New York City

[Age]

The Commie Strategy

Make people dependent (attached), then cut them off for awhile to make them sweat. Throw in a ration of abuse such as clever new taxes, then turn on the love to make everything okay, to teach the proles how the supply chain really works in the land of class warfare.

It’s the Commie strategy of pimping, grooming, and centralized totalitarian control.

As with the looting of other people’s stuff and the literal enslaving of other people's productive life-force in the land of Freedumb, government distribution of goods will eventually run out, as the folks who knew what was happening either left town or if they waited too long, buried their gold and guns.

It’s the way of the world, as Einstein knew.

Folks are still digging up old Roman gold in England because someone way back when was trying to protect what they had. Human nature knows better than to give what you have to someone who wants to destroy your way of life that generated what was traded for the gold.

But, some, still, vote in 'those' who end up controlling, and/or destroying, their way of lives.

[Age]

Not at all. I'm an advocate for the poor, who are being robbed by the rich and privileged. And I'm in favour of charity and community efforts of all kinds. I just realize that government is an inept vehicle. And I marvel that you're content to let your money be drained off by government, and thus to do no worldly good for anybody.

If you think it helps people when you let them be robbed, or if you think government is a marvel of good use of funds, I don't know what to say to you.

Where's all this 'stealing'?

It's coming from you and me, through taxation.

Yes, and "your" money ends up feeding those who make weapons, medicines, and media outlets, to name a few, and so that 'robbed money' gets wasted on 'those' who are already monetary rich.

Did you not ever notice how many taxes the government "buries" so that you won't be conscious of how much money they're taking from you?

Did you recognize and notice that when it was put forward, to you, that money could be spend on health and education for those with less money, that you very quickly jumped to asking, 'Who is going to pay for it? Will you?'

you have absolutely no concern nor care when taxes are spent on weapon manufacturing, excessive amounts of drugs, enforcement and punishment, and on already excessively rich and greedy 'mates', but, as soon as some mentions helping those in need with just health and education you quickly question, 'Who is going to pay for it?'

LOL "immanuel can", then you turn all of this around, and start saying the most Truly absurd and ridiculous things to take the 'light' off of 'you', and your True worries.

They have layers of taxes on everything.

And, in some countries relatively nothing of those taxes goes to helping those 'less fortunate'.

Which is, exactly, what you want and like, "immanuel can". you, obviously, can not successfully ridicule, humiliate, and judge 'those' who are on an equal standing, with you.

you like and want some who are 'less than' you, so you can keep your judgemental views and superiority complex alive, and well.

That's how it ends up that people lose 35-45% or higher of their gross income,

Yes, which then gets absolutely wasted on things like weapons manufacturing, protection of politicians and the monetary rich, the family and friends of them, and on enforcement, control, and punishment of 'others'.

and don't know why they can't afford groceries, a home, or braces for the kids' teeth.

If they do not know why, then they are more stupid then those who believe God has a penis.

And most of this is taken not for services, but for the bureaucracies that "manage" these departments, for regulatory bodies and for other purposes from which the average person receives no value, but the bureaucrats and politicians do...like hiring more bureaucrats.

So, why did you question who is going to pay for things like education and health for those who are less 'fortunate'?

Was it, really, not yet obvious, to you?

Our governments are so corrupt that a comedy like "Yes, Minister" has become not only possible but resonant with UK culture. And the side-show in the US of shutting down government bodies that were funding trans-surgeries in Guatemala, or terrorists' poppy fields in Afghanistan, or DEI theatre in Ireland, or providing free stuff to drug lords and child traffickers...well, that has exposed just how insane government abuse of the tax system has become.

Exactly like the money getting spent on enforcement, laws, punishment, military, and weapons creation is farcical, as well.

There's no accountability at all.

Was there ever?

Since when have "kings", "queens", or "republican leaders" ever had to explain why they have 'chosen' to spend 'the money' in 'the way' that they do, which you adult human beings have 'voluntarily' 'given them'?

Now, all that being the case, it's not easy to say how to solve healthcare. It's very expensive.

For a country that just prints money, or just adds more numbers onto a computer screen, out of all the possible scenarios of what is expensive healthcare would best be the one of least concern, followed very closely by education.

The technology is expensive, and the people who are trained to do it have to have extensive education,

Which, obviously, they "themselves" have to pay for.

and they do a very important and demanding job. They deserve compensation for that, or they simply will do something else instead.

As can be very clearly seen, here, the adults human beings, in the days when this was being written, really did put their 'love of money' over everything else.

And people need essential services like healthcare. But it serves neither the system nor the patient if most of the revenue the government takes in gets wasted, and if the taxation drains the national economy and bankrupts people.

But, education and healing human beings is not 'wasted money'. Propping up the already monetary rich, creating weapons, and paying for protection is Truly a waste of money.

What we need is a better solution: something like, perhaps, affordable health insurance, but insurance the dispersal of which remains in the choice of the patient, not in the clutches of government. One thing for sure: what we're doing isn't working well enough -- it's too expensive and not long-term sustainable, and some new strategy needs a try.

That strategy would be to stop fighting among "yourselves", then you can absolutely get rid of all the money that gets wasted on weapons, ammunition, armies and military and weapons transportation. And, that 'left over money' would be more than enough to heal, feed, house, and educate 'the world', probably many times over.

people like you "immanuel can" just have your priorities absolutely backwards.

[Age]

Paid for by whom?

The community

That's you and me. Are they going to ask us how much we want to give, or are they just going to take it while we're not looking?

Do they ask you 'now'? Or, are they just take it, now, anyway?

[Age]

That's you and me. Are they going to ask us how much we want to give, or are they just going to take it while we're not looking?

Do you get to approve how much is taken for roads, police, fire, education, military?

No. I get to make sure that the government doesn't get to steal.

LOL See how 'this one' believes that when money is used for education and healing those with less money is, so-called, 'stealing'. But, when money is used in 'the protection' of people like it, then that is called acceptable.

The priorities some adult human beings had, back when this was being written, was Truly back to front.

[Age]

No. I get to make sure that the government doesn't get to steal.

I have no idea what that means. And I'm sure that I'm not the only one.

"Stealing" means "taking money that doesn't belong to them, without permission." I would have thought that was pretty simple.

But, how is this related to 'the money' that you 'give them'.

Obviously you just see that when 'the money' you 'give' is used for the betterment of those that you consider to be 'less than' you, then this is 'stealing', to you.

But, when money is used to protect and/or prop up those that you consider to be equal or 'more than', then this is not 'stealing', to you.

[Age]

Look, I live in a small New England town (township) where we still govern ourselves.

That's great. But most people in Western polities are not you. And the Federal government that presides over your state and local governments has been caught red-handed sending billions out for stupid projects that have nothing whatsoever to do with your good or the good of your countrymen, such as trans-surgeries for Guatemalans and free lunches for Hamas.

Once again what 'we' can clearly seen, here, is another prime example of people will just believe absolutely any thing, without even beginning to consider obtain actual clarification. As long as 'it' aligns with a previously held belief, then 'they' will believe 'it' is true, and right.

Wouldn't you rather they did something with your money that benefitted the world?

Yes, like spend it on manufacturing more weapons and more medicines, right?

[Age]

I didn't have to. One can "steal" for either, or for nothing at all...which is more often the case.


Yeah, I did. But not to you, at this particular moment.

Keep the government small, so it can only justify taking the minimum for what it is allowed to do. And, of course, keep it accountable to the people.

Ah, some hand waving generalities.

No, that's specific, actually. You can make constitutional laws to limit the scope of government. And you can install DOGE-like consumer-advocates to make sure the money goes where it's supposed to go. That much is very doable.

Where is 'the money' supposed to go to, exactly?

[Age]

Blah blah blah... It's only 'stealing' when it's for something 'I' don't approve of.

That's a misquote, of course.

I always know I've won an argument

Imagine, still, thinking or believing that 'arguments' can be lost, or won?

[Age]

That's great. But most people in Western polities are not you. And the Federal government that presides over your state and local governments has been caught red-handed sending billions out for stupid projects that have nothing whatsoever to do with your good or the good of your countrymen, such as trans-surgeries for Guatemalans and free lunches for Hamas.

Wouldn't you rather they did something with your money that benefitted the world?

IC, ----- these people in Washington, the members of the House of Representatives, the Senators, even the President.
Did YOU not get to vote for your choice for the ones that represent you.

I'm not American. I can't help you with that.

Maybe those other people have different ideas about where their tax money should be spent.

You're missing the point.

I don't have any opinion about where they spend their money. If they want to donate it to bureaucrats and ideologues, they can. I think they'd be stupid to do it, but it's not my job to tell them how to waste their hard earned funds. I simply expect the same courtesy...not to have them, or the government, stick their hands in my pocket and tell me what they're going to do with my money.

LOL you might 'expect' this, yet you, still, 'give' them money, and then you allow them to do with it what they want.

That could not be fairer. Surprisingly, that's not what Socialists want to do. They don't want to spend their own money on these inefficient projects; they want the power to demand that everybody else ("the community") should be forced to do so. And that's tyranny.

Surely you can see that many of us here have very different ideas about "what would benefit the world?.

Benefit the world any way you see fit, with the funds you have. Absolutely. I'll go to the wall for your right to do so. But you can't stick your hand in others' pockets. That's not fair. That's tyranny.

Who are you even 'arguing' with, or against, here, "immanuel can"?

[Walker]

Who are you even 'arguing' with, or against, here, "immanuel can"?

I think IC is refuting the Commie mantra.
There’s no need for me to prove that.
You must take my word that is what I think, in order to proceed.
The previous sentence requires no explanation.

Take a leap.
What do you think?

The Commie Mantra:
From each according to his ability.
To each according to his need.

Q: Who determines your abilities, and needs?
A: Not you. Not God. The Party does. How does that make you feel?

What is an individualistic, God-fearing person supposed to do in such an inner-conflict causing situation?

[Walker]

Imagine, still, thinking or believing that 'arguments' can be lost, or won?

That's what an oxymoronic attorney would say.

[Gary Childress]

Shouldn't everyone have health care?

Paid for by whom?

Maybe some of those who are paying billions to fund the military or police departments or to pay for juicy government contracts for Elon Musk's companies could pay for health care? Is there something wrong with everyone having health care?

[Walker]

Tell it to Obama.
It's his health care program.
Obama is a Democrat.
Every Democrat voted for the Obama plan.
The USA is following the Obama plan.
How's that working out?

And the big question is, why would those who broke it, have a say in fixing it?
Especially when their opposition was elected into power?
Stupid doesn't fix stupid.

It just doesn't make any sense, but that doesn't stop the Democrats from subverting the will of the people all over the duly elected authorities.

[Gary Childress]

Tell it to Obama.
It's his health care program.
Obama is a Democrat.
Every Democrat voted for the Obama plan.
The USA is following the Obama plan.
How's that working out?

And the big question is, why would those who broke it, have a say in fixing it?
Especially when their opposition was elected into power?
Stupid doesn't fix stupid.

It just doesn't make any sense, but that doesn't stop the Democrats from subverting the will of the people all over the duly elected authorities.

I'm not talking about Obama. I'm talking about healthcare subsidies for those who otherwise couldn't afford health care. Do you have anything to say about that?

[Walker]

Righto. You're talking about Obamacare, aka the Affordable Care Act, rammed through Congress solely by the Democrats, without deliberation. It was the mystery legislation. The Speaker of the House, Naughty Nancy, infamously smirked that we'll just have to pass it to see what's in it. You know, there was a big rush before the mid-terms to ram that crap through.

Now, the USA is experiencing the consequences of that legislation in the problems that are perceived in the current state of Healthcare. The legislated deadlines, are rearing their ugly heads. The piper is calling for his due.

It took long enough for Obama to retire to Hawaii, no worries on that shoreline.

Simple cause and effect.

Obama endorsed Mamdani, btw. Mamdani is the new mayor of NYC.

Got it? Those are the parameters.