It appears you have not yet registered with our community. To register please click here.

Origin XT RPG Network Home

(R) Wins Massachusetts


Jan 20 2010, 01:23 PM (Post #1)
I Love Jingy
* * * * * * * * *
Posts: 11,212
Cash: 2,142,701,519 / 2,147,483,647
Group: Cabinet Member
Joined: 11/30/04 08:44 PM
Scott Brown ® just took over for Kennedy. First Republican Senator in nearly 30 years.

That makes 57 D, 1 I, 1 ID, and 41 R. R can now break the filibuster. And Brown is against Obama's healthcare. I am pleased.
Post Options

3 Pages < 1 2 3 > 
Jan 22 2010, 05:42 AM (Post #16)
Lieutenant
* * * * *
Posts: 894
Cash: -4,376 / 3,952
Group: Citizen
Joined: 12/18/07 07:25 AM
QUOTE (Albert @ Jan 21 2010, 11:13 PM)
I might make enough money to pay for my own healthcare, but I'm not going to get sick from someone who can't afford it.  I'll pay the extra dollar for more butter than see this country waste more on guns in wars we don't need to fight.
*



Agree on the wars part.

But, you may want to pay for more butter/someone else's healthcare; that's called charity.

Just because you are willing to, where is the right to force anyone else to pay?
Post Options

Jan 22 2010, 04:26 PM (Post #17)
Not Odd anymore
* * * * * * * * * *
Posts: 45,875
Cash: 1,915,578 / 1,817,041,051
Group: Administrator
Joined: 7/10/02 09:48 PM
QUOTE (Jodi Gajadar @ Jan 21 2010, 09:42 PM)
Agree on the wars part.

But, you may want to pay for more butter/someone else's healthcare; that's called charity.

Just because you are willing to, where is the right to force anyone else to pay?
*


The concept is similar to any other public good, although arguably not as intense. Think of roads for example, specifically the interstate highway system. I find it useful, and you find it useful, but I'm not going to pay for it if it's voluntary. Sometimes things of collective good need to be paid for collectively.

Think also of pollution. Arguably we're "paying" a little in terms of horsepower, cost of gasoline and cars/etc by having an EPA that enforces strict emissions guidelines. But that cost is negligible compared to the cleaner air we breathe. Compare US air to Chinese air. Yea, I hate going back there for that simple reason: The air sucks.
Post Options

Jan 22 2010, 05:42 PM (Post #18)
Colonel
* * * * * *
Posts: 2,579
Cash: 46,264 / 266,023
Group: Nobility
Joined: 12/14/05 03:32 PM
I think that infant survival rate and life expectancy are the measures of a good health care system. Canada has about the same, a little better, than us, in those two things, and spend half the money. What's the deal?
Post Options

Jan 22 2010, 08:58 PM (Post #19)
Lieutenant
* * * * *
Posts: 894
Cash: -4,376 / 3,952
Group: Citizen
Joined: 12/18/07 07:25 AM
QUOTE (Jinghao @ Jan 22 2010, 11:26 AM)
The concept is similar to any other public good, although arguably not as intense. Think of roads for example, specifically the interstate highway system. I find it useful, and you find it useful, but I'm not going to pay for it if it's voluntary. Sometimes things of collective good need to be paid for collectively.

Think also of pollution. Arguably we're "paying" a little in terms of horsepower, cost of gasoline and cars/etc by having an EPA that enforces strict emissions guidelines. But that cost is negligible compared to the cleaner air we breathe. Compare US air to Chinese air. Yea, I hate going back there for that simple reason: The air sucks.
*



Toll roads.

Pollution is different, we aren't all paying collectively to prevent pollution. Those who choose to operate machinery or participate in activities with the potential of polluting are regulated accordingly so as not to do harm to others or the general environment by their pollution.
Post Options

Jan 24 2010, 10:46 PM (Post #20)
General
* * * * * * *
Posts: 4,937
Cash: 29,817,448 / 68,857,771
Group: Representative
Joined: 11/26/02 02:31 AM
The people of Massachusetts elected their governor because they felt he would serve them best in federal politics. They're in a lot better shape than the rest of the country; I don't blame them for not wanting to use their income for other states. Maybe I'll move to Mass., and fight to keep the republicans in power there.
Post Options

Jan 25 2010, 02:07 AM (Post #21)
Lieutenant
* * * * *
Posts: 894
Cash: -4,376 / 3,952
Group: Citizen
Joined: 12/18/07 07:25 AM
QUOTE (Pikajew @ Jan 24 2010, 05:46 PM)
Maybe I'll move to Mass., and fight to keep the republicans in power there.
*



Not a bad idea.
Post Options

Jan 25 2010, 04:17 AM (Post #22)
Here for the cute boys ;)
* * * * * * * * *
Posts: 16,853
Cash: 9,337,572 / 95,912
Group: Nobility
Joined: 5/08/05 04:11 AM
QUOTE (Pikajew @ Jan 24 2010, 03:46 PM)
The people of Massachusetts elected their governor because they felt he would serve them best in federal politics. They're in a lot better shape than the rest of the country; I don't blame them for not wanting to use their income for other states. Maybe I'll move to Mass., and fight to keep the republicans in power there.
*


And I will cancel you out by going there too.
Post Options

Jan 25 2010, 11:00 AM (Post #23)
I Love Jingy
* * * * * * * * *
Posts: 11,212
Cash: 2,142,701,519 / 2,147,483,647
Group: Cabinet Member
Joined: 11/30/04 08:44 PM
QUOTE (Albert @ Jan 24 2010, 11:17 PM)
And I will cancel you out by going there too.
*



Which demonstrates my voting strategy. Assuming you vote for one of the two main parties, find someone who supports the other one. Then you both stay home. It has the same net effect as you both voting. (Assuming winner-take-all state)

Granted, Al will feel more at home in MA.
Post Options

Jan 25 2010, 05:09 PM (Post #24)
Not Odd anymore
* * * * * * * * * *
Posts: 45,875
Cash: 1,915,578 / 1,817,041,051
Group: Administrator
Joined: 7/10/02 09:48 PM
QUOTE (AWESOM-O @ Jan 25 2010, 03:00 AM)
Which demonstrates my voting strategy. Assuming you vote for one of the two main parties, find someone who supports the other one. Then you both stay home. It has the same net effect as you both voting. (Assuming winner-take-all state)

Granted, Al will feel more at home in MA.
*


Or... just stay a green card holder and not worry about voting since my vote is negligible?
Post Options

Jan 25 2010, 05:27 PM (Post #25)
Commander in Chief
* * * * * * * *
Posts: 5,699
Cash: 2,145,476,571 / 2,147,483,647
Group: Representative
Joined: 12/23/06 04:45 AM
QUOTE (Jinghao @ Jan 25 2010, 12:09 PM)
Or... just stay a green card holder and not worry about voting since my vote is negligible?
*


Aside from the green card thing, that's generally my outlook.

But just for Al, I'll try Massachusetts as well.
Post Options

Jan 25 2010, 10:50 PM (Post #26)
Lieutenant
* * * * *
Posts: 894
Cash: -4,376 / 3,952
Group: Citizen
Joined: 12/18/07 07:25 AM
QUOTE (AWESOM-O @ Jan 25 2010, 06:00 AM)
Which demonstrates my voting strategy. Assuming you vote for one of the two main parties, find someone who supports the other one. Then you both stay home. It has the same net effect as you both voting. (Assuming winner-take-all state)

Granted, Al will feel more at home in MA.
*



You can always vote third party or write-in to make a point, instead of subjecting to the two-party-only system.
Post Options

Jan 25 2010, 11:37 PM (Post #27)
Colonel
* * * * * *
Posts: 2,579
Cash: 46,264 / 266,023
Group: Nobility
Joined: 12/14/05 03:32 PM
QUOTE (Jodi Gajadar @ Jan 22 2010, 08:58 PM)
Toll roads.

Pollution is different, we aren't all paying collectively to prevent pollution. Those who choose to operate machinery or participate in activities with the potential of polluting are regulated accordingly so as not to do harm to others or the general environment by their pollution.
*




That's not really true. Every tax on buisiness eventually trickles down to being on the people buying the service. When it really comes down to it, middle and lower class pay all the taxes. Anything that the government provides is where that offsets.
Post Options

Jan 26 2010, 12:10 AM (Post #28)
Lieutenant
* * * * *
Posts: 894
Cash: -4,376 / 3,952
Group: Citizen
Joined: 12/18/07 07:25 AM
QUOTE (Key's rat @ Jan 25 2010, 06:37 PM)
That's not really true.  Every tax on buisiness eventually trickles down to being on the people buying the service. 
*



Of course, but pollution from production or distribution or whatever, is part of a service or product. It would be absurd to absolutely disregard pollution or waste from the costs of production or delivery of a product or service.

And who said taxes anyway? Arbitrary taxes only increase costs and keep pollution the same. Governments can regulate pollution; that doesn't mean simply taxing polluters.
Post Options

Jan 26 2010, 12:12 AM (Post #29)
Commander in Chief
* * * * * * * *
Posts: 5,699
Cash: 2,145,476,571 / 2,147,483,647
Group: Representative
Joined: 12/23/06 04:45 AM
QUOTE (Key's rat @ Jan 25 2010, 06:37 PM)
That's not really true.  Every tax on buisiness eventually trickles down to being on the people buying the service.  When it really comes down to it, middle and lower class pay all the taxes.  Anything that the government provides is where that offsets.
*


I don't see where you're going with this. Isn't this kinda like saying your taxes trickle down to your boss? It's more of a cycle, money doesn't just "start" with anyone (maybe except the government. Plus no one forces you to buy stuff from businesses...yet.
Post Options

Jan 26 2010, 12:32 AM (Post #30)
Colonel
* * * * * *
Posts: 2,579
Cash: 46,264 / 266,023
Group: Nobility
Joined: 12/14/05 03:32 PM
I meant with anything that the government does that costs anyone any money, it trickles down to middle and lower class. See, they make laws stating that only so much polution can be generated at a given factory, and then that company will need to spend money to comply. Then, they pass along that as increases in the price. If that happens to be in something like an electric generator, I would assume most people will be forced to pay it. So, in exchange for cleaner air, the people who buy the electric pay. It's not free, to anyone involved.

He said we wern't paying collectively. I disagreed. That's where I was going with that.

So, it's just as unethical, if it is unethical at all, to have polution control laws as to have a health care system, using tax money. Either way, some people will pay more than they benefit for. As a chain smoker, I don't benefit from cleaner air, in any way I care about. Why should I pay for it? Is that fair?
Post Options

3 Pages < 1 2 3 >