tell that to all those libertarians who donate their money to charity, do voluntary work for the poor, etc. Tell that to the guy down there who shelters three homeless kids in his basement and pays for their needs. Tell that to economist Bob Murphy, who offered to donate over 70,000 dollars to a food bank if only the ultra-liberal Paul Krugman accepted to debate him (predictably, Paul Krugman refused).

    • Nestor

      Charley, you are confused, it is NOT selfish or greedy to want to keep your hard earned money, it IS greedy and selfish to want to take others hard earned money!

  • Rusty

    Libertarians are idiots. Austin and some if these commenters prove this.

  • Ernie Capwell

    freedom works is right wing front group funded by big business to promote so-called “libertarian” ideology. In practice libertarian ideology is thinly veiled corporate propaganda.

    “Corporations with their political allies are waging an
    unrelenting class war against working people. A vast social engineering
    project is being implemented under the guise of fiscal responsibility. In
    this latest incarnation of class warfare…”

    Class Warfare
    Noam Chomsky
    Interviews with David Barsamian

    • Daniel Tanure

      This is the laziest cop-out argument ever. Instead of demonstrating how someone’s argument is flawed, you simply imply that they have ulterior reasons to say what they’re saying.

      I’m unemployed, by the way, but I’d be happy to work for freedom works if they want to hire me.

    • Daniel Tanure

      By the way, if corporations love us so much, why isn’t the Libertarian Party the most well-funded party of all? Why do these big corporations seem to keep donating to Obama instead of, say, Ron Paul or Gary Johnson?

      The answer is easy: big corporations can only exist with the help of government regulations. Without government to create regulations that eliminate competition those corporations would never grow to their size. Often times, those regulations are drafted by the very own corporations they are supposed to regulate.

  • JohnnyO

    I don’t have insurance, and yet I can go to a clinic for $70. I also went in for urgent care and got a bill for $1600…after talking to their financial department they covered the bill because I make under a certain amount. Anyone can do this and I do not understand these stories of people not finding care when being unable to afford insurance. While I agree we need better options as I certainly cannot get by on this forever, but forcing people to buy socialized healthcare

    • Abe

      Are you willing to do this for cancer treatments that span years? What about other chronic ailments? Are you so certain the hospital would be willing to negotiate on this sort of ongoing expense? What if you simply don’t have enough to pay even the negotiated amount? You presume to know the solution, but are very narrow-minded in your understanding of the struggles others face.

      • William

        The solution you presume to know is the solution of force. You would see others forced by the state, which is ultimately at the point of a gun, to provide a service, or fund it, against their will. You justify theft or even enslavement if it saves one life, this is the mindest of a tyrant.

        • Mark

          As a former Libertarian/Randian Objectivist…..as one who worked years ago very very hard for John Koon for Senate here in Michigan…..all I got to say is libertarianism is a fine philosophy, but it does NOT work, nor will it ever in the real world. The free market can no more exist than rare elements that degrade within seconds of their creation. The reason is simple…..wealth creates privilege, and privilege creates an imbalance in the free market which then is no longer a free market. So yes, government is necessary….and if you don’t like paying for certain things, well that is just too bad because I don’t like paying for other things that you probably love. Put on your big boy underwear, stop whining and if you are SOOO upset about paying for something well then don’t do it. Pay the penalty, and as the jail cells fill with righteous people who are oppressed, the government will change the rules. Either that, or just kill yourself.

        • Faith

          You are already paying for others health care. We decided, as a nation, that it was inhumane to let people die on the doorsteps of the emergency room. We could not, in good conscience, stand by and watch people die. It’s not just inhumane. It’s immoral. And so when folks get care and cannot pay, the health industry provides that care and then passes the cost on to the rest of us.
          That is how it has been for many many years.
          So now YOU have a personal moral choice to make…a decision about what is and is not moral. Two choices, William. Let them die….or save them. And if you let them die you get to live with that….and then you can decide whether or not what you chose was the mindset of a tyrant…or simply that of a cold, apathetic narcissist. There is no middle ground.

          • Nestor

            Faith, the whole “let them die” argument is a false choice. The solution is not to have us pay the government to cover these costs. It is to bill these people that go to the emergency room. Give them 60 days to start making payments or work out a payment plan. If they don’t make the payment, garnish their income from all sources.

            It is called personal responsibility! Isn’t personal responsibility a “personal moral choice”? If they made the conscious decision to not buy insurance and take the risk of not being covered if they go to the ER, they must be responsible for paying the bill themselves.

            THERE is your “middle ground”!

      • Nestor

        Abe if these people cannot afford to pay to go see a doctor, how are they going to afford to pay for (although cheaper in the long run) insurance, even if it is mandated?

    • Ernie Capwell

      doubtless all of the “libertarians” posting on this also work for freedomwerks.com. freedomwerks.com is a corporate propaganda outlet.

    • http://[email protected] Randee Head

      There are some places in the U.S. that have the kind of care you describe, but many do not. There is a clinic in a neighboring city, but the care is somewhat substandard, and the wait can kill you. There are some people who can’t afford a $70 charge for a clinic visit. Others have chronic illnesses that would break the bank under the system you describe.

    • http://www.facebook.com/pages/Nomo-Dom-Facquery/166433726809186 Milton Shoup

      That’s right. You have no insurance. You get your hospital bills excused. That is because we taxpayers are already your safety net. It’s just not a fair safety net.

    • mtnthunder

      JohnnyO Guess who pays the balance of the bill you got? Taxpayers

    • dan

      man u might just to to simple minded to even respond to…but i cant let this go unchallenged…..first off not everybody has 70$ the exact moment they need treatment…PERIOD..end of discussion.i dont want to hear about any hypothetical situations or bullshit theories of how people should or could save money in case it happens….MOST people live pay checvk to check which LITTERALLY means they have NOTHING untill pay day and their bills cost equal or more then they make..which means they do NOT have 70$ …especially unexpectedly..like if u all of the sudden caught the flu..then u couldnt go to work,u miss a couple days pay ect.ect…some people do NOT have 70$..so your point is moot…secondly a 1600$ bill is PEANUTS…if u needed emergency surgery to save your life it wouldnt be 1600 and a provider would laugh in your face if u asked them to eat the cost…you would be on the hook for it and people are forced to go into bankruptcy over a live saving medical treatment for which they had NOP CHOICE but to do….that is inexcuseable….lastly your so nieve that its disturbing….do u know why they didnt make u pay? they didnt make u pay bcos u met the low income criteria…and GUESS WHO PAYS FOR THAT???….u gave a GREAT example of why we need obamacare……bcos you REFUSED to get adequet healthcare insurance and now you are FORCING us to pay for YOUR healthcare through our taxes…but thats ok? and obamacare isnt? the utter hypocricy of u people is disgusting…again its ok that YOU focred me to pay for YOUR healthcare..by ur own admission..YOUR own words PROVE my position and PROVES your hypocricy and total lack of knowledge on this subject….so its wrong to force people to buy their own insurance ,aka obamacare care which is a MANDATE and NOT soclialized medicine,but its not of for you to force everyone else to pay for your healthcare needs?

  • Adder

    Thom Hartmann is most assuredly related to Piers Morgan.

  • Mike Myers

    Was Jesus Christ a libertarian? Of course it is unfair to ask whether the founder of Christianity would agree with a political movement developed over a thousand years after His death. But it is not unfair to inquire if Christ’s beliefs would be in agreement with this movement. The Libertarian movement is initially tied into John Locke’s writings which strongly influenced the ideas of the Founding Fathers, and focuses upon constitutionalism, protection of property, Natural Law and Natural Rights. It presumes a government of basics, doing only those necessary things which individuals cannot reasonably do themselves—like building an interstate highway system or fielding an army. (from a interesting article)

    • Phil

      When Jesus taught the lesson that we are our brother’s keeper, he appealed to peoples’ sense of love, duty, and reason. He did not enlist the Roman army to force others into the desired role.

      Not to mention, when Satan tempted him in the wilderness, he offered him all the earthly governments to control (which Jesus could have used to accomplish whatever ‘social justice’ he saw fit). Jesus promptly rejected the command and use of these instruments.

      You don’t change peoples’ hearts by pointing guns at them.

  • charles bishop

    If rights are from our creator then we don’t need the government to provide them. Read the declaration of independence and try to comprehed it before referring to it. Government is to “protect and maintain individual rights”. What is this clown talking about? I can’t even begin to understand his logic

  • Yep

    So I guess all that charity work I do makes me a heartless selfish bastard. Odd. :/

  • David Rairigh

    Its sounds to me like the majority of you just don’t get it. Small-l libertarians (like myself) have no problem with society providing healthcare. We believe it is something that can be (and is) done through charitable organizations. We believe forcing someone to pay into the pot is evil but allowing people to exercise freedom of choice to pay into the pot is as it should be. We’re not heartless (generally speaking libertarians give more time and money to charity than most other political types) and we’re not in favor of no government (that would be anarchists). We simply understand that the more power you allow government to exercise the biggest the abuses will be.
    The funny thing is that history has proven us correct yet few people will admit it. The economies of the west are stagnant or failing. Governments are hugely in debt. Most countries with nationalized healthcare are facing crushing debt in large part due to the healthcare. Yet, people blinding keep spouting the emotionalized drivel about “letting people die in the streets”. The sad truth is that you cannot blame the healthcare system in America for people suffering…you must blame yourself. If you stopped trying to let “someone else” in the government take care of the problem and got off your OPM ass and got involved then perhaps fewer people would suffer.

  • Aaron

    This dud is so diluted. By his own reasoning the pharmacist was just doing what any good capitalist would do, making his product into more so he could make more money. His mother should have taken responsibility for her own healthcare and gotten a chemical analysis done, stop blaming the pharmacist. He has to make profit after all, he went to school to be a pharmacist. What a tool. Currently at a 10 dollar an hour job I would have to work an extra 30 hours to afford healthcare do to a preexisting condition, our health care system is broken and Capitalism is the cause. Human life an health should not be part of the profit incentive program that Capitalism subscribes to.

    • LiberalFascism101

      So Capitalism is the cause of YOUR illness?

      So move to North Korea and you’ll be cured!

  • Karol

    I agree that Austin is not helping his cause with the way he is holding the debate, but I ultimately agree with him. We are so quick to try to find a government solution to our problems, but we don’t see what created the problem in the first place. Our elected officials are at fault for driving healthcare costs sky-high. They are the ones who helped create the housing bubble, bailed out the banks and let our economy suffer. They are the ones that have spent so much over the last century that we are now 16 trillion in debt. And now they offer us a solution that fits their own agenda: let us take control over healthcare and put trillions more on our credit cards. They created the problem – they created the solution. And we are too near-sighted to have any idea what they are up to.
    Thom Hoffman seemed to have ignored the part where Paul raised $50,000 for his friend Kent. Liberals always turn this into a false dichotomy: it’s either all-for-yourself, or it’s government assistance. No – there is a third option: private assistance. We don’t need the government – we can help each other.

    • Phil

      Totally agree. We don’t need the government – and good thing, since we know that what it does is mathematically unsustainable. If we advocate that people look to it for security and sustenance, we become liable for their plight, since we know it cannot provide what it promises.

      Private assistance is what is sustainable. And I do believe we are our brother’s keeper – just not under threats of violence.

    • dan

      first off obamacare is said to save us TRILLIONS of dollars in the long run..and billions within the next ten years…thats not an opinion that from the NON BIAS non partisan most credible reserach center that we can cite….the CBO…so if u want to debate the FACT that obamacare saves BILLIONS then u must refute THEIR findings with EVIDENCE that accually exist in reality,not your opinion or hypotheticals…….so obamacare wont do nothing but help our deficet problem..secondly the government is NOT taking over healthcare that is the biggest strawman and exposes your total lack of knowledge on the subject..u should be embarrassed….obamacare deals with INSURANCE..and PRIVATE insurance at that..it does NOTHING to the medical treatment and has NOTHING to do with medicine or hospitals..NOTHING….”we can help each other”<–lol..is this the charitble donations argument? get real..we cant leave peoples LIVES up to chance and just hope that some good smaritan will donate money and just pretend there will be enough to go around…what if there NOT enough to go around? and lets just say,hypothetically,there is NOT enough to go around and a loser who refused to get insurance gets sick and is about to die without expensive treatment….yes he was irresponsbile,he was a loser,he smoked,EVERYTHING….he was the epitome of irresponsbile and had no job NOTHING…..does he deserve to die? bcos in your fantasical pipe dream free market society he will DIE..and your fine with that..he derves DEATH because he didnt have a job….that is IMMORAL..the literal epitome of immoral…yet your argument against coercion is its immoral? the hypocricy of you people is appalling

      • Nestor
        • dan

          so let me get this str8..a far right wing extremist newspaper is more credible then the cbo? riiiiiight……can i cite msnbc? can i cite rachel maddow as an expert? would u accept an msnbc report? if so then i have HUNDREDS of references that “PROVE” it doesnt cost us 6B and SAVES our government trillions….

          • Nestor

            DAN, that “far right wing newspaper is quoting union leaders. Are those union leaders far right wing too?

            Stop digging DAN!

            Here is another report from the CBO about the cost of ObamaCare:

            You are not going to claim that Yahoo! and the CBO are far right wing now too, are you?

          • dan

            awwwww how cute..u dont understand the article…..listen sport your way over your head here and u dont understand or comprehend the material you citing…do you understand what the “net worth” is? that article is citing the net worth of obamacare over the next ten years…man this is getting tiresome and im actually starting to get embarrassed for you…this is almost as bad as the ” oabamcare is going to cost taxpayers 7 billion dollars”..muahahhahaha..u ignoramus..u actually fell hook line and sinker for the trickery and BOGUS misleading headline…and you wont even admit that u DIDNT UNDERSTAND IT…you said “derp..are those people not taxpayers..derp”…..when someone says taxpayers that LITERALLY means and ONLY means its going to cost TAX DOLLARS……why did your article PURPOSEFULLY say taxpayers and not PEOPLE? they did it to MISLEAD and u fell hook line and sinker…muahahahahah….every single person in this country is technically a “taxpayer” how much does mcdonalds cheeseburgers cost “taxpayers”? …u should be ashamed of yourself for citing such bias partisan hackery and LIES….that article about 6 million “taxpayers” does NOT say its getting paid for with tax dollars…OWNED

        • dan

          you should be embarrassed of yourself..do u even read the bull that youre citing? u are willfully ignorant….. that article does NOT say it will cost us money u simpleton…it does NOT say it will cost taxpayers ANY MONEY..it SPECIFICALLY SAYS it will cost 6 million PEOPLE about 7 billion dollars…bcos it will cost THOSE 6 million people 7 billion to purchase insurance or pay the penalty tax…muahhahahamuauhahaha u idiot..i under,being that your a libertarian or a conservative,that comprehension skills are not your strong suit…but ill talk slow……YOUR article does NOT say it will cost taxpayers any more money..it SPECIFICALLY SAYS it will cost 6 million PEOPLE 7 billion dollars..and the only reason it will cost them is bcos they ,hypothetically,will REFUSE to buy insurance and if they refuse to buy insurance then they will get a tax penalty…..and that is FAIR..bcos if they refuse to get insurance then they are FORCING me to pay for their healthcare when they show up to the ER and receive uncompensated care…..u just got owned….would u like me to debunk anything else sweetheart?….and by the way ..our population consist of over 300 MILLION people….and obamacare is only going to cost .005% of the population more money… thats POINT ZERO ZERO five PERCENT….. it will cost ONLY 6 million people money out of 300 FREAKIN MILLION…

          • Nestor

            dan, really? so those 6 million people that it will cost more money to aren’t taxpayers?

            No those people that choose not to buy health insurance does NOT cost you a dime. How exactly is it costing you any money?

            Again, the solution is to garnish the income of those that do not pay their hospital bills. States already do that for child support from deadbeat parents. The system is already in place. It can be done for hospitals as well.

          • Nestor

            Ok, so you claim that this will only cost 6 million people (.005% of the population) more money. But in another post, you claim that only 5 million do not have health insurance, so that is even LESS than the .005% of the population that you want to pay their bill!

            You just dug yourself deeper into that hole dan, and I am NOT your sweetheart!

          • dan

            your strawmans are getting pathetic now sport…but i understand comprehension isnt your strong suit…when i quoted 6 million it was pertaining to your BOGUS website article you cited…..5 million is the accurate number of the uninsured…concerning your strawman attempt at trying to imply i cant do math,i already explained i made a mistake when i conflated your BOGUS reference with the TRUTH..there are about 5 million people who are uninsured right now…your BOGUS article claims 6 million..out of the 5 million people who are uninsured the OVERWHELMING majority of them WILL get insurance..leaving about .005% of the population who will refuse to get insurance…are u following me sport? or is the truth just too hard to grasp? you BOGUS website claimed 6 million people are currently insured and your BOGUS website claims that ALL 6 million people are going to REFUSE to get insurance….how do they know this? did they ask all 6 million people? or are they trying to make stuff up to better fit their BOGUS narrative that has been debunked ad nasuem?

          • Nestor

            dan, here is proof that your 5 million people do not have health insurance is “bogus”.


            Go ahead, call this source “far right wing” I dare you!

            Stop the digging dan!’

            Man, this is SOOOOO easy!!!

          • dan

            man this is getting painful…u really have no idea what youre talking about nor do u grasp the material youre reading….this is pathetic that people like u get to vote….listen sport this is just over your head..i shouldnt have to explain all this to you….u CLEARLY havent done ANY research on this subject and CLEARLY refuse to read ANYTHING that doesnt fit your narrative…again i shouldnt have to point this stuff out to you, i shouldnt have to explain this to you…..when we are discussing the uninsured within the context of obamacare its 5 MILLION people who will be affected by the penalty tax bcos they are uninsured but meet the requirements otherwise..but just would potentially,refuse…….i mean didnt u find it a little odd that one cite was claiming 46 million and another RIGHT WING website was only claiming 6 million? i mean wtf did u think there was such a HUGE difference for? especially when the right wing website would foam at the mouth if they could use the number 46 million instead of 6 million…this is getting pitiful man….u need serious help…

          • Nestor

            dan, if I gave you a quarter, would you buy a clue?

            Let’s go back to your claim that the middle class “pay income taxes” but they just get a refund. Well if they get ALL of their money refunded, they really aren’t paying income taxes, are they? In fact, if they are getting a big refund, it simply means that they had too much withheld from their paycheck, right?

            Now, tell me, how many people do not have health insurance? is it 5 million or is it 46 million?

            And if you add those millions of people to the health insurance roles, will they be more likely to go to the doctor when they get sick? So will there be a greater demand for doctor visits or less? And no more doctors are being added to the system, are there?

            Now google the law of supply and demand, and find out what happens when demand goes up and supply does not.

          • dan

            “lets go back to you claim….”—muauahahahahahha EVERYBODY here can CLEARLY see u cant defend your position so your trying to change the subject…ive already went over this with u sport…refer to the past post about it…but in short people pay taxes all YEAR LONG..the government gets to USE THOSE FUNDS and collect interest on those funds where applicable…..then those people get a refund and there have been MULTITUDES OF STUDIES that PROVE beyond any possible other conclusion that when these "poor" people get a refund they spend it IMMEDIATELY and IN FULL…the overwhelming MAJORITY who get a refund spend the refund IMMEDIATELY AND ENTIRELY..dont tell me your going to dispute this FACT also? these people SPEND THEIR ENTIRE REFUND CHECK IMMEDIATELY..which LITERALLY means they are putting it DIRECTLY back into the system and paying taxes on it…this helps stimulate the economy on top of getting some of the tax revenue back….and these same people start PAYING TAXES IMMEDIATELY again for the year out of their checks….they NEVER stop paying taxes .PERIOD..they get a refund at the end of the year,after paying all year long..and they spend that refund ENTIRELY and put it right back into the system…and they begin paying taxes out of their checks IMMEDIATELY again..i mean how dont u understand this very simple concept with EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE to support it?

          • dan

            “will these people be more likely to go to the doctor when they get sick”<—–do u have a hard time with reading comprehension? ive went over this AD NAUSEUM…..there have been DOZENS of studies to PROVE that when people get insurance,who did not have it prior..do NOT visit the doctor anymore then they PREVIOUSLY did when they had NO insurance..let me repeat bcos i know u have a hard time reading…..when people all of the sudden acquire insurance they do NOT visit the doctors more frequently then they did PRIOR to having said insurance..do u understand so far? people go to the doctors when they get SICK or when there is an emergency REGARDLESS if they have insurance or not…..people dont arbitrarily go to the doctors bcos they want to have a fun day off of work and miss a days pay and wait in a 2 hour waiting room…..u are willfully ignorant and u have NOTHING besides your hypothetical situations and theoretical scenarios..with NOTHING TO BACK IT UP..u are reduced to OPINIONS and hypotheticals…your opinion mean NOTHING against EMPIRICAL evidence and EXTENSIVE RESEARCH AND STUDIES..do u get this? when people get sick and go to the hospital WITHOUT insurance it cost us taxpayers MASSIVELY because those people are receiving uncompensated care……do u understand this? it cost MORE for us to pay for these people who dont have insurance and receive uncompensated care then if we had obamacare…PERIOD..so to answer your question " will these people be more likely to go to the doctors"<—NO,NOT ANYMORE THEN THEY WERE BEFORE THEY WERE INSURED…they will go to the doctors about the SAME EXACT AMOUNT OF TIMES….

          • Nestor

            dan, the point is that when you have insurance, you are much more likely to go to the doctor to get antibiotics or other treatment to take care of minor illnesses. Why wouldn’t they if they “are covered”?

            Yes, they WILL go to the doctor more often. I have known many people that did not go to the doctor for their illness because they did not have insurance.

            It won’t cost us more to treat them if you sent them the bill and garnish their income if they do not pay it.

            That is a pretty simple concept, why is it so hard for you to understand it? It is already done for many people that have to pay child support!

  • Dane

    Can someone please explain to me why the USA, the strongest nation on the planet, is supposed to measure itself according to weaker nations and then imitate them? Why would proven success on a global scale need to take leads from nations that are not as successful or powerful? In the words of Mrs. Clinton, “What difference does it make” how other nations run their healthcare systems? Appealing to the consensus (all other developed nations) is a common logical fallacy.

    • http://www.facebook.com/pages/Nomo-Dom-Facquery/166433726809186 Milton Shoup

      Obviously you disagree with how “the USA, the strongest nation on the planet,” uses its social capital. I believe the point is that in various measures, other nations of similar social values (i.e.all other developed nations) treat their citizens with greater dignity and respect than USA does.

      Does your view of the world really boil down to ‘Might Makes Right”?

      • Dane

        You haven’t answered my question. The USA is the leader of the world. This is why we have such an illegal immigration issue. This is why the dollar, for now, is the monetary standard for the planet. This is why we host the UN. This is why we are the major funder of the UN. I could continue with more evidence, but with the demise of the USSR, the USA was left as the only World Power.
        We didn’t become the world economic and military power that we are by taking a lead from some other country. That would make that other country the leader and not the USA.
        So, based on that, please explain how it is that the USA is supposed to look to “every other developed nation” and follow their lead. It could be argued that the other nations are NOT the World Power in part because they of their social and economic policies that are different from the USA.

        So, instead of turning the question to me and whether I consider that might makes right and thereby painting me as some sort of bully, please explain why the World Power that the USA is should take it’s lead from nations that are not the World Power.

    • Carolyn

      By what standard do you declare the USA to be the strongest nation on the planet? Just curious since it appears you are also measuring the USA by other countries

      • Dane

        That’s answering a question with a question which is logically fallacious. We are the World Power left after the fall of the USSR. The dollar (for now) is the standard currency. Immigrants are risking their lives to come to the USA. When a conflict breaks out abroad, other nations call on the USA to intervene economically and militarily. This is all a separate, red herring argument.
        The USA is a success thus far, so please explain why we should take our leadership from some other country rather than from the will of the people and logical reasoning as to the best, proper route for the country.
        When we appeal to “other developed nations” as some model, we need to defend our reason for looking to those nations as a model. The fact that other nations do it does not make the practice good or noble. It’s like the old adage when your mother would say, “If everyone jumped off of a bridge, does that mean you should do it also?

    • dan

      the only logical fallacy is comparing america as a whole to other countries as a whole,instead of issue by issue……healthcare verse healthcare,price of healthcare vrs price of healthcare,access to healthcare vs access to healthcare…and outcomes,health,and stats of those countries compared to ours…and the sheer FACT that the “weaker”nations beat us in EVERY SINGLE CATEGORY is whats appalling,not that false equivalency your trying to make

  • Mike Myers


  • Perry

    Did this Tom really just blame Ron Paul for the death of one of his campaign staff? Please take both of these rambling idiots off the air.

  • Dane

    At 10:53 Thom says, “A right is something that it is the obligation of society to provide.” This is the fatal flaw of logic in liberal thinking. According to our founding documents, and centuries of political thought prior to that which lead up to them, human beings are endowed by their Creator with rights. That means that rights proceed from the inherent characteristic of being a human being. This means that rights cannot be given or denied by another human being or group of human beings. I have the right to political speech because I am a human, NOT because the government or society had granted that right to me. I have the right to privacy because I am a human being, not because other humans have granted me that right. I have the right to life because I am a human being. The right to personal property is because I am a human being.
    RIGHTS proceed from our creation as human beings and NOT from society’s provision. NO ONE AND NO GROUP provides rights to us.
    This is a basic truth. If something is “provided” to you, as Thom states, then it is not a right. IT IS A GOOD.
    This is basic.
    Go ahead my liberal friends. Instead of actually showing me how it is that rights do not proceed from our creator (whether it be the Christian God or Nature’s God) and instead of showing me how providing something does NOT make it a good instead of a right…. go ahead and insult me.

    • Jason Mooneyham

      Nature doesn’t give two craps or a handshake about rights. Nature does what it does, when it does, with zero regard to who or what is the recipient or victim of whatever it does. Consequently, rights are human constructs that do not exist outside of human minds. Rights are things that we as human beings construct and arrogate to ourselves as things that inherently belong to us as human beings. Now, one of the rights we arrogate to ourselves is life. Our concept of what that means has changed since the 18th century, when Jefferson first penned the Declaration of Independence. If we as a society believe that we have the right to life that cannot be deprived without due process of law (and we all tend to agree on this point whether we are conservative, liberal, or whatever political label), then we have a responsibility to ensure that and make sure the mechanisms are in place to guarantee it for the most number of people, including the goods and services that are available for that purpose. If we say that we have the right to life, and don’t provide the mechanisms for protecting it, like health insurance, then saying that there is a right to life is an empty turn of phrase.

      • Dane

        Your position that rights are a human construct doesn’t agree with our founding documents which say that we are endowed by our Creator with rights and that we receive them from Nature’s God. Your answer isn’t one at all. How is it that one man’s rights can be used to violate another’s and how we decide which man’s rights are more valuable.

        • AATTP

          The Declaration of Independence, which contains the quote to which you refer, is not a legal document in the way you are suggesting. The Taxing and Spending Clause in the Constitution does, however, state:

          “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”

          Seems pretty clear to us.

          • Dane

            You haven’t answered the question either. I’m not asking about Congress’ power to tax. I’m addressing Thom’s belief about the nature of rights. The nature of rights is something that had been debated out over the centuries. Thom states that rights are something that society is “obligated to provide.” Simple logic says that if something is provided to you that it is a good and not a right.
            The Declaration, by the way, is absolutely a legal document in that it outlined the reasons that the colonies were rejection the rule of The Crown. The Declaration was legal justification for the rebellion against England. It is a listing of the grievances against George. The declaration is what we would call an indictment in a criminal proceeding today.
            It essentially says, “King George has violated our rights as human beings and therefore we are defending our rights.”
            In order to be able to say that, we have to know what the nature of rights are, which is what I am addressing.
            Thom says rights are obligations to provide things.
            That is simply wrong because that makes a right into a good. According to the founding documents and the philosophical work of the centuries preceding our revolution, rights are inherent to being a human being. They proceed from God or Natures God.
            Thom shows his lack of understanding of the underpinnings of our Republic when he says this.
            Please show me in our founding documents where rights are “obligations to provide.”
            Floating out one clause to support your position while denying the rest of the founding documents is like a church person using one scripture to support slavery.
            We revolted because we believed our human rights were being denied by government. In order to revolt, the founders made a case for revolution. In doing that, they declared that case. After the revolution the Constitution and other documents that established our government were written. They were written within the context established by the Declaration. Those documents were set up in order to prevent the circumstances that led to the revolution which were listed in the Declaration.

            It all works together. The nation wasn’t founded by the General Welfare Clause.

          • Nestor

            Dane, You’ve got that right!!!

    • dan

      the founding fathers also gave us the RIGHT to make amednments to the consitution…but that doesnt fit your narritive does it? so your going to refuse to accept the FACT that we can and SHOULD change the constitution as time goes on to fit our needs AS THE FOUNDING FATHERS ASSERTED WE SHOULD..it is a living document subject to change…nothing more nothing less…

  • Denai

    The host of this show is just astoundingly uninformed. And his barely allowing his guest to speak is a tactic to ensure that he cannot explain himself thoroughly, so his viewers come away with an idea that he is right and the other side is wrong. It’s bad journalism, but makes for good television. He should be ashamed.

    • maryp1217

      What video did you watch? The guest continued to spew talking points and change the subject while talking over every word Thom Hartman said.

  • patrick

    I love the way Hartmann admits that he would absolutely force someone by violence to take care of another.

  • Slap

    In fact, Libertarians are the opposite of only looking after themselves – they are the most generous of any group at an individual basis. You pass moral decree over all those you wish to forcibly go along with your childish belief, and then just have your money automatically extracted from yourself and put into the most inefficient organization in the world to dally out to their cronies. It’s the opposite of necessary, you are just a layman at understanding society.

    Once again, you don’t do what you say. For example, Ron Paul who discussed the fact that you can’t have government forcibly give another health care. If you came to him at his medical practice, you would not have been turned away – and he never accepted any government handouts. But you wouldn’t know about anything vested in reality, only what was spoon fed to you on this clowns show (especially when they cut clips out of context, and then strait up lie about what his answer was… LOL.)

    • A

      Do you drive on a road? Government handout. Do you go to a public school? Government handout. Ever use federal aid to pay for college (scholarships, grants, loans, whatever)? Government handout. Medicare? Handout. Social Security? Handout. Your police? Fire department? All government stuff you get because I paid for it.

      We aren’t forcing you to give up money because we’re evil and are out against your freedom or anything. We need you to pay taxes because there’s shit we need and someone has to pay for it. You pay into society so that you can reap the benefits of this society. You pay taxes so you can send your kids to school, call the police if you need, and when you’re old can have some extra cash.

      Taxes are investments into your society and if you aren’t willing to invest in the society, you shouldn’t be allowed to participate in it.

      • AATTP

        Well said!

  • bret

    this is insane (doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results ) look at the history of governments past,. who have done the exact same things that our gov. is doing ( health care,ndaa, patriot act, welfare, fixed wages,ignoring the constitution,declaring people to be insurgents that dont think the way they do, out of control spending using unconstitutional “law” to steal more money to pay for mortgaging of present and the future ) foreclosure is right around the corner and the weight of the system will collapse the economy , run off the business’s which will causes more unemployment and a broader base of unemployed (dependents) means more money needed to support this vicious cycle(the weight of excess gov and corruption has caused more nations to fall to third world status than any other issue in history including war,. and our children will have to pay for it all.Think of our children,. money isnt free just because the gov prints it.Money has a cost that has to be payed back by someone
    ps. i do believe in helping others that at least try to help themselves and do to the best of my financial ability, but the percentage of what i give is utilized at 100% not wasted in this wasteful bureaucratic gov (dem. or rep. alike)

  • Phil

    And somehow, sticking a gun in someone’s face to take & spend their money in a way YOU see fit is the OPPOSITE of selfish?

    Somehow, we will accomplish the continuity of civilization thru the workings of barbarism. You idiots live in a contradiction that doesn’t work, and you will apparently enslave and kill anyone who gets in your way. This is some kind of common good? Your philosophy is merely violence with pretense, and civilized people must reject it.

  • Rob

    First learn what the General Welfare means in the Constitution as it was written Not the diluted version politicians try to work around Second Your right to be free is my right to be free from you Health care is not a right it is business. You have a right to purchase insurance or pay the hospital Whats the difference between paying the insurance company, hospital or taxes. Simply The haves pay for the have nots and the have nots get a better standard of care while the haves are held to a different standard and asked to pay more just like every other government entitlement program You don’t have a right to ask anyone or force them to pay taxes to provide for others Its my right not to support the woman who has kid after kid She had them not me. Its my right not to pay for the healthcare of those who take part in destructive behavior smoking, drinking, drugs, unprotected sex etc. Why shoud I pay for those in society who play by there own rules and they expect others to take care of them However you bash this guy for beig responsible for himself. Get real folks be responsible for yourself and stop this society argument Its either societys fault or come on you have to pay your part of society Ask yourself if Government program like social security and Medicare are so GREAT why are we all forced to be a part of them Answer because responsible people would not be a part of them and invest or save or their retirement Liberals in order to win debates you win them with facts not emotion.

  • Slap

    Before socialized health care that you morons set up, doctors gave 30% of their time away as charity and not many people ever had a problem. They could afford to do so before you strangled the system with your childishness.

  • Slap

    Reduce government to the bare minimum so everyone can pay for everyone.* It would turn the US into what it was, and what it is supposed to be by law.* They think beyond their noses unlike you who could never understand cause and effect.

  • independentdad

    So how much of your income will you allow the IRS to take, how many taxes will you be willing to pay, how poor are you willing to let yourself become, before you consider your “fair share” paid for? 50%? 75%? More? When do YOU reach the point that you have given all that you can, that you look at your own hungry children, and say ENOUGH!?

    The Constitution guarantees us the rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. Life: the ability to be free in your own body. Liberty: Freedom from control of your life by others. Pursuit of Happiness: The right to be able to chase your dream, to be free to do what you want to achieve your own happiness. If that should be giving everybody all that you have, living the life of a pauper so that their lives are better, that is your right. What it doesn’t mean is that you have the right to walk into your neighbors house and take the food off their table, or the money from their pockets, to give to another family that is also in need.

  • Shingen

    We can not solve social problems through State coercion and violence.

  • Restonification

    I’m confused, if the right to healthcare was an essential right that was clearly outlined in the Declaration, why didn’t the founders try to establish, or at the very least fight for a universal health care system? To be frank, Thom is kind of a moron, and I’m a little embarrassed to be human at the moment. It would seem that America finally realized that true freedom means true personal responsibility, and it’s slightly comical (but mostly depressing) to watch the outbreak of fear and outrage at the idea that we might have to be responsible for our own life and actions.

  • Justin

    Judging by the content of the comments here, it’s clear that most of you don’t understand the core tenets of libertarianism, and quite possibly the core tenets of personal liberty in relation to our Constitutional republic. As much as you may dislike this single, honest truth, health care is not a right – and health insurance even less so. The reason is plainly simple: a ‘right’ that requires compulsory compliance by another individual is not a right, for it directly infringes upon the natural rights of said individual. Guaranteed health care would require that you force a health care provider into an involuntary association – a direct violation of their common law right to engage in voluntary associations. You can’t force a doctor to ensure the perpetuation of your life any more than you can force a contractor to ensure the perpetuation of your property. Yet, you have natural rights to both life and property.

    Since my idealistic, progressive-leaning days, I’ve always had a great deal of respect for Thom Hartmann – namely his intellectual prowess and his compassionate tendencies. However, on matters of liberty/natural rights, personal responsibility, and civic duty, this “idiot libertarian” shut him down. Like all of you, I would love to see all treatable ills of humanity and society acted upon. That is primarily our nature. Unfortunately, mankind has neither the means, nor the will to alleviate all that we perceive as need. How can a less-efficient extension of mankind (i.e. government) be expected to do any better?

    While I’m under no obligation to defend libertarianism, there is no arguing that a libertarian collective is more compassionate and more philanthropic than either liberal or conservative associations – both of whom are merely selective proponents of liberty. Perhaps the outright hatred for libertarianism stems from the belief that compassion and philanthropy should be self-selected, rather than state-mandated.

  • Kevin

    Every day people commit crimes to get money, cars, drugs, TVs, clothes, jewelry, etc. Should society provide all of those things too to make those crimes go away? It’s called PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Look into it.

  • Donavan Spencer

    I agree with Austin on principle. I think he is making the wrong argument.

    We have a right to life, but that “right to life” seems to have an expiration date. We all die sooner or later. Nature on it’s own accord abolishes our “right to life”. It is not a “right” which is under the power of humanity to grant. Neither is health, there are multitudes of conditions and situations under which the power of Doctors, Hospitals, and the pharmaceutical industry is inadequate. There is no right to health. It wasn’t declared in the Declaration of Independence, nor is it included in the Constitution.

    Having said that, I think we could have a plan whereby we take care of the basic health care needs of our citizens. We have an absolutely ludicrous insurance system in this country. And now that we are “mandated” to pay into it, it will only get worse. We are mandated to give money to an industry which already has bought all the congressional representation they need as well as at least one President. Reform of the insurance industry is sorely needed. We should have national standards and personally portable insurance. I believe the majority of Americans, (who are basically healthy), would be far better served if they had “catastrophic insurance”. (Coverage for the things which really cannot be foreseen). In combination with that, we should have far greater access to, and easier use of “medical savings accounts”. And I would “tax” the insurance industry, and the pharmaceutical industry in order to provide care for those who do not have insurance.

  • Dane

    At 10:53 he says, “A right is something it is the obligation of society to provide.” THAT is completely UNTRUE. We are endowed by our Creator (not society) with our rights. Period. This liberal mumbo-jumbo defies logic and historical facts. You can NOT explain to me what a right is and how healthcare is a right without contradicting your own explanation… because it isn’t a right.

  • Enrique

    I find it funny how so many of you resort to name calling.
    Can anyone explain to me why Healthcare and Education are so expensive in the first place? It is due to government intervention. Why would schools lower tuition when government subsidized loans and grants will pay for it? Same can be said for healthcare, forcing people to purchase health insurance will only drive the price up.

    Just because Libertarians don’t agree with the way the federal gov funds its programs doesn’t mean we dont agree with the intentions or goals of that program. Healthcare should be a state issue and should be funded in a voluntary manner and if possible it should be left in the private sector. Sales tax would be considered voluntary, as would contributions from individuals. If most people have no problem paying their fair share, why would the federal gov need to take the money out of their pay checks?

  • http://oldmexican.blogspot.com OldMexican

    — Isn’t it time we made healthcare a basic human right so sick Americans don’t have to take such drastic measures? —

    No, such a time will never come because healthcare is NOT a “basic right”, it is a service provided by those who are willing – e.g. doctors, healers, nurses. What you’re talking about is offering medical care as an entitlement, paid through taxation. You should be more forthcoming about what you mean instead of obfuscating.

    What Austin Peterson is trying to explain to the hysterical host is that there’s a difference between negative rights (those that impose a burden on each of us to respect others) versus positive rights, which burden OTHERS to cater to ourselves. Some posters here have claimed that libertarians are, in reality, selfish individuals who care for no one but themselves, but the truth is the exact opposite: There’s nothing more SELFISH than thinking that OTHERS owe YOU for those things you value, for instance: medical care.

    Mr. Peterson argues that it is not moral or even economically sound to come to someone’s house, gun in hand, to demand that YOU pay for HIS wants or needs. Taking from others to pay for your things is called thievery; however, and for many of the posters here, when GOVERNMENT does it, it is called “welfare.”

  • head east

    When do we stop letting able bodied people from riding in the wagon? Income transfers account for 2/3 of the total budget and we’re printing the other 1/3. People that paid into SS are being screwed by people claiming disability for headaches and feeling sad. Our government doesn’t even know how many programs there are.

    “In recent years, the biggest increases in disability claims have been for “musculoskeletal” problems and mental disorders (including mood disorders). But as a practical matter, it is impossible for a health professional to ascertain conclusively whether or not a patient is suffering from back pains or sad feelings.

    According to the BEA, America’s myriad social-welfare programs (the federal bureaucracy apparently cannot determine exactly how many of these there are) currently dispense entitlement benefits of more than $2.3 trillion annually. ”

    Nicholas Eberstadt: Yes, Mr. President, We Are a Nation of Takers

  • D

    You all are crazy leeches! People like Austin are more than happy to pay their “fair share” of taxes, but how is it fair when 50% of the populace does not pay income taxes, and almost as much collects either welfare, foodstamps, medicare, cell phone vouchers? The PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS, does not mean sitting around waiting for the government to take care of you

    • dan

      u are just willfully ignorant……the bottom 50% of the middleclass DOES pay income taxes..they just get a refund …and so do you i would suspect so you in that category also sport…and those people do pay taxes..what ur referring to is FEDERAL taxes..which they DO pay all year long,which the government can make interest on or use for other purposes during the year..and then when that person does their taxes they get a FEDERAL REFUND…so broadly saying “dont pay income tax” is just misleading and disengenious..even tho they do get a refund they pay into the system all year long thus helping pay their fair share…as well as its a statistical proven FACT that when those people in that category get their refund checks they spend it almost IMEDIATLY and in full which helpd drive our economy which helpds fund the government…so its really not that big of a deal that the bottom half gets a refund…as for food stamps ..only 2% of the population collect food stamps and only the eldery collect medicare which they have paid into their ENTIRE WORKING LIFE…..anything else u need debunked sport?

      • Nestor

        Seriously DAN???

        If they get all the taxes back that they pay in, and many get more back than they pay in, they, in reality are NOT paying income taxes!

        THAT is simple math, sir!

      • Nestor

        Oh, and I already debunked your claim that only 2% get food stamps! It has increased to 1 in 6 under Obama! That means 15%, NOT 2% get food stamps!

        • dan

          sorry sport u didnt debunk that claim….if u count children then yes 1 in 6 americans ….and the bottom line is its due to the recession not obama…every single time in united states history,when there was a recession there was an increase in food stamps.period….and i forgot,who created the recession? was it your hero bush?

          • Nestor

            Well there you go again DAN!

            So are you claiming that children aren’t people?

            And as far as who created the recession goes, the economy was doing OK until the democrats took over the House and the Senate.
            Tell me, who was it that pushed to have unqualified people be given the “opportunity” to buy homes they could not afford?

            I’ll give you a hint, he is from Massachusetts, His initials are B.F., and he insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were financially sound! He and his colleagues of the same party pushed the recession on us by inflating the housing bubble.

            So if Obama is not responsible for the economy now, after 4 years, when, if ever will he be responsible for his policies and action?

            Or will he be known as The Irresponsible President”?

  • Aaron

    You’re all idiots, seriously. Do you people not understand basic economics? Without theft (what you people call “taxation”), people would have much more money. With these people having more money, they could afford to got out and buy extra things, or “splurge”, if you would. This would allow for more businesses to get into the United States Economic picture, and ultimately, bring down prices because these businesses would have to compete, and when prices are low, everyone prospers. You statists don’t seem to understand basic rights, as Austin said multiple times. You’re trying to say that people have a right to something someone else produces, do you understand? Medical care is something doctors, nurses, etc. produce; you don’t have a right to that, no one does. This redistribution of the wealth that our government calls “social welfare”, “Medicare”, etc. needs to end, because it’s theft. Private charities are by far the most efficient way to help those in need. They have a MUCH better track record than the US government of making sure that the money/aid gets to where it really needs to go. The government is far too large, and it needs to be reduced; drastically.

    • dan

      thats a cute theory sport..to bad its just utterly false….and NOBODY is forcing medical providers to provide care for free..so your entire argument is bogus and a fallacy…EVERY SINGLE DOCTOR and every single provider will get getting paid for their services under obamacare…so your point is moot…..and taxation is NOT theft ..im so sick of this bull argument from u people…u dont choose where u are born but u DO choose where u live..u are not forced to live here..u are choosing to live here which literally means u are choosing to abide by the laws of the land, one of which is taxation……and u are using the roads,bridges,and buying things from stores that only exist because the infrastructure exist…if the government can choose to not let u buy ANYTHING or use ANY roads then it would be fair for u to choose not to pay taxes..otherwise YOURE the one who is STEALING by using the roads I PAID FOR…..why do u think its ok to STEAL the benefits of the infrastructure that I PAID FOR?

  • Phillip

    You all have Libertarianism completely wrong, well from my stand point. The point where we are coming from is you cannot trust government. It is an evil. It has nothing but what it steals from the people. If you do not pay your taxes the police with Guns will come and take you to jail. If you try to escape more than likely they will shoot you. That to me is not very civilized.

    It seems to me that the “Statist” (republicans and democrats ) and anarco libertarians/ Voluntaryist have the same goal but have different philosophy’s on how to get there. We believe in nonviolence and a voluntary society without the treat of guns and violence. I mean to have a dictator and 400 or so members of congress to impose their well on the other 270 million people in the country from out point of view does not make sense. If you really want a ‘State” run health care system why not find a way to do it locally at a county or city level? Because and sure you will all agree – we do not have a say in what goes on in Washington. Unless you are a banker, head of a corporation, a member of Big Pharma or the Military industrial complex. We have the most corrupt government in the history of the world (my opinion). So to say I am going to give them more of my money is crazy. Plus I am also wondering since our country is ‘Bankrupt” how is it that we are going to pay for it? We already have to borrow money from China everyday. The economy could collapse at any time.

    Responsibility. Here is another argument. We live in a knowledge based society. You can pretty much learn anything you want. With a click of the mouse you can learn how to live a healthier life. So why is it that someone can fill there body with all this garbage i.e. fast food, gmo food, sweets, prescription drugs, smoke, alcohol and none organic foods I now have to foot the bill? And I do understand that this not include everybody. But if the people of this country would actually learn about nutrition, supplements, eating organic and drinking distilled waters most of there health problems would vanish. But instead of promoting a “Natural” way of living you are asking for more drugs. For more ways of how “Not to ” live a healthy life style. Because the MD’s are not trained in Nutrition. Well very little anyway.

    I have never met a Libertarian who was selfish. Who did not want to help people. And you know what I can say the same about you the “Statist’s” We must find a way peacefully to help each other. Not with Guns and violence. Not with the treats of imprisonment. And like I said if you truly believe in “Central Planning” at least try and do it at a local level. Where everyone’s voice can be heard.

  • Bartleby the Scrivener


    Positive rights are generally baloney. You have the right to seek to provide for yourself. You are not owed health care. You are not owed anything you have not specifically earned.


  • Django

    Man, Thom is a moron and an asshole. More proof that big government advocates are idiots and don’t understand the free market. We’ve had this country reduced to a bare minimum government and were at our most prosperous and cared for, but morons like Thom don’t know history and they want to make up lies to further their point. pathetic.

  • Bob Robertson

    I thought I would try to find some witty way to point out that being entitled to someone else’s labor is called “slavery”, and was supposedly abolished, but I’m tired of trying to wake people up who are convinced that taxes aren’t theft, that entitlement isn’t slavery, and that the infinite demand for “health care” in America won’t end up with rationing and euthanasia like everywhere else.

  • Josh

    I have a question. How is it any less immoral to take money through the use of force to pay for a program such as this? Law is force. Force is aggression. The use of laws to take money from one to give to another is theft no matter how much you reason it. The largest expansion economically in this country existed PRIOR to income taxes, SS, Medicare, Medicaid, et al. If taxes were needed to support us as a society then again, how did we get to this point? Wouldn’t we have collapsed due to our own “greed” and
    “selfishness?” Who would build the roads you ask? Well I would then ask, why are you not asking who would build houses, buildings, etc. The answer is obvious. Private markets do. I hypocrisy at its finest when individuals advocate for more taxation which implies force. I find hypocrisy at its finest when people cannot donate willingly to the causes they so choose yet demand that others pay for it through taxation. Where is the morality in that?

    • dan

      wow….you’re right…those times were GREAT..ya know when we had no regulations,no health codes no child labor laws and ,i almost forgot SLAVERY!!!!! and morality is SUBJECTIVE….so it is pointless to debate about….ur opinion os coercion is immoral…..well ,hypothetically say i DON’T think its immoral…what makes your opinion superior to mine? and also i dont subscribe to your criteria for what constitutes coercion….what makes you OPINION superior to mine?

  • Nestor

    So these men were “forced” to commit a crime in order to get free healthcare?

    So we need to blame someone else for their crime? Maybe the issue is character, and the entitlement theory so many liberals have come to cherish.

  • scott

    so,what part of your life is YOUR responsibility do people no longer understand,why should tax payers have to pay higher taxes for some lardass with diebeties,or a smoker with lung cancer,or an alcoholic with a liver problem?Those medical issues are mostly self induced,obesity causes diebeties,smoking causes lung and throat cancer,drinking does cause cirrhosis,so why,if these people choose a poor lifestyle,should I or other taxpayers have to pay for you to get better?

  • Xzen

    Completely misrepresents what Libertarians believe about healthcare. Notice on the Ron Paul clip where they cut off what he believes we should do about people that can’t afford healthcare and then lie about what he said after the part they cut off? Libertarians believe that healthcare for the poor should be handled through charity, etc.

  • Scott

    This is bizarre. This guy believes that the right to life means that the government must provide medical help. The right to life, liberty and property is about things that the government must not take from you not give to you.
    I don’t really care that this guy seems smug. His mistake was getting into a shouting match with a man who obviously lacks a valid argument. He is reading the constitution correctly while the other guy is way out on a limb. His idea that any nation can provide healthcare sufficiently is proven wrong when you look at the failure of socialized medicine in other nations. The worst thing that can happen to healthcare is more bureaucracy. No bureaucracy has ever solved the problem that it was created to deal with. More government is not the solution, it is the problem.

  • Chris

    While I probably will not be popular on this page I do identify myself as a libertarian. I believe that many of you have the wrong impression of libertarians. While I can not speak for everyone I do believe that helping people is a meal imperative for any society. The difference lies in how it is accomplished. It is not for the government to do but in the voluntary charity of the individual. Forcing a person to pay(taxes) is theft. Taxes take money by force no matter how noble the cause, that is the very definition of stealing

  • Paul Aazpeitia

    If you want to be socialists, fine; you should all go form a commune. Just leave the rest of us out of it.
    Government is suppose to tax for the basics on a limited basis. We should help the poor, but not enable them to remain indigent, or turn them into a permanent bread-and-circuses voting bloc for the left. The government’s and the Left’s appetite for other people’s money, and the desire to control other people’s lives knows no bounds.

  • Ralph Martin

    God you people have no clue about logic and actual RIGHTS. You insist you can steal from others to provide for those that wont provide for themselves.

  • Paul Hicks

    …out of touch-out of touch… …Tom is out-out-out of his head.

  • Ralph Martin

    So its greedy for me to keep MY money but not greedy for you all to take MY money i worked for to give to others? Awesome. There are CHARITIES out there to help people if you want to help people then give to those charities. Its ridiculous to expect the govt to help you in every aspect of your life. Health care is NOT a right because someone ELSE is expected to provide that, THAT is slavery.

  • Jason

    So anyone who doesn’t agree with you is an asshole/moron/class a jerk/idiot? Really classy. There must be zero merit to what Austin was saying because it doesn’t align with your preconceived notions. Bravo.

  • Steiney

    Waaaahhhhhh, waaaahhhh. What’s the matter people? You think that just because you’re fine with being fleeced by our government, that everyone else automatically should be as well? Or is that your sense of “patriotism” talking… You do realize that pretty much everything that Austin champions is exactly what our Forefathers intended, correct? Tell me, does it hurt your delicate sensibilities to think that someone just wants to be left alone, and what exactly is BAD about limited government?!?! Damn morons, “Libertarians are so selfish they don’t want to let you tell them how to spend their own money!” is the truth.

  • Aaron

    It may be hard to believe, but the United States experienced significant economic growth and prosperity between the 1780s to the 1910’s, all without significant government mandates, taxation, or even people’s reliance on the government. Since then we have destroyed the economy with the boom-bust cycle perpetuated by the Federal Reserve, which allows for your “evil, unregulated” banks to give out sub prime loans which end up being defaulted on. These loans would never have been made if interest rates weren’t so low. Nobody would die of starvation if the Food Stamps program were abolished. People would go to charity. And if we stopped Medicare and Medicaid, people would go to charity. And if we stopped bombing children in Libya, we would be able to drastically cut taxes. That means that EVERYBODY would not only have more money to buy their own food and insurance/healthcare(Not to mention more jobs due to less economic restrictions), but charities would receive so much more funding from donations due to more money that can be handed out by people looking out for their neighbors. THAT is generosity.

  • communist

    I have a right to own a home, and tax payers should pay for it, just like healthcare.

  • Rob

    This guest is such a douchebag. He just wants to talk over Tom with his ridiculous talking point. You can’t have a dialog with such a foolish clown. I’m sure he would be happy giving up everything that tax dollars pay for. What a sad little fool he is. It would be great to see all the things he enjoys in his life that are paid for with tax dollars. Does he complain about safe and clean drinking water? Of course not. These clowns want to pick and choose what his tax dollars are used for, which is ridiculous. I’d be willing to bet that if we got to vote on whether we used our tax dollars to give everyone in the country free health care in exchange for chopping our military budget in half, we wouldn’t have the military we currently have. These guys are just arrogant and don’t understand what it means to live in a society. Maybe they should find an island to live on and move there.

  • peggy ankney

    Every Libertarian that agrees with Austen Petersen should spend a weekend volunteering at a shelter to see how a large number of Americans really live.

    • Daniel Tanure

      A lot of libertarians do. It’s called “helping others voluntarily”, and it’s what everyone should do, instead of forcing others to pay into a system that will maybe transfer some of what you paid to the needy if the bureaucrats responsible for it are in a good mood.

  • MrKalamazoo

    Interesting. The libertarian is talking about the nobility of the profit motive, yet his own mother was killed by someone motivated by profit and he can’t connect those dots.

  • Leo

    Idiot cannot even see that the system he is pushing is the very system that killed his mother. The Laissez-faire capitalistic system that allowed a crooked pharmacist to dilute his mother’s medicine is the very system that killed her…and the entire time arguing for smaller and smaller government, just so this can happen again and again.

    Why does it matter if you pay insurance if the medical system will not function. Capitalism has shown it does not have the consumer’s interest at heart, only the producers.

    Austin Petersen should do society a favor and eat a bullet…there is no place for free loaders like him in America…he wants freedom and no government, he should move to Somalia. He has reaped the benefits of growing up in America but refuses to live up to his end of the social contract he entered into. Deportation should be the first thing he should be looking at.

  • Sarah

    So, is he really saying he would be willing to pay for the health care for millions of people? I don’t think he has that much money… I think I’ll send my friend to him, who health insurance companies refused to give her coverage and she just had a stroke. Only $150k!! Plus she has no way to work and no way to pay for the physical therapy she needs. And now the burden of the cost of her care just fell on the hospital… Which means the taxpayers ended up paying it off anyways!!! People have no clue how the system works and yet thy ramble their spew everywhere. People having access to BASIC PRIMARY CARE SAVES US ALL MONEY!!!

    This guy has no clue. Everyone who has a job thinks they a covered. To one day you get laid off, and realize cobra coverage for a young person is still $350/month. Then you get a job that doesn’t provide coverage and you have a family and suddenly the cost of JUST the insurance is $1k/month, and you only bring home $3k. Now you have insurance, but you can’t even afford to go do the doctor. Oops – you got sick and now you hav a pre-existing condition and now the health insurance provider won’t cover you and you can’t get the care you need without going to the emergency room and hoping to get admitted. The ppaca will help with this massive ridiculous problem in the USA. The only developed nation where people simply DIE or resort to drastic measures just to get health care. Lame!!!

    • PatTheRat

      On the one hand you say you don’t think he has that much money. How much money do you think we as a nation has? Here’s a news flash for you, Einstein – there’s a limit to how much credit the United States can obtain, and we’re dangerously close to that limit.

      You’re “friend” has ALWAYS had the ability to go to an ER room and get medical care. Insurance is not required. They are not legally allowed to kick people out! The fool that got arrested for health care (which I doubt – I’ve never seen this allegation proven) did it for a stunt only. There is not a single person in this country that today could not go get health care by simply walking into an ER – with or without insurance.

      But thanks for showing what kind of haters you guys are. The entire world is waking up to you guys and judgment day is coming!

    • Nestor

      So, Sarah, who will be paying the $350 a month for the “young people” and much more for older people in order to have “free health care”?
      The solution to people not paying their healthcare bill is to garnish their income until the debt is paid off, not to have someone else pay for their debts. In many states, wage garnishment occurs already, either for child support or for other court ordered payments.
      That could be used for health debt as well.

    • Kent

      “To one day you get laid off, and realize cobra coverage for a young person is still $350/month. Then you get a job that doesn’t provide coverage and you have a family and suddenly the cost of JUST the insurance is $1k/month, and you only bring home $3k.”

      We can blame that on FDR. Allow me to explain. In the 1930s, wage controls were set in place to prevent companies from actually competing for workers. To get around this, employers created benefits. Prior to this, insurance was reasonably priced and those who could not afford it could work with their doctor or obtain assistance from private groups like the oddfellows. It’s important to note that this was not the case for automobile insurance. So long as insurance was footing the bill, employees didn’t question the multitudes of unnecessary tests or bogus fees. Health insurance was also stuck within the confines of one’s state and was prevented from true competition. Additionally, people expect health insurance to cover basic things like routine check ups. Meanwhile, auto insurance is highly competitive and doesn’t cover routine tune ups. And if you lose your job, you aren’t totally screwed on auto insurance.
      To solve the lack of health care access in this country, we need to address its affordability. Interestingly, the ppAca does little to address the affordability by lowering costs; it merely replaces the source of the money.

    • maldini

      Sorry to hear about your friend. Stroke is an incredibly debilitating condition that does indeed require various services. But as someone that works in primary care I can tell you to look forward to countless more men women and some children unfortunately who are on their way to getting MRI’s, life long anticoagulants, and rehabilitative therapy. The said part is that these individuals did have basic primary care and choose to live a reckless life despite the assistance to reduce those risk factors.

      Let me ask you will Tax payer funded primary care stop them from making choices to destroy their own health? Is it worth driving up medical care costs, less reimbursements for debt ridden physicians, and the inundation of new regulations, policies, and laws so that you can pretend to feel like you made a difference?

      Austin is prescribing a policy of increasing consumer choice by inhibiting the gov’t from pigeonholing us in an expensive and ineffective healthcare system. If people want medical care then they should have affordable care not “free” care.

    • Dane

      According to your argument, there is a need for lower costs and not for passing on the high cost to taxpayers.

    • Slap

      I won’t even attempted to dismantle your rant, I’ll merely point out one thing that discredits your response.
      “$1k/month, and you only bring home $3k. Now you have insurance, but you can’t even afford to go do the doctor. ”
      So you can afford 1k a month, but not $10 for Co-pay huh?

      • dan

        i have one of the best polcies in AMERICA….i have blue cross personal choice…and the cost was so high we had to make some sacrifices…but an er visit was NEVER 10$ copay u simplton….for a family of four to have a policy that included ten dollar copay for er it would cost more like 2grand a month…so your point is moot….his er co pay is prob OVER 100$

  • RickinSF

    This is a man who has never known want in his life.

    • PatTheRat

      You know this how? I love how judgmental liberals are. Once again proving how all liberals are just H8TRS!

  • Corey

    It really irks me how if you are for helping people, through taxes, in order to help society as a whole, you are automatically labeled a mooch, living off the government. All you are thinking about is yourself.

    If you are a libertarian, and you think that taxes are horrible, and everyone should look out for themselves only, that is being patriotic.


    I take nothing from the government in way of welfare (though I did get student loans), but I realize that not everyone is as fortunate as I am. Paying taxes might not be the highlight of my life, but I understand that it is necessary for society to function through infrastructure, public education and police, etc. Sure, there are some people that cheat the system (there are people that cheat at everything), but if I am making sure that food and shelter is available for those that truly need it, I consider it money well spent.

    And not to generalize, but that kid has no idea about the real world, I speculate. It is amazing how some time spent with those truly in need can give people perspective. It is easy to say “No insurance – that’s your problem.” It is quite different to look at the faces of those sick and turned away and say “you didn’t work hard enough to get insurance, so oh well.” I hope one day he is able to get some perspective.

    • maldini

      I think you may be guilty of throwing on some type of preconceived idea of libertarians and trying to make Austin fit that model. You are implying that Austin has no empathy for the people you described as being destitute.

      The difference will be the liberal way of handing out subsidized care which drives up the cost of medical care for everyone, or the conservative/libertarian means of driving down costs so that healthcare though not free will be affordable. That is the difference.

      I’d be very careful before making Austin out to be a villain as one who has no perspective on the plight of the poor. I think there was a wise carpenter from the middle east who used to say remove the plank from your own eye so you can judge rightly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

      • dan

        i keep hearing u libertarians saying universal healthcare drives up cost……do u have any REAL prove that exist in reality? not just hypothetical scenarios or opinion or theories? bcos we have the HIGHEST healthcare cost on the PLANET and countries with “socialized” medicine have the LOWEST healthcare cost on the planet…….care to explain this? that sheer FACT debunks your bull argument about universal healthcare raising cost…and save your quality of care argument for another time…we can debate quality next if you would like…this topic is COST not quality…so lets stick to the subject at hand and dont INTENTIONALLY divert or distort…again ill ask the qestion….if universal healthcare drives up cost,as you say will happen,then why does EVERY SINGLE country with universal healthcare have LOWER healthcare cost then us? and dont tell me why we have high cost,bcos you saying the cost will be EVEN HIGHER then they are now…which means it will cost even MORE…..explain to me why the UK has LOWER healthcare cost then us despite having universal care?

        • Nestor

          Why, DAN? It is called rationing! As Obama said a few years ago, his mother probably wouldn’t have gotten her hip replacement if we had universal healthcare.

          How can you be so immoral to deny a senior citizen a hip replacement that a doctor said was needed?

    • Kent

      If I rob you and give the money to charity it doesn’t make me an altruist. I’m all for helping others. I’m not some sort of Ayn Rand Objectivist. But it isn’t a noble thing to vote for stealing money from your neighbor to give to someone else.

      • dan

        nobody agrees with your definition of stealiong….that is YOUR OPINION of the definition of stealing…and what makes you opinion superior to mine? morality and opinions are subjective….and i dont agree with your brand of either..what makes your version superior to mine?

    • Laffin Dolfin

      It was my thought when he was talking about his family’s business: Congrats to them for having the foresight to plan for such eventualities. Here’s the the thing, you smug prick: not everyone has that luxury. They work for crap wages just make ends meet. I had a conversation with my former boss in the days leading up to the 08 election. He was exhorting us to vote “business-friendly” and used the estate tax as an example. He told me a story of another family-owned business nearby in the same field that had been destroyed (by estate taxes, I guess) when the patriarch died. He said he was lucky that hadn’t happened to him when his dad died. I was thinking, No, your dad was smart enough to plan for the future. Don’t blame the “death tax” for someone’s inability to plan for the eventuality of death.

      One more thing: can we please stop calling these Randist douchebags libertarians? They are just selfish jerks who don’t understand how society works.

    • Frankie

      Taxation is theft first of all, if you choose not to pay the IRS comes to seize your assets and throw you in a cage. Second of all, I don’t like my tax dollars going to rich companies subsidies, bailouts, and WARS. But since I “had the chance to vote” and its “part of living in a civilized society” I am subject to the moral majority that this war is for a good cause or that the corn farmers need the subsidies to produce ethanol!

      You act as though libertarians don’t care about the poor. It is a patently false accusation. The way it worked in America prior to government involvement in healthcare, a person would buy a plan for catastrophic accident or illness and pay out of pocket for routine things like physicals and exams. It was affordable because it was their own money and they could shop around and go to different providers and what not. When someone has a 3rd party paying the full cost, doctors can raise prices and the consumer won’t realize because their co pay is very low.

      There are other reasons it costs so much as well directly as a result of government regulations, the FDA limiting new procedures and medicines despite people wanting to voluntarily accept the risk that a medication may not work. The AMA imposes restrictions on practicing and licensure which is a textbook definition of a rent-seeking entity.

      FDR price and wage controlled in the 40s to try and control inflation as a result of the war debt. Companies still needed to keep and attract talented workers so they lobbied to have health insurance part of their benefit package that was not considered part of the wage thus circumventing the wage control that government implemented. Of course there are other things that raise the price like state mandates forcing providers to have mandatory coverage for certain ailments regardless of the customer’s needs or wants which increase prices on everyone, you can’t buy insurance in other states because of these restrictions and as a result there is no real competition within states to lower costs and keep prices down overall.

      The US had arguably one of the best systems in the world. New breakthroughs would cost a lot , much more than the average citizen could afford, but over time the costs are brought down and becomes affordable for the vast majority of people. Our companies invested in R and D and it paid off as other countries buy our medical tech. Even the socialized countries benefit from our capitalist ventures in medicine as we created an environment to make better products and services. Even the very poor could afford it or charity could help with the cost, there would be a lot less uninsured people and those that were would be taken care of and had been taken care of.

      Look at LASIK surgery, not typically covered by most insurance, yet the prices have steadily declined and doctors are offering it cheaper or with payment plans to gather more customers.

      • fin

        i didnt even read your comment because you started with a fallacy….taxation is not theft nor it is forced..you are CHOOSING to live in a country that has laws,one of which is taxation..u dont have a choice where u are born but u DO have a CHOICE where to live.thus u are CHOOSING to abide by the laws of the land,again one of which is taxation….so anything u said after “taxation is theft ” is invalid because your premis is invalid so anything derived from it is also a fallacy

    • Matt

      NO. It is about us helping each other voluntarily and peacefully instead of through FORCE (violence) of government. Just because we don’t think something should be provided through stealing the product of everyones labor (the def. of slavery) does NOT mean we do not want to provide it to each other. We just need to teach and learn to do it voluntarily on a local level. You don’t have right to chain up a doctor and nurse to take care of you say you want to send the federal govt to take money from everyone’s paychecks to pay for it. Not to mention the host of other negative economic effects of a healthcare mandate.

  • Rene

    Libertarians don’t believe in regulation of businesses yet because the pharmacist wasn’t regulated, his mother died. And yet he doesn’t get that.

    • Aaron

      What the pharmacist did was illegal. The restrictions put on the pharmacist did an excellent job at keeping his mother alive. Regulation was not the point of the story.

    • Jason

      What kind of regulation would ensure that every single pharmacist never messes up (intentionally or not) any possible prescription? How do you think this would affect the the ability of 99.9 percent of the other honest pharmacists to do their job without affecting the cost of service dramatically? Regulation… I hear this word often, I do not think you know what it means.

    • C Welborn

      That would depend on what type of insurance they had as well. Some plans work through networks and only doctors/pharmacies/etc within thier network would be available.

    • Kent

      “Libertarians don’t believe in regulation of businesses”
      Libertarians oppose GOVERNMENT regulation of businesses. Voluntary regulation and accreditation are encouraged as a means for screening out bad products and services.

    • Russ

      Pharmacists are regulated.

    • http://oldmexican.blogspot.com OldMexican

      Re: Rene,

      — Libertarians don’t believe in regulation of businesses yet because the pharmacist wasn’t regulated, his mother died. And yet he doesn’t get that. —

      The pharmacists was regulated. NO pharmacist in the U.S. works without a license unless underground, and there’s no reason to believe the pharmacist from whom his mother obtained the chemo was not regulated.

    • Slap

      Either you’re a teenager, or your mind never advanced out of that time.

  • ed

    ” GOVERNMENT is the Administrative Arm of Societies agreements/Laws.” Government isn’t “Out-There” or “Over There”. Government is each one of us in the citizenry !!!

    • Kent

      You think this is a democracy? When is the last time your vote mattered?

  • Ken Gulley

    Yep, class a jerk – He has a rude awakening in his future – he thinks he’s all that. He thinks he’s justified because he’s louder than the other guy. He does change the subject because he’s out of touch and has no argument. He is a weasel and pathetic – stupidity incarnate. Why this clown even on TV is a mystery to me. My wife’s cat is a better human being than this punk.

    • Aaron

      I feel the same way about Thom Hartmann!

    • Laffin Dolfin

      Walking, talking strawman machine. About what you’d expect from FreedumbWorks. I wish Thom had been more forceful in smacking down his BS about people waiting forever for treatment in countries with socialized medicine. I’ve heard from actual citizens of those countries that it actually works pretty well. They generally like their health care systems. (Hey, nothing’s perfect & people gonna bitch) They especially like the reduced stress from not worrying whether they’ll be covered in case of illness or injury.

      • Daniel Tanure

        I live in a country with socialized medicine and I can attest that is common for patients to die of heart-attacks in the waiting rooms of public hospitals.

  • Emmerich

    I have RSD. I might take Austin up on his offer to pay for my healthcare.

  • Perry

    What a selfish and smarmy moron. I never realized how close libertarianism is to anarchy. They want to reduce government to the bare minimum so they don’t have to pay for anyone but themselves. This would turn the US into a third world country. They can’t think of anything ahead of their noses. Screw them.

    • Cody

      re: the 19th Century.

    • Askmieke

      You have an unalienable natural right to die a natural death of whatever disease or accident happens your way. It would be more in line with Natural rights to arrest the doctor for saving your sorry ass against your will. See how that works, that natural right thing?

      Your trying to make us believe that the guy that gets shot robbing a bank and then holds the Doctor at gunpoint til he removes the bullet is acting out of unselfishness and the Doctor is just being selfish with his hard earned talents.

      People like you are confused with the meaning of words. Probably a liberal college grad or a HS dropout, they both make the same mistakes in logic and reason. You don’t get to redefine words so that they fit into the Constitution. The Constitution protects the Doctor, not the bank robber. It should also protect the child in the womb, but then what does that life matter?

    • Kent

      Libertarianism is based on the premise that you have no right to violate someone else’s rights to life or liberty. By taxing Peter to give to Paul, you are violating Peter’s liberty (as he is no longer free to spend his money as he sees fit). You may disagree with the non-aggression principle, but you should at least be logically sound. That is, you must have a principle guiding the way in which any government ought to be structured.

    • Russ

      “how close libertarianism is to anarchy.” Not necessarily. That is Anarco-Libertarianism. I am libertarian, yet I agree with the moderator in this specific case concerning access to health care.

    • Teflonrron

      You are not entitled to take from one and give to another. The monopoly and corruption is now legalized, imagine that. Instead of different entities competing to have good reputations, giving better and more affordable products, you now have more centralized power. What you support is the antithesis of the vision given by the founders. The right to life is not the “right” to have government “give” you healthcare.

      • https://www.facebook.com/ObliterateTheGop Tommympt

        Yes it is in 2013.

        • Nestor

          Toomympt, why do you feel you are entitled to the fruits of someone else’s labor? Why can’t/won’t you earn enough for yourself?
          If you feel you are entitled to free healthcare, what else do you feel you are entitled to, free food? free housing? free transportation? a free education?

          • https://www.facebook.com/ObliterateTheGop Tommympt

            Everyone has an equal right to life. Wing nuts like you do too.

          • Nestor

            Everyone, tommympy? Obama and most liberals apparently don’t think so.

            Regardless, the right to life does not mean the right to take the fruits of someone else’s labor.

      • http://www.minicatracingusa.com Jim S

        Your belief in what you espouse reveals a heartless and selfish philosophy. Not everyone has the luxury of being able to afford health care. I am happy that my taxes help them! I am appalled at the lack of humanity of the libertarians.

  • rengeko

    smug little a**hole.

    • Mike Myers

      Our Fore Fathers were Libertarians, but the first thing they did was institute a tax to fund the Revolution. I would say most Libertarians are mostly against wasteful taxes and unconditional bull crap. Something we should all be concerned about!

Scroll To Top
website security Website Security Test