homage to the Hummer

[foxpaws]

And in the long run, why would that have been a bad thing?
If a product or company fails, it should be allowed to fail.

I think it had more to do with timing. The economy tanking, huge numbers of people out of work, adding the auto industry could have bankrupted the county. Because if GM failed - Ford was going to follow close behind, in spite of the loans. There wouldn't have been anyone buying American cars had GM and Chrysler both failed at that time.

I think we have around $52,000,000,000.00 borrowed tax dollars tied up in GM right now.
They'll never pay that sum back.
It's unlikely they'll even be able to pay the $6.7B they are responsible for.

I thought they were on a schedule to pay the 6.7 in June.

And the 52 billion is in stock paybacks- right? That might be hard to hit, at least anytime soon - I think GM would have to be worth over 65 billion for that to happen... well, maybe, someday...

However, there are other ways the government sees money from GM - income taxes, payroll taxes, state governments see lots of taxes from GM. Eventually the influx of people that would have been unemployed from GM failing would have been absorbed into the jobs pool-but probably not for many years, decades even. In the meantime we would have been paying unemployment for years, cobra for years, on the unemployed. The land that GM dealerships and factories sit on would be vacant, the property taxes dried up.

BUT THIS CASUAL OP-ED IS NOT ABOUT CARS.
It's about government and the encroachment on our personal liberty.

Probably a bad analogy by Penn - as he even said - he doesn't know cars - and rather obviously, not a lot about the automotive industry. My gosh the man drives a pink mini...

 

[fossten]

Nope - the hummer died a natural death. The market didn't want it any longer, so it died.

Reasserting your point does not prove it.

Your speculation on what I do is rather fun Foss - it is a little like 20 questions isn't it?

Trust me, nobody really cares. But I can see that you love attention.

 

[Calabrio]

Rebadging is silly... but they have all done it for so long.

It worked when the Big-Three were confident they had their little oligarchy. This was the same period where they thought they might even be able to afford the ridiculous agreements made with the UAW.

But, GM is paying back the government,

As best I can tell, they are only paying back $6.7B of the money we've poured into the company. And they are only going to be able to make the payments by using an escrow account that was given to them by the government.

and Chrysler might die anyway.

So why did we invest $33.5 BILLION dollars in that company?

According to the CBO, WE have spent nearly $85B on these auto bailouts and nationalization.

I don't think that includes the $20B that we've spent securing companies like GMAC either.

No personal liberty was taken away via the government when GM shut down the Hummer lines.

That's good, though I think you're mistaken. The Bush CAFE standards and the impending ones clearly influenced the decision making.

However, the point of the article isn't about the hummer.

Don't you think that Penn could have ....

Send him an e-mail and ask.

Why use a false example?

If anyone understood "false examples," it certainly would be you.
But he used it as a way to start a conversation and address a larger point. It doesn't matter whether you think the Government killed the Hummer directly, indirectly, or not.

They are passing aggressive taxes and regulation on the auto industry designed to influence and restrict our behavior. Whether the Hummer was viable economically right now or not, the aggressive CAFE standards, for example, are influencing what cars are going to be designed, built and sold. Government policy is going to be used to shape and limit our market choices.

The falling sales of the Hummer weren't because the government banned them, but in large part because of the spike in fuel costs. MARKET INFLUENCES will dictate the life cycle of a product. When the government, or any nanny-statist, interjects itself in this process, it denies us all of our liberty.

And Penn's long winded, though very simple point (one you refuse to actually recognize) is that this is a bad thing. And we should be alarmed when this happens, even if it's a product or activity that we don't personally enjoy or even understand.

I used the example of bacon-wrapped, deep fried hotdogs.
Penn used the government influence on the auto industry.
The point is valid either way.

You keep mentioning the "glorious" auto bailout and trying to make an emotional appeal defending it by citing the "saving" of the Corvette. What kind of Corvettes are slated for the future?

Does Chevy have any ZR1 on the horizon?
What influence with the EPA and safety requirements have on the yet to be designed C8 Corvettes?

Will it be shaped by market demands, or inhibited and limited by government mandates? Does anyone really "need" a 650hp car? Isn't that wasteful and unsafe?? And how will it comply with the CAFE standards?

 

[fossten]

Then why use a car? Especially why use a car whose demise wasn't caused by the government.

No personal liberty was taken away via the government when GM shut down the Hummer lines. GM made that decision - because of market conditions. Exactly what is suppose to happen in a free market.

Don't you think that Penn could have come up with a real example of the government forcing us not to have a choice in vehicles, instead of having to 'imply' that the Hummer could have been killed by the government.

Why use a false example?

Why don't you just address the argument instead of spewing red herrings all day. I guess you really don't have a good response.

 

[foxpaws]

As best I can tell, they are only paying back $6.7B of the money we've poured into the company. And they are only going to be able to make the payments by using an escrow account that was given to them by the government.

I think the 6.7 is coming from reducing legacy costs... and streamlining...

So why did we invest $33.5 BILLION dollars in that company?

I wonder that as well - why did we save them before?

Once again, I think timing had more to do with the bailouts of the auto companies than anything. Dropping that many people into the unemployment pool, along with the perception that the American auto industry was dying (which would have killed Ford) were big factors. They can't nationalize an industry where we don't have even 50% of the product that is being purchased. The government doesn't want to be in the car business.

The falling sales of the Hummer weren't because the government banned them, but in large part because of the spike in fuel costs. MARKET INFLUENCES will dictate the life cycle of a product.

You keep mentioning the "glorious" auto bailout and trying to make an emotional appeal defending it by citing the "saving" of the Corvette. What kind of Corvettes are slated for the future?

Does Chevy have any ZR1 on the horizon?
What influence with the EPA and safety requirements have on the yet to be designed C8 Corvettes?

You didn't see Sideswipe?

The C7 is being built... looking toward twin turbo'd 6s... with over 450 hp in the stock ol' 2013 vette... more than the 430 in the LS3 right now...

The ZR1 is a supercar now... at a US price... (well, if $100,000 is really an American price tag) It can compete with the big boys - the first time the Corvette can really say that. And, it can almost be exported to Europe, because finally our cars' emission and safety standards are getting close to Europe's. Export - what a concept.

And guess what - in spite of every regulation out there the 2010 Corvette ZR1 is a far superior vehicle than any other Corvette ever built. Faster, more stable, fewer emissions, decent gas mileage. And those innovations work their way into the rest of the line. And then the line becomes more competitive overseas, and faster, safer, less polluting and less gas guzzling here at home.

Will it be shaped by market demands, or inhibited and limited by government mandates? Does anyone really "need" a 650hp car? Isn't that wasteful and unsafe?? And how will it comply with the CAFE standards?

I thought the LS9 only clocked 638 ponies... adding NOS cal? And I believe it gets 26 highway... (an old ugly C4 only got 21 highway)

And yes, if you have driven one, you know you need one.... they are amazing.

And they don't sell enough of them to worry about CAFE on them.

 

[foxpaws]

However, I assume Cal, you would like me to address...

Should we have the freedom to be stupid?

Correct?

 

[Calabrio]

I think the 6.7 is coming from reducing legacy costs... and streamlining...

Do you also think that Santa climbs down the chimney on Christmas Eve?

I wonder that as well - why did we save them before?

Noting that you have consistently defended the auto-take over, I'd expect you to have an answer for that.

Others might conclude that it was done to rescue the failing UAW and it's very active support of Democrat candidates..

The government doesn't want to be in the car business.

It also doesn't want to be in the banking industry.
Or the health care industry.
Or the education industry.....

The C7 is being built...

I said the C8....
The point being cars that aren't already in pipeline.

And look how they are moving towards a V6 to improve the fuel economy already.

 

[Calabrio]

However, I assume Cal, you would like me to address...

Should we have the freedom to be stupid?

Correct?

Maybe Penn should have written his article about buying stupid shoes.

 

[foxpaws]

I said the C8....
The point being cars that aren't already in pipeline.

The C8- finally a midengine 'vette is really on the table...

Aluminum, and yes, woo hooo - world platform!!!!!!

On the table, and will probably roll in 2018...

 

[foxpaws]

Maybe Penn should have written his article about buying stupid shoes.

Do you think he has pink shoes too? Maybe he is a Croc man...

Your right to be stupid ends at my right to not be stupid.

 

[Aquabrit]

The C7 is being built... looking toward twin turbo'd 6s...

Nooo!

I hope that isn't true or they at least keep a V8 option on the table.

 

[Calabrio]

Aluminum, and yes, woo hooo - world platform!!!!!!
On the table, and will probably roll in 2018...

We'll have to wait eight years and see...
the question will be, how much does government influence shape the final design compared to market demands.

If the market prices of fuel continue to rise, the markets would influence the design of the car. If government mandates, taxes, and regulation distort the market or impose regulations, then we all lose.

We lose choice.
We lose liberty.

A small, mid engine corvette with a massively powerful V6 might be a brilliant car, precisely what the public wants. Or it may be the compromise because GM isn't allowed to make a thirsty V8 or V10.

Do you think he has pink shoes too? Maybe he is a Croc man...

That's more of a Mario Batalli kind of look, I think.

Your right to be stupid ends at my right to not be stupid.

Your right to be stupid ends when it DIRECTLY imposes upon my liberty.

Unfortunately, as is so often the case, your individual statements contradict your political support.

If chose to eat 6 bacon wrapped, deep fried hotdogs a day- does that impose upon your rights? If you have a stake in my healthcare costs, they would appear to?

Is the solution to ban the hotdogs or to not socialize the medical system?

Which way maximizes liberty?

 

[foxpaws]

A small, mid engine corvette with a massively powerful V6 might be a brilliant car, precisely what the public wants. Or it may be the compromise because GM isn't allowed to make a thirsty V8 or V10.

GM, in small numbers, is allowed to make V16s if they want...

Just how many V16 Caddies can they sell on the other hand?

Same with any thirsty car - can you afford the gas and will there be enough people to by them? Market driven.

I would love to buy one...

That's more of a Mario Batalli kind of look, I think.

Well, it does take a certain kind of man to wear orange crocs... But Batali makes a mean Beef Cheek Ravioli with Black Truffles and Crushed Duck Liver - check out B&B when you are in Vegas - yummmmmm.......

If chose to eat 6 bacon wrapped, deep fried hotdogs a day- does that impose upon your rights? If you have a stake in my healthcare costs, they would appear to?

So, if you don't have health insurance - I have a direct stake in the fact that if you end up in the emergency room, in cardiac arrest, those doctors will try to save your life, and even give you bypass surgery, and whatever meds you may need, on my dime.

Which way maximizes liberty?

Personal responsibility is what maximizes my liberty, however, eating a diet like you described is not personal responsibility, and if you aren't responsible enough to have health insurance, then why should I be holding the bill because you think it is OK to eat deep fat fried fat?

 

[Calabrio]

GM, in small numbers, is allowed to make V16s if they want...

I'm glad that they are "allowed" to make them in "small numbers."

Just how many V16 Caddies can they sell on the other hand?

That's a market concern, not a regulation concern.
You've confused the two.

However, even if there were massive demand for a V16 Cadillac, you've indicated that they wouldn't be allowed to produce them, do to the regulations, CAFE standards, ect....

So, if you don't have health insurance - I have a direct stake in the fact that if you end up in the emergency room, in cardiac arrest, those doctors will try to save your life, and even give you bypass surgery, and whatever meds you may need, on my dime.

So should they ban the hotdogs, or should I have to show proof of insurance to a police officer or the vendor while attempting to purchase such a hotdog?

Should there be a legal limit on the number of such hotdogs I can buy?
Or should they just ban the sale of said hotdog altogether?

Of course it would just be easier to regulate the deep fried bacon hotdog business out of existence all together though. Make up a silly reason and then make it cost prohibitive to stay in business.

Personal responsibility is what maximizes my liberty, however, eating a diet like you described is not personal responsibility, and if you aren't responsible enough to have health insurance, then why should I be holding the bill because you think it is OK to eat deep fat fried fat?

Exactly, why should you be holding the bill at all?

And with a single payer health care system, what decision in my life will you not be left holding the bill for? What decision can I make that you won't be able to argue an economic responsibility for and then influence or dictate?

Can I take my car to the track? Can I enjoy a drink? Can I have firearms in the house? Can I eat fast food? Where does YOUR involvement, or the government's involvement, in MY life end.

It doesn't.

All of the government expansion into our lives means that there is no longer any insulation from one person's "stupidity" and it's impact upon others.

.

 

[fossten]

This should be noted.

Two full pages and still foxpaws has not yet once addressed liberty.

Wonder why that is...

Again, so much for her being a capitalist.

 

[foxpaws]

I'm glad that they are "allowed" to make them in "small numbers."

That's a market concern, not a regulation concern.
You've confused the two.

However, even if there were massive demand for a V16 Cadillac, you've indicated that they wouldn't be allowed to produce them, do to the regulations, CAFE standards, ect....

They could have built as many as the market would have absorbed. There wasn't the demand, so no building of them.

Remember H2's demise wasn't cause by CAFE - it was cause by market pressures...

I think the only thing CAFE standards have done is caused Detroit to build engines similar to what is being built overseas. You can still chunk a v8 into your mustang - you just get to enjoy a lot better gas mileage than that old '72 Mach I which I think got about 10mpg on premium...

So should they ban the hotdogs, or should I have to show proof of insurance to a police officer or the vendor while attempting to purchase such a hotdog?

Should there be a legal limit on the number of such hotdogs I can buy?
Or should they just ban the sale of said hotdog altogether?

Of course it would just be easier to regulate the deep fried bacon hotdog business out of existence all together though. Make up a silly reason and then make it cost prohibitive to stay in business.

So people who happen to believe the bacon wrapped hot dog diet is what their body demands - what do you think we should do Cal - let them die outside the hospital door?

We pay, whether you like it or not. Do you like paying for their hospital stays? I don't. I am responsible, I eat OK, I exercise, and most importantly - I pay for my health care costs, including health insurance. But I also understand that I won't be leaving those cardiac challenged individuals dying outside the emergency room doors. So, I understand that my taxes go towards that irresponsible individual, who made poor choices, and he will not end up paying for his choices. I will. I pay for his stupidity.

How about people who decide that their lungs can handle 3 packs a day. Fine - let them smoke all they want - but tax the cigarettes and use that tax to pay for their hospital stays, for their lengthy and costly end-of-life hospice bill.

Exactly, why should you be holding the bill at all?

Because health care is such that we don't allow people to die outside the doors.

And with a single payer health care system, what decision in my life will you not be left holding the bill for? What decision can I make that you won't be able to argue an economic responsibility for and then influence or dictate?

Once again - I am not for single payer healthcare... got the wrong person to discuss this with Cal.

Can I take my car to the track? Can I enjoy a drink? Can I have firearms in the house? Can I eat fast food? Where does YOUR involvement, or the government's involvement, in MY life end.

I think it would be great if everyone actually had personal responsibility - they don't. So, when you drink to excess, lose your job and your benefits, continue to drink, crash your car into a 20 year old college girl's car who doesn't have health care insurance, my taxes get to clean up the mess.

Because we won't let them die at the scene.

Do you think we should?

 

[foxpaws]

This should be noted.

Two full pages and still foxpaws has not yet once addressed liberty.

Wonder why that is...

Again, so much for her being a capitalist.

check the bottom of post 38 -

 

[Calabrio]

They could have built as many as the market would have absorbed.

You're deliberately ignoring the point. You specifically used the word "allowed" when describing the V16 Cadillac, and you were right to do so.

Who is it that is "allowing" them to make any car.
Should their product being dictated purely by the market forces, or are they instead being influenced by outside pressures, forces and regulation.

To quote you:
GM, in small numbers, is allowed to make V16s if they want...

This isn't about the Hummer.
And we aren't specifically talking about 1970s era Mustangs.

So people who happen to believe the bacon wrapped hot dog diet is what their body demands - what do you think we should do Cal - let them die outside the hospital door?

We can discuss the alternative available to us provided we lived in a free country. You haven't responded to my question yet.

I think it would be great if everyone actually had personal responsibility - they don't.

And why is that?
How did we survive as a population before the federal government stepped in to save us?

Once again - I am not for single payer healthcare... got the wrong person to discuss this with Cal.

You supported Obamacare and all of us know that it's a direct path to some form of a single-payer, nationalized system.
We can play word games all night, I'm not interested in doing that. You can save your dishonest, duplicitous double speak for someone else.

You continue to fail to address the issues of liberty and freedom, conspicuously and deliberately.
Where does your ability, and the governments ability, to dictate the way I live my life end.
Is it my diet? My past times? What I own?

Using your logic and philosophy, you and the federal government have direct say on EVERY decision I make.
That doesn't sound very free to me. And healthcare is the single issue that can be used to justify ANY invasion into my life.

Can I have a pitbull? Can I own a gun? Can I drive a fast car? Can I eat junk food? Can I go bungee jumping?
To even, are you taking proper care of your children, the government needs to be involved.

And to make it worse, to finance all of this intervention and regulation, the majority of what many of us make is being taken from us.
In doing so, you're making me a slave of the state.


Personally, I'd rather die free than be entitled health care from some benevolent government, but I consider myself an American so that's redundant.

 

[foxpaws]

You're deliberately ignoring the point. You specifically used the word "allowed" when describing the V16 Cadillac, and you were right to do so.

Who is it that is "allowing" them to make any car.
Should their product being dictated purely by the market forces, or are they instead being influenced by outside pressures, forces and regulation.

To quote you:
GM, in small numbers, is allowed to make V16s if they want...

This isn't about the Hummer.
And we aren't specifically talking about 1970s era Mustangs.

Cal - yes 'allowed' as by the government.

Just like the government allows you to have a gun, but doesn't 'allow' you to kill people with it.

We can discuss the alternative available to us provided we lived in a free country. You haven't responded to my question yet.

What question...

And why is that?
How did we survive as a population before the federal government stepped in to save us?

People died. Many, many people died because of lack of medical care because they couldn't afford it.

So, we should return to that - medical care only if you, personally, can afford it. Letting people die outside the hospital's front doors, or in their own bed, if they can't find transportation to the hospital, is OK by you.

You don't answer that question Cal - why not?

You continue to fail to address the issues of liberty and freedom, conspicuously and deliberately.
Where does your ability, and the governments ability, to dictate the way I live my life end.
Is it my diet? My past times? What I own?

Your rights end where my rights begin.

Do you question that Cal?

If you bungie jump into a ravine, and you are stupid enough not to check the length of your bungie cords - my tax dollars will be scraping up the pieces and trying to fit the jigsaw puzzle back together again if you happen to have not bought health insurance, instead you sunk your last dollars into a pit bull breeding farm.

And you can have as many pit bulls as you want - and you can pay for them killing your 3 year old neighbor, after weeks of futile medical care that will need to be paid for by someone, because her family couldn't afford insurance or healthcare.

And to make it worse, to finance all of this intervention and regulation, the majority of what many of us make is being taken from us.
In doing so, you're making me a slave of the state.

So, it is better than I am a slave to your stupidity, then the state force fiscal responsibility onto you? I can vote in and out the 'state'. I have no say in your stupidity.

Because I am a slave to your stupidity right now. And unless you are willing to let people die outside hospital room doors, I will continue to be a slave to their stupidity.

Personally, I'd rather die free than be entitled health care from some benevolent government, but I consider myself an American so that's redundant.

So - fine - would you be willing to say that everyone that 'opts out' of health insurance, and doesn't have the money to pay for it or their own health care be allowed to die - even though the medical community could save them?

 

[Calabrio]

Cal - yes 'allowed' as by the government.
Just like the government allows you to have a gun, but doesn't 'allow' you to kill people with it.

The government "allows" me to have a gun? I thought I had the right to own a firearm. What else does the government "allow" me to do, foxpaws? Does the government "allow" me to practice my religion of choice? Does it "allow" me exercise my free speech? What other rights does the government "allow" me, foxpaws?

Should I thank the government for these generous allowances?

It's interesting, but the way I see it- we ALLOW our government to exist. WE created that government for the purpose of defending those rights that were bestowed upon humankind by the creator.

People died. Many, many people died because of lack of medical care because they couldn't afford it.

And people don't die anymore?
Or will people cease dying of medical problems once the federal government and it's pattern of competency and management assume the responsibility for our care?

Another point, why do you think health care is so expensive right now?
What has resulted the S/D curves to skew in a way that is causing the distortion.
Government.

So, we should return to that - medical care only if you, personally, can afford it. Letting people die outside the hospital's front doors, or in their own bed, if they can't find transportation to the hospital, is OK by you.

You don't answer that question Cal - why not?

Is that really the alternative? No it's not.

You keep providing these dishonest false choices. So unless we abandon our rights and responsibilities to the federal, or national, government, the only other alternative is people dying trapped in their homes or on the front steps of the hospital?

That's simply untrue.

Your rights end where my rights begin.

And there is no end to where each of us begin or end if you and the government continue to interject yourself into every aspect of our lives. There ceases to be a distinction.

And without that distinction, there is no individual liberty.
We wait to find out what we are or are not "allowed" to do.

So, it is better than I am a slave to your stupidity, then the state force responsibility onto you?

Where is the option that represents personal responsibility, personal consequence, and liberty? You always seem to leave out that option out.

So - fine - would you be willing to say that everyone that 'opts out' of health insurance, and doesn't have the money to pay for it or their own health care be allowed to die - even though the medical community could save them?

Another false choice, foxpaws.
Are you going to make it so they aren't allowed to die, especially if that is a consequence of a decision they made rationally?

And is the only, best solution to any perceived problems regarding health care access government control of the entire system and the dissolution of our rights as individuals?

Can I chose to be left alone?
In your world, I can't.

 

[foxpaws]

The government "allows" me to have a gun? I thought I had the right to own a firearm. What else does the government "allow" me to do, foxpaws? Does the government "allow" me to practice my religion of choice? Does it "allow" me exercise my free speech? What other rights does the government "allow" me, foxpaws?

Should I thank the government for these generous allowances?

It's interesting, but the way I see it- we ALLOW our government to exist. WE created that government for the purpose of defending those rights that were bestowed upon humankind by the creator.

You are correct - I stated it poorly. We have rights - and the constitution defines those rights...

Allow was a bad choice of word.

However we have the right to own a gun, we don't have the right to kill people. We have the right to own a car, we don't have the right to have that car pollute and kill others.

And people don't die anymore?
Or will people cease dying of medical problems once the federal government and it's pattern of competency and management assume the responsibility for our care?

Of course they will die - it is just that at some point they may have contributed to the funding of their care.

You keep providing these dishonest false choices. So unless we abandon our rights and responsibilities to the federal, or national, government, the only other alternative is people dying trapped in their homes or on the front steps of the hospital?

That's simply untrue.

We don't have to abandon rights - now you are giving a false choice Cal.

Unless you are willing to let people die outside the hospital doors, then we have a choice. We can pay for their care-or somewhere along the line, they can contribute to their care.

Where is the option that represents personal responsibility, personal consequence, and liberty? You always seem to leave out that option out.

No I haven't-If the country is willing to allow people to die outside hospital doors, that is the option of personal responsibility - isn't it?

Do you think the country will allow that Cal?

You still don't answer my question... the ultimate personal responsibility, the ultimate personal consequence is letting those who have made that choice to die. Even though at the hospital doors, they may change their mind... Oh save me now, will not be an option.

Is that OK with you?

Are you going to make it so they aren't allowed to die, especially if that is a consequence of a decision they made rationally?

And you make it seem like that choice - die/not die isn't there already-it is Cal - ask any Christian Scientist.

However, there are exceptions of course - ask Jack Kevorkian. Assisted suicide seems to be a big taboo still.

So - answer my question Cal - is it OK that we are truly a land of personal responsibility. That person dying on the hospital steps is just a hindrance, and we should be able to just step over them, on our way into the hospital, because we can pay, and they made the choice not to.

 

[fossten]

You are correct - I stated it poorly. We have rights - and the constitution defines those rights...

Allow was a bad choice of word.

No it wasn't, backpedaler. You meant it. Nice try, but you cannot hide your authoritarian nature, fox.

However we have the right to own a gun, we don't have the right to kill people.

Yes we do, if you threaten my life or my family's life, I have the right to put a bullet between your eyes.

We have the right to own a car, we don't have the right to have that car pollute and kill others.

Got examples of car pollution killing people? Didn't think so.

Unless you are willing to let people die outside the hospital doors, then we have a choice. We can pay for their care-or somewhere along the line, they can contribute to their care.

No, because this 'right' to care ends at my right to keep my property. Period.

No I haven't-If the country is willing to allow people to die outside hospital doors, that is the option of personal responsibility - isn't it?

Oh give it a rest with your stupid bleeding heart talking point. It's not the government's right to steal from me. Period.

You still don't answer my question... the ultimate personal responsibility, the ultimate personal consequence is letting those who have made that choice to die. Even though at the hospital doors, they may change their mind... Oh save me now, will not be an option.

Their right to choose ends at my right to keep my property. Period.

However, there are exceptions of course - ask Jack Kevorkian. Assisted suicide seems to be a big taboo still.

Obamacare will federalize this concept as well, don't worry.

So - answer my question Cal - is it OK that we are truly a land of personal responsibility. That person dying on the hospital steps is just a hindrance, and we should be able to just step over them, on our way into the hospital, because we can pay, and they made the choice not to.

America isn't the world's hospital, fox. America is supposed to be a free country. It's not designed to be a nursemaid to those who want a handout.

 

[Calabrio]

You are correct - I stated it poorly. We have rights - and the constitution defines those rights...

That's good to see.
And where do we get those rights from?
Does government grant rights or just protect them?

However we have the right to own a gun, we don't have the right to kill people. We have the right to own a car, we don't have the right to have that car pollute and kill others.

So, let me see if I'm following your logic here.
You're equating selling a car with a V16 engine to shooting people with a gun?

And you're right, we don't have a right to drive an automobile around that spews Zyklon B from the tail pipe. But that has nothing to do with the production of a Hummer or a V16 Cadillac.

And if you really think that the V16 will be killing innocent people, then why is it o.k. to produce a limited number of them?

Of course they will die - it is just that at some point they may have contributed to the funding of their care.

So you just don't want them to die before they can pay down the bill?
You're not making any sense.

We don't have to abandon rights - now you are giving a false choice Cal.

We absolutely do and you've presented that reality very clearly throughout this thread.

Unless you are willing to let people die outside the hospital doors, then we have a choice. We can pay for their care-or somewhere along the line, they can contribute to their care.

Again, you lie when you imply there are no other choices, be they local, church, charity, or friends and family.

Remember Natoma Canfield?
She recently gained national notoriety because President Obama mentioned her during one of his campaign rants selling ObamaCare.

Obama used her as an example as a woman who was going to lose her home due to the cost of her cancer treatment. While uninsured, she collapsed on a farm and was then diagnoses with Leukemia.

Now pay close attention to this, despite being poor- she wasn't left to die at the farm because she couldn't drive her self to hospital. And despite being poor and uninsured, she still received treatment at one of the finest cancer facilities in the world. And she's recovered.

So, your ridiculous, macabre false choice is exposed as a political lie right there.

But Obama decided to use her as one of his political props.
Well, it turns out that, once again, Obama was lying.

She's not going to lose her home.
She qualifies for medical aid from the Cleveland Clinic where she received her treatment. The Cleveland Clinic provided $99 MILLION in charity care in 2008 alone.


And how much less expensive would that health care be if not for the government intervention in the market and the abuses of trail lawyers?

No I haven't-If the country is willing to allow people to die outside hospital doors, that is the option of personal responsibility - isn't it?

Yes, you've refused the option that embraces liberty and personal responsibility... as you always do. And you've demonstrated that AGAIN with this false choice.

Do you think the country will allow that Cal?

No I don't.
I don't think any community, group, or individual would accept.

And in response, we as American's would respond to such a situation with heartfelt and sincere acts of charity and compassion.

But that's not the same as being forced to contribute to an inefficient and liberty stealing federal government.

So - answer my question Cal - is it OK that we are truly a land of personal responsibility. That person dying on the hospital steps is just a hindrance, and we should be able to just step over them, on our way into the hospital, because we can pay, and they made the choice not to.

You can continue to perpetuate this macabre false choice, but I've responded to it, repeatedly in this thread.

If a person asks for help, then it's up to the community and the individuals in that community to provide it. There's a role for charity in the world.

If there is someone who needs help on the steps of the hospital, I can say with confidence that I, Bryan, Fossten, or Shag would reach down, pick the person up, and carry them inside and help out our neighbor.

But that's NOT the same as the federal government commanding me to do so. And that does not give YOU the authority to tell me how I can live, what I will buy, what I can eat, or how I can entertain myself.

The responsibility lies with the individuals, we do not surrender our liberties in an effort to pass that responsibility off on the federal government.

 

[foxpaws]

That's good to see.
And where do we get those rights from?
Does government grant rights or just protect them?

Rights are natural - the government protects them... The government also protects the rights of the few against the many.

So, the V16 Caddy question - we can build them - they follow CAFE and emissions standards - there just wasn't demand.... So, I don't understand the problem. What aren't we being allowed to produce, ala car, that we should be allowed to produce? Pollution spewing vehicles? We have huge V8s... V10s... they are doing fine. I don't think anyone has gone to a Ford dealer and has been told, nope, can't buy a big V8 because our allotment is up... Maybe you have an example Cal.

Again, you lie when you imply there are no other choices, be they local, church, charity, or friends and family.

Those charities aren't viable in our current society Cal - that is why we came up with thing like Medicare and Medicaid. People were dying because they couldn't afford medical care and the traditional societal solutions were fading away (charities). If there wasn't a need, those programs wouldn't have surfaced.

People weren't willing any longer to look after aging relatives. Church populations have dwindled, local means very little to a constantly mobile society.

There are interesting studies on the amount of charitable dollars out there. It is sort of fixed based on overall gdp, I believe in the 2% range. However, as we age, we need more medical care, and more costly medical care - there just isn't the charitable dollars available to cover the fact we get much older, and need more care. There is also the fact that 'mortality' ain't what it used to be. We can save very tiny premmie babies, and we can save people from what used to be life ending medical problems. At huge costs - but we still do it, often on the government's dime. Accidents that use to take lives, now just mean months in the hospital, along with months in rehab - costs that weren't around 100 years ago. Costs that charities aren't able to absorb.

Also, there are more charities that clamor for our donation dollar. 100 years ago - there were almost no charities to help prevent animal abuse, now there are hundreds, all taking dollars from 'human' charities. Plus, now we send far more of our charitable donations overseas then we did in the first half of the 1900s, before medicare and medicaid.

There just isn't enough charitable dollars to make up the difference in the cost of medical care, along with the stretching of the donated dollar across many more charities then there use to be.

Now pay close attention to this, despite being poor- she wasn't left to die at the farm because she couldn't drive her self to hospital. And despite being poor and uninsured, she still received treatment at one of the finest cancer facilities in the world. And she's recovered.

So, your ridiculous, macabre false choice is exposed as a political lie right there.

No, because we paid for her hospitalization. Correct? There may be a chance that she never, ever paid one cent to any sort of medical insurance (I am not sure of her exact situation) so there wasn't any pool of her funds for us to draw on when the time came. Instead, we paid for it, perhaps entirely.

Is that fair? Are my rights being infringed upon here? My money is being spent on someone who may have made a personal choice to never pay into any type of health care plan. Who made the choice not to save a nickel for future health care needs. But, now, I have to pay for her poor choices.

Just like before SS - many people didn't save for their retirement. In the past, families were 'expected' to care for their aging relatives... this society doesn't expect that. So rather than just foist the old on charity, or the government, we now force you to save for retirement.

Do I like this - nope - I am responsible and I save for my retirement, with a far better ROI than SS. But, would I want to support those people who would just decide not to save for retirement if we didn't have SS. Would I want to pay for the fact that while I was saving for retirement, they decided they wanted to go to Vegas and blow their retirement on craps? We would support them, because once again - we wouldn't let an old person starve, or be homeless, but, there wouldn't be enough charitable dollars to spread around. So, at least those people have some pool of money to draw from. They paid something. Without SS they wouldn't have paid a dime, and I would be left supporting them.

She qualifies for medical aid from the Cleveland Clinic where she received her treatment. The Cleveland Clinic provided $99 MILLION in charity care in 2008 alone.

How much did the state and federal government reimburse the Cleveland Clinic in 2008 under medicaid?

And how much less expensive would that health care be if not for the government intervention in the market and the abuses of trail lawyers?

Tons - but do you place a value on something then. A life is worth.... a limb is worth... an eye is worth.... Is that fair?

No I don't.
I don't think any community, group, or individual would accept.

And in response, we as American's would respond to such a situation with heartfelt and sincere acts of charity and compassion.

The largest church charity in the country - Catholic Charities USA even acknowledges that we have to have Medicaid - they understand the safety net that Medicaid provides, that charity can no longer handle...

If a person asks for help, then it's up to the community and the individuals in that community to provide it. There's a role for charity in the world.

And if there isn't charity, which believe me Cal, there won't be enough money to help, we let them die, if we don't have government assistance.

If there is someone who needs help on the steps of the hospital, I can say with confidence that I, Bryan, Fossten, or Shag would reach down, pick the person up, and carry them inside and help out our neighbor.

And you would pay their 1/2 million dollar medical bill - correct?

The responsibility lies with the individuals, we do not surrender our liberties in an effort to pass that responsibility off on the federal government.

If we were responsible Cal - that would work. I however live in a 'real' world where I know we aren't 'responsible'. Whether we have brought it on ourselves, or whether our society has evolved to this point, I don't know.

We won't give large amounts to charity - that day has passed. We aren't involved enough in our community, our church, our family. Societal evolution?

 

[Calabrio]

Rights are natural - the government protects them... The government also protects the rights of the few against the many.

Yes, that's called the tyranny of the majority.
That's why our government was set up as a representative republic and NOT a direct democracy.

However, people that you have aligned yourself with have historically worked to undermine that critical distinction.

What aren't we being allowed to produce, ala car, that we should be allowed to produce?

Just like this thread was never really about the hummer, it's not specifically about the V16 that YOU introduced to the conversation. It's interesting and incredible telling to watch you now try to frantically try to reframe this subject.

Pollution spewing vehicles... Maybe you have an example Cal.

And I do. For the sake of this discussion, you seem to have forgotten your quote in post #46

we don't have the right to have that car pollute and kill others.

Those charities aren't viable in our current society Cal - that is why we came up with thing like Medicare and Medicaid.

First of all, you claim is completely with a basis in truth.
They were huge expansions of power and authority by the federal government implement under the corrupt LBJ administration. It has nothing to do with the "viability of charity" in this country.

But expansions of power and responsibility like this DO undermine a person's sense of social responsibility and charity.

People weren't willing any longer to look after aging relatives. Church populations have dwindled, local means very little to a constantly mobile society.

This was simply not true, but the expansion of federal responsibility often LEADS to these things.

There just isn't enough charitable dollars to make up the difference in the cost of medical care, along with the stretching of the donated dollar across many more charities then there use to be.

There aren't enough dollars left for the charity, but there are enough dollars available for us to pay the taxes necessary to finance the bureaucracy that then redistributes what's left of those dollars to pay for the healthcare?

Do you realize how ridiculous what you just said is.

If the individual wasn't subject to having their earnings seized by the federal government, there'd be more money available for people to donate and spend as THEY felt appropriate.

No, because we paid for her hospitalization. Correct?

Incorrect. She was neither insured or enrolled by Medicaid at the time of her collapse.

Is that fair? Are my rights being infringed upon here? My money is being spent on someone who may have made a personal choice to never pay into any type of health care plan. Who made the choice not to save a nickel for future health care needs. But, now, I have to pay for her poor choices.

I don't think you should be forced to pay for her choices at all.
You're the authoritarian who supports forced redistribution of wealth, not me.

Just like before SS - many people didn't save for their retirement. In the past, families were 'expected' to care for their aging relatives... this society doesn't expect that.

Before social security, family members were expected to take care of each other. And now, they don't. Now, people are comfortable expecting "society" and the government to assume that responsibility.

And with that, people feel as though they are absolved of the personal responsibility that they previously had passing off their families to the state. This weakens the family and strengthens the government.

You say that the society doesn't "expect" that responsibility, but you fail to note that the expectation has been taught. It's the result of bad, unsustainable federal policy.

we now force you to save for retirement.

...you force me to save for retirement. And the federal government is granted that power WHERE in the constitution? You tell me. It's not a very long document, you should be able to find it if it exists. It's not like the Obamacare bill..

Well, first of all, you have no right to force me to prepare for anything. But more importantly, social security IS NOT a retirement program. It was sold as an insurance program INCASE you outlived you're money, you'd have some ability to subside. That's not the case anymore.

Furthermore, because the life expectancy is so much higher now, people on SSI take out much, much more than they ever put in.

And lastly, it's a vote buying, dependency creating, government expanding, liberty stealing pyramid scheme.

Do I like this - nope - I am responsible and I save for my retirement, with a far better ROI than SS. But, would I want to support those people who would just decide not to save for retirement if we didn't have SS.

But you are.
Just in an incredibly inefficient, wealth destroying, liberty stealing, government empowering way.

How much did the state and federal government reimburse the Cleveland Clinic in 2008 under medicaid?

According to the article, she wasn't enrolled in medicaid.
But again, nice try.

The largest church charity in the country - Catholic Charities USA even acknowledges that we have to have Medicaid - they understand the safety net that Medicaid provides, that charity can no longer handle...

1. United Way
2. Salvation Army
3. Feed the Children
4. American Cancer Society
5. Gifts in Kind International
6. AmeriCares
7. YMCAs in the United States
8. American National Red Cross

These charities are all larger than the Catholic Charities USA.
And the CCUSA is extremely "liberal" in their political and lobbying activities. They endorse Medicare and Medicaid, but they also endorse Comprehensive Immigration Reform, they endorse the Medical Reform, and other hard left, socially liberal, big government policies.

Here's an interesting story, Catholic Charities’ affiliate faces possible legal charges for helping teenager obtain abortion.

So this is a group with a clear, political agenda, and I don't accept them as a valid authority on this issue.

And if there isn't charity, which believe me Cal, there won't be enough money to help, we let them die, if we don't have government assistance.

And when the federal government runs out of money, will you deny the death panels?

And you would pay their 1/2 million dollar medical bill - correct?

So who's paying it when the government picks up the tab?

If we were responsible Cal - that would work. I however live in a 'real' world where I know we aren't 'responsible'. Whether we have brought it on ourselves, or whether our society has evolved to this point, I don't know.

Why do you presume we are not responsible?
And if our broader culture is no longer responsible, what do you think that is in response to? What do you think would be the contributing factor taking a culture that was define for it's rugged independence and self-reliance to one that you think is dependent upon the government to support them through forced redistribution of wealth?

We won't give large amounts to charity - that day has passed.

You're talking about your liberal friends.
Big spenders like Barrack Obama, who despite earning about $5.5 MILLION dollars last year, only donated $329,000 to charity. About 6%. Of course, that's only now that he's a highly public figure, for most of the last decade, he and Michelle rarely donated more than 1% of their income.

Vice-President Biden donated just $4,820 last year.

We aren't involved enough in our community, our church, our family. Societal evolution?

That's not societal evolution, it's the consequence of abandoning our obligations and a culture turning it's responsibilities over to the federal government.

And the statistics verify this. Conservatives donate a considerably higher percentage of their incomes to charity than do liberals. Why? Perhaps it's a greater sense of responsibility, maybe it's because they feel they have an obligation to do so because of religion.

However, those that support big government, progressives like Obama and Biden often donate very little. They have passed that direct social responsibility off upon the federal government to handle, and they often have a contempt for private or church charity.

And that contempt is demon stated by the policies they pass:
Obama's Plan to Reduce Charitable Deductions for the Wealthy

In summary, your arguments are nonsense.