Ableton Forum

it seems like there are two running trains of thought, one group of people wants it to exist and another group of people doesn't want it to exist. Isn't the united states large enough for both groups to have what they want? why not let people and business who want to enroll in obamacare enroll and be subject to the internal market that only those enlisted in the program have access too, and let the people and businesses that don't want obamacare do their own thing especially since that is what they want right. If I'm not mistaken they judge obamacare like forced subsidizing and as far as subsidizing goes they don't support that tax payer money subsidizes emergency rooms either right. so why doesn't the government just create a 'non-healthcare' system for those people who don't want obamacare or emergency care to be subsidized by taxpayer money, and let the people who enlist in obamacare to indulge in that program and emergency care subsidized by only other people who believe in that practice?

I'm trying to learn about healthcare right now and the going sure is slow

The problem is that the group who wants it to exist want to impose it on the group who doesn't want it. That's the whole point of socialism—you can't opt out. This is why the astute observer will note that freedom and socialism are incompatible. To espouse socialism is to condemn freedom, and vice versa.

I'm sure that starving child would have been proud to know that his death at least served your political agenda.

That's nice.

Questions:

1. Who is the child?
2. Which country was he from?
3. How did capitalism starve him?

Or did you just take some random photo and stick a label on it?

Funk N. Furter wrote:Freedom...capitalist style:

If those people are so poor, what are they doing having children in the first place?

Bean Machine wrote:If those people are so poor, what are they doing having children in the first place?

The only people who can be held accountable for anything are faceless corporations. Haven't you learnt anything?

Galt wrote:

Bean Machine wrote:If those people are so poor, what are they doing having children in the first place?

The only people who can be held accountable for anything are faceless corporations. Haven't you learnt anything?

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20 ... g-it/?_r=0

earthloop wrote: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20 ... g-it/?_r=0

From your link: "According to the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, sales of Atlas Shrugged hit an all-time high last year, and have “almost tripled” in the first seven weeks of 2009 against last year."

This is clearly fabricated data. Everybody knows that the 2008 crash triggered renewed interest in MARX, not RAND.


Also from your link: John Galt is the copper-haired, white-boy protagonist in Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged.

This is racist.

Galt wrote:

earthloop wrote: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20 ... g-it/?_r=0

From your link: "According to the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, sales of Atlas Shrugged hit an all-time high last year, and have “almost tripled” in the first seven weeks of 2009 against last year."

This is clearly fabricated data. Everybody knows that the 2008 crash triggered renewed interest in MARX, not RAND.


Also from your link: John Galt is the copper-haired, white-boy protagonist in Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged.

This is racist.

Good luck getting me banned

I was interested in your choice of the I.D. 'Galt'. That was the first link that was interesting. Just thought I would see how you reacted.

Atlas Shrugged is actually a good book. Far too long, but good.

The point Rand makes is simple: People who have no mojo will always trying to parasite off those who do. There's nothing revolutionary, or even controversial about this claim, yet her work has become associated with the most eccentric, fringe right. This says a hell of a lot about modern society, if you ask me. Which you kinda did. Kinda.

Galt wrote:Atlas Shrugged is actually a good book. Far too long, but good.

The point Rand makes is simple: People who have no mojo will always trying to parasite off those who do. There's nothing revolutionary, or even controversial about this claim, yet her work has become associated with the most eccentric, fringe right. This says a hell of a lot about modern society, if you ask me. Which you kinda did. Kinda.

One thing I find consistently annoying about this whole perspective is how it doesn't align with the statistics.
There is a less than 5% migration of class generationally, and far more likelihood of going down in wages as opposed to your parents. So while the argument that the 5% who do move class are hard workers may be true, the whole line that the upper class is somehow filled with these types is provably false. Most people are born into the class they inhabit, that isn't up for debate. So defining the poor as parasites is a bullshit excuse at best. The fact is we have a caste system with little real movement class wise, and not a single class of working people who are lazy parasites, this country on average works 50 hours a week.

Of the people I know and have known in my lifetime, almost to a single person those who have succeeded are from the middle or upper class, with massive amounts of help from their families, good heavily tax funded schools in good neighborhoods, and inheritances. Those from the working class are struggling to make ends meet and were devastated by the mortgage crisis etc.

The argument is bullshit and not at all true, in a total economic meltdown the working class would make mincemeat of the upper crust, simply because we know how to survive without money.

Mostly though this line of thinking has destroyed the middle class, which has always had a tenuous at best grip on it's finances.

On topic, Obamacare sucks because it's made every concession imaginable to the overtly propped up, over paid medical industry. We already have been paying their ridiculously overpriced wages with massive tax breaks for every person who cannot pay a massive medical bill, this has inflated artificially the cost of medical care in the USA, and the republicans are simply pets of a greedy pampered industry that needs to lose some profit margins, period! but under Obamacare rules it's not happening, they will keep their inflated prices and we all pay.

When France pays half what we pay for medicare for full coverage of every citizen it's not hard to figure out that we are being fleeced currently, even before Obamacare has rolled out.

Galt wrote:Atlas Shrugged is actually a good book. Far too long, but good.

The point Rand makes is simple: People who have no mojo will always trying to parasite off those who do. There's nothing revolutionary, or even controversial about this claim, yet her work has become associated with the most eccentric, fringe right. This says a hell of a lot about modern society, if you ask me. Which you kinda did. Kinda.

The problem with this, above, is that claims of mojoism are usually self-proclamations. For instance, Rand laments the parasitic nature of the mojo-less. Simply put, she is basically claiming that the mojoes are getting ass-eaten by the mojo-less. How much mojo could someone really have if they are getting ass-eaten? I'll let you in on the answer: Absolutely zero mojo. You know what has mojo? Horror frogs. They break their own legs and grow claws. That is mojo.

Machinesworking wrote: One thing I find consistently annoying about this whole perspective is how it doesn't align with the statistics.
There is a less than 5% migration of class generationally, and far more likelihood of going down in wages as opposed to your parents. So while the argument that the 5% who do move class are hard workers may be true, the whole line that the upper class is somehow filled with these types is provably false. Most people are born into the class they inhabit, that isn't up for debate. So defining the poor as parasites is a bullshit excuse at best. The fact is we have a caste system with little real movement class wise, and not a single class of working people who are lazy parasites, this country on average works 50 hours a week.

Of the people I know and have known in my lifetime, almost to a single person those who have succeeded are from the middle or upper class, with massive amounts of help from their families, good heavily tax funded schools in good neighborhoods, and inheritances. Those from the working class are struggling to make ends meet and were devastated by the mortgage crisis etc.

The argument is bullshit and not at all true, in a total economic meltdown the working class would make mincemeat of the upper crust, simply because we know how to survive without money.

Mostly though this line of thinking has destroyed the middle class, which has always had a tenuous at best grip on it's finances.

Like Funken, you seem to be confusing Marx and Rand. Unlike the bearded tyrant, Rand never mentions class—her goal is not to incite hatred between imagined competing groups. Rather, her point is, as I said, that the few of us who are actually able and willing to do a good job end up supporting the remaining majority of talentless leeches. And this happens at all levels of society, from quarry workers to factory workers, to artists to industrialists.

Here's a quick test to help identify if you're a parasite or a Galt: Do you support Obamacare?

scott nathaniel wrote:The problem with this, above, is that claims of mojoism are usually self-proclamations. For instance, Rand laments the parasitic nature of the mojo-less. Simply put, she is basically claiming that the mojoes are getting ass-eaten by the mojo-less. How much mojo could someone really have if they are getting ass-eaten? I'll let you in on the answer: Absolutely zero mojo. You know what has mojo? Horror frogs. They break their own legs and grow claws. That is mojo.

This is a good post.