• Please be aware we've switched the forums to their own URL. (again) You'll find the new website address to be www.steelernationforum.com Thanks
  • Please clear your private messages. Your inbox is close to being full.

Healthcare in America was just declared a right

So Joe Bob is one of those mechanics who went to private school, or is he a product of public education, and the most expensive kind of public education - vo-tech?

That's an interesting premise. So Trog doesn't think? Trog is suggesting that Joe Bob needs to pay taxes as an adult to pay for the public education he once received when he was living at home with his parents, the same parents that also paid taxes into the system for Joe Bob's public education? Is that double jeopardy or double dipping, the way you view it?

What if everyone was like Joe Bob and decided not to have kids? Wouldn't society come to a miserable end within a half-century or so?

What if little green aliens loved fried eggs with a side of horse ****? There will never be a time where "everyone" decides not to procreate. However, in my immediate family, my double cousin decided to never have kids. He just doesn't want them. He pays taxes for public schools (so did his parents for the schooling he received). And my Aunt never wanted and never had kids herself, despite being married.

News flash Trog, people exist that don't want to procreate. And they do pay taxes for a service they will never use.
 
Please point out where I said to defund public education? I'm waiting....tick...tick...tick...

I did say that taxing people for services they will NEVER use is theft. It is. It's like Washington D.C. residents paying federal taxes and having no Federal representation. That's why it's on their license plates.

And the only redress for that is to defund education. So now the people who claim they don't want kids don't have to pay. But what if they decide later to have kids, well now they pay. But what about all the years they didn't have kids, who pays for the education system then? What you are proposing is economically infeasible. You would bankrupt the system overnight.


Oh, I'm absolutely sure I've forgotten more about how Government and Business works than you've learned to date.

I used to be able to go and buy insurance policies that fit my needs - adjust my deductibles based upon my finances and preferences. Now? Even though my wife and I are done with child-making, we still have to pay for maternity services. And I for gynecology exams. Why? Because Big Daddy Government needs to dip into my pocket, charge me for services I'll never use, so they can pay for the services that the stay-at-home-pot-smoking-never-gonna-work mom needs but can't afford cuz baby momma don't and won't work.

And boom goes the dynamite. You want to bankrupt the infrastructure because it also provides services to poor people, and of course, **** the poor people. Meanwhile, you're in a car accident and your wallet is burned. But you're left to die on the road because no one can call an ambulance to help you because your insurance credentials can't be verified. What you are proposing is pragmatically infeasible. The system has to work for everybody.

Roads. Lets say that only people who pay for roads can drive on them. If you're poor, and you can't use the roads, how can you travel for work to become not poor? It's silly to deny people access to infrastructure because they can't pay. It's just as silly to deny infrastructure access to revenue because people who can pay don't feel like it. You're an American. Do your duty, and stop whining.

As for education, we could go down the massive rat-hole about Government run v private run education, and school vouchers and the like. The fact remains, taxing people who don't have and never will have children for public schools is theft, just like it is theft to charge me for needing a pap smear.

We can tax smokers for their habits, we can tax alcoholics for their liquor. We can certainly tax those that draw from the service they use. There are a thousand ways (again a rat hole) from privatizing education (which would only improve it) to taxes based on enrollment (like property taxes when you buy a car). Oh, there's ways. Plenty.

We shouldn't be taxing smokers or alcohol at any rate higher than other products. Sin taxes are one of the great blights on a free economy. We CAN charge higher co-pays to people who have health problems associated with smoking and drinking so that they themselves are paying for their fun. But we shouldn't be using taxes to tell people in a free market what products the can and cannot buy. If you knew the first damn thing about Libertarianism, you'd have know that already.

People like you don't care if the system breaks. You want what you want, and **** everyone else. "Taxation is theft" and all that silly ****. But then you make arbitrary exceptions like the police and military because you like those things, even if you never use them once. You have no sense of duty or responsibility to your nation. You want to take from her, but give nothing in return.
 
News flash Trog, people exist that don't want to procreate. And they do pay taxes for a service they will never use.

So when they're elderly, they won't need someone else's kid to take care of them? They'll use one of those services where other elderly childless people take care of them?
 
So when they're elderly, they won't need someone else's kid to take care of them? They'll use one of those services where other elderly childless people take care of them?

Just keep on backin' it up bro. How 'bout defending that Joe Bob ought to pay taxes to pay for the education his parents paid taxes for already. Then come back to the dance.
 
And the only redress for that is to defund education.

Negative. This is incorrect.

You want to bankrupt the infrastructure because it also provides services to poor people, and of course, **** the poor people.

Alinsky. You have no idea what I want. You believed I was a bigot and a racist. You actually stated it. You've yet to rebut my defense of those baseless, heinous claims. And yet...here you go again, assuming you know what I want and think.

I want a system that works. This one does not. It is progressively worsening and creating an increasing number of dependents. There are ways to fix it. They will be painful. Or we can keep on the path we are going. And face a worse pain in the future.

People like you don't care if the system breaks. You want what you want, and **** everyone else. "Taxation is theft" and all that silly ****. But then you make arbitrary exceptions like the police and military because you like those things, even if you never use them once. You have no sense of duty or responsibility to your nation. You want to take from her, but give nothing in return.

Once again, YOU show your True Colors Steel. See above. PS...I've not made arbitrary exceptions for the police and military. You confuse yourself so badly you don't recall who you're blasting your insults at over and over in the thread.

I give plenty in return. We've covered that. I've shown you pictures of what I give. And I've asked you 10 times since to tell us what you do in life to make a difference. And you remain eerily silent. That should be "predictably" silent Steel.

When you start making a difference and giving, you can try to accuse me of taking.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/LPn0KFlbqX8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
Tim is pretty much spot on. Taxation for legitimate government functions is a necessary evil, taxation for the purpose of featherbedding government jobs and vote buying is beyond inexcusable.

The only thing I would add is the reality of school taxes now is that they tax everyone now not to provide education to all students but to support huge bloated bureaucracy in the school systems.
 
Reading through all the Democrat rhetoric that has been spewed in this thread, it seems everyone just wants to Make America Great Again.
 
Just keep on backin' it up bro. How 'bout defending that Joe Bob ought to pay taxes to pay for the education his parents paid taxes for already. Then come back to the dance.

Backing it up? All I've done is argue the importance and relevance educating children has on the FUTURE.

What you don't get is that children are a resource. You seem to think they are merely a personal possession that only serve the interest of their parents.

By your logic, childless people shouldn't be eligible for social security and Medicare because they didn't produce anyone to fund it while they receive the services.
 
Backing it up? All I've done is argue the importance and relevance educating children has on the FUTURE.

What you don't get is that children are a resource. You seem to think they are merely a personal possession that only serve the interest of their parents.

By your logic, childless people shouldn't be eligible for social security and Medicare because they didn't produce anyone to fund it while they receive the services.

The value of public education as an investment in our future is becoming uncertain. Witness some of the retarded posts in this thread, like yours.
 
All I've done is argue the importance and relevance educating children has on the FUTURE.

Actually, you've not argued that with me at all. That's the first you've even intimated at that thought in direct discussion with me.

What you don't get is that children are a resource.

Could you defend that statement? Point to where I've said this? Clearly you know what I think, being as omniscient as you are.


You seem to think they are merely a personal possession that only serve the interest of their parents.

Nor have I said this...

By your logic, childless people shouldn't be eligible for social security and Medicare because they didn't produce anyone to fund it while they receive the services.

...and he's stepped right off the reservation. By your logic, a person's parents need to pay education taxes for their children, AND that child, when grown, needs to pay taxes again for the same education his parents once paid taxes for. Now you want to pawn off this false logic about SS and Medicare as being mine? LOL. No my logic is not hinting at the parallel you've presented for SS & Medicare. However, it's obvious that the rational and sane would prefer my logic over yours (I mean, who wants to be double taxed for a service received save you?)
 
Last edited:
Even elfie and Elizabeth Warren?
 
Well, all the Indians are drunk and high on peyote and hallucinating that they had traveled back in time to the 19th century.

You do realize that if only people with children in the school system paid school taxes there would still be a huge pool of money for public education right? What there wouldn't be money for is things like The county that I live in to have 10 assistant superintendents all with a staff of 3 to 10 people. Or in the case of the county where my ex-wife lives in where my son goes to school for the school board to have a $10 million slush fund while asking for an increase in the sales tax to fund schools.
 
You do realize that if only people with children in the school system paid school taxes there would still be a huge pool of money for public education right? What there wouldn't be money for is things like The county that I live in to have 10 assistant superintendents all with a staff of 3 to 10 people. Or in the case of the county where my ex-wife lives in where my son goes to school for the school board to have a $10 million slush fund while asking for an increase in the sales tax to fund schools.

This is just dumb ****.

Infrastructure cannot be paid for piecemeal. It's not a buffet, where you pick and choose what services you want to pay for. There is NO WAY TO MAKE THAT WORK. Even if it were justified, and it isn't, it's pragmatically infeasible. Our tax system is already labyrinthine. Now you want to add ANOTHER massive layer of deductions and accounting?
 
This is just dumb ****.

Infrastructure cannot be paid for piecemeal. It's not a buffet, where you pick and choose what services you want to pay for. There is NO WAY TO MAKE THAT WORK. Even if it were justified, and it isn't, it's pragmatically infeasible. Our tax system is already labyrinthine. Now you want to add ANOTHER massive layer of deductions and accounting?

You mean the way we already do things with vehicle registration? You have a child registered in school in the state? OK that'll be $350 for the school year. That seems awfully simple to me. Of course that means the Pols have to actually spend that money on education rather than mingling it with the general fund and doing whatever they feel like with it.
 
You mean the way we already do things with vehicle registration? You have a child registered in school in the state? OK that'll be $350 for the school year. That seems awfully simple to me. Of course that means the Pols have to actually spend that money on education rather than mingling it with the general fund and doing whatever they feel like with it.

or, if you claim a dependent who attends public school on your income taxes, then you get to pay for their education.
 
or, if you claim a dependent who attends public school on your income taxes, then you get to pay for their education.

Would you two please stop being so damned logical and making this simple? Steel keeps telling you, you cannot fund OTHER infrastructure unless you tax EVERYONE for education. That's how things work boys! Stop citing real examples that work of taxpayers only being taxed on things they utilize.
 
You do realize that if only people with children in the school system paid school taxes there would still be a huge pool of money for public education right? What there wouldn't be money for is things like The county that I live in to have 10 assistant superintendents all with a staff of 3 to 10 people. Or in the case of the county where my ex-wife lives in where my son goes to school for the school board to have a $10 million slush fund while asking for an increase in the sales tax to fund schools.

I won't argue that there is not all kinds of waste and bloated compensation in public schools. I DO live in Allegheny County after all.

I'm arguing against the premise that the only people who benefit from the education of children are them and their parents and thus public school taxes should be levied accordingly.
 
wait - so people in their 60s, nearing retirement, but still working, still pay into the system for public education, even though their children have likely graduated high school?
 
You mean the way we already do things with vehicle registration? You have a child registered in school in the state? OK that'll be $350 for the school year. That seems awfully simple to me. Of course that means the Pols have to actually spend that money on education rather than mingling it with the general fund and doing whatever they feel like with it.

Would $350 fund someone's education for the school year or you just using it as a throwaway number. What amount would it take if the schools and districts had less legal mandates above and beyond education and trimmed down the administration.
 
Your beyond help if you don't understand how all of society benefits if its citizens are properly educated.
Economy more robust, crime down, welfare down, society more civil, etc....
 
wait - so people in their 60s, nearing retirement, but still working, still pay into the system for public education, even though their children have likely graduated high school?

In PA, if you own property, you pay for public schools. I suppose if you rent, you still pay indirectly.
 
Your beyond help if you don't understand how all of society benefits if its citizens are properly educated.
Economy more robust, crime down, welfare down, society more civil, etc....

No we get the benefit of an educated populace. We reject the need to tax childless 20 somethings and octogenarians for educating other people's children.
 
Would $350 fund someone's education for the school year or you just using it as a throwaway number. What amount would it take if the schools and districts had less legal mandates above and beyond education and trimmed down the administration.

That was just a number I used as an example. I would love to see the state schools reject the "Federal" money and tell the US DeptED to pack sand.
 
No we get the benefit of an educated populace. We reject the need to tax childless 20 somethings and octogenarians for educating other people's children.

The WE includes the 20 somethings and octogenarians. What you are arguing is that some of the people who benefit should not pay taxes.
 
Top