O/T: Knee Jerk

[HeyBub]

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

In my view, it's pitiful that an employer has to pay $56/hour to a worker AND put up signs that say "Do not put finger in the saw."

[HeyBub]

Uh, yeah...

[Tim Daneliuk]

I read what you wrote, no more. You opined that people don't like being slotted becayse it makes them resentful - this in the context of a nationalized healthcare debate. What I said is the logical conclusion of all the above...

Healthcare is no more a right than owning a home, buying a car, or owning a flatscreen TV. Insisting that your neighbors pay for it is no different than forcing them to pay your mortgage. In this case "neighbors" mostly means younger people picking up the tab for older people. The young people mostly don't need insurance but will be forced to do so under any government mandated plan - it's the only way to pickup the tab for the elders that don't want to spend their own money on healthcare. There simply are not enough wealthy people to fleece to pay for it all. Sadly, almost every liberal I know - including the relatively smart ones - cannot or will not do math and thus believes you can legislate magic into existence in the face of all economic reality. Wait until you see every 18 year old having to both sign up for the draft AND buy insurance they don't need. You'll see a level of "resentment" that will curl your hair ...

[Tim Daneliuk]

There is a big leap of faith here in your statement that is baldly wrong. The proposals of the left do not "save the environment", "increase workplace safety", "provide a living wage", or any such other thing. They are nothing more than cheap political theatrics to buy votes from the sub-literate moochers exemplified by ACORN and its minions. The honest way to accomplish this is to reform tort laws to do two things:

1) Make silly law suits punishingly expensive for the attorneys bringing.

2) Make it easier for the average person to bring suit when there is a legitimate claim for things like poor workplace safety.

These two things are very difficult to get right simultaneously, but at least it is remotely possible. There is NO hope of using law to legislate these charming little experiments in social engineering fairly. Every single one of the things you cite benefits some people to the detriment of other, except in principle, environmental laws. The problem with those is that the government always gets them wrong - go look at what's happening in the San Joachin valley today for an example of what happens when the lunatic left pantheists are put in charge of the EPA.

[Luigi Zanasi]

I just want it on the record that I am quite happy that Upscale can benefit from the taxes I pay to support universal health care, and that I actually would not mind all that much to pay more if it improved my fellow citizen's access to health care.

He is in no way stealing from me, no more than anyone who benefits from a program that we the people, in our wisdom or lack thereof, have voted in favour of through our duly elected representatives.

[Luigi Zanasi]

[Tim Daneliuk]

How about the likely millions of your fellow citizens that do not share your eleemosynary spirit? It's one thing to volunteer to help - most all of us have done that in one way or another in our lives. It's quite another to be forced to do so by law.

Thought Experiment: Assume there was no national healthcare in your nation. Would you willingly send part of your paycheck to people you do not know, are not in your circle of family and/or friends, and otherwise strangers? I say the answer based on the charitable giving in the US and Canuckistan is a resounding *YES*. People DO like caring for others. Upscale and others that share his worldview act as if in the absence of government force there would no help available at all. It's utterly false. In actual fact, when people have more money in their pocket, they give more to charity. The real reason that charity-at-the-point-of-a-gun is so popular is twofold:

- There bulk of the citizenry gets more out of social mooching programs than they put in. They've been taught that taking something that is not yours is wrong unless they take from people that are rich. Since there are way more poor- and middle-class people than wealthy ones, mooching almost always manages to pass. The current US debate on healthcare is not a mooching vs. no-mooching debate. It is a debate about *what kind* of mooching and whether or not the existing moochers will win or lose in the proposed changes.

- The political creatures love mooching programs because they can: A) Buy votes with them and B) Attempt social engineering that suits them.

All in all, social programs are an unholy mess. I applaud your willingness to help your fellow man. I share that with you. What I do not share is a willingness to have some malignant politician decide for me just who should get what I've worked for and how much. I want to make that kind of call for myself...

[Tom Watson]

You are a selfish bastard.

Since you cannot be trusted to be otherwise, we ensure that you are forced to contribute to the common good.

If I had my way, I'd send your sorry ass back to Russia.

Regards,

Tom Watson

[Robatoy]

[HeyBub]

You overlook:

• The Community Redevelopment Act which made it easy for anyone, even those without a job, to own a home.

• The "Cash for Clunkers" program to help some to buy a car.

I understand "A TV in Every Pot Act" is being drafted.

Your government at work.

[Tim Daneliuk]

I am neither.

As all good mobs with pitchforks do ...

They wouldn't have me - I'm not from there.

[Tim Daneliuk]

Hey, did you ever try that cure I suggested? It would really help you ...

[krw]

In this case, theory and practice are the same.

Find another. No one is owed a living, or anything else.

Crap. I'm 57 and just started a new job a year ago, after retiring once.

Any more strawmen you'd like to enlist in your dreams?

[Robatoy]

[keithw86]

you added is most refreshing.

[Tim Daneliuk]

'Certainly one of the most coherent and thoughtful of his postings ...

[Jack Stein]

I'm waiting for a Granite Countertop in every Kitchen Act. And the rip off prices they charge and obscene profits they make for this rock today is pure greed. I'm thinking no more than $5 a square foot would be more reasonable than the $100+ the greedy capitalist pigs charge now.

[keithw86]

Don't forget to add Granite installers to Tim Geitner's list of government controlled incomes.