U.S. Approves Free Birth Control For Women

Photo: Ceridwen (CC)

Photo: Ceridwen (CC)

It’s a good time to be a woman. Via Reuters:

U.S. health insurance companies must offer women free birth control and other preventive health care services under Obama administration rules released on Monday, a historic decision supported by family planning groups and opposed by conservative groups.

The rules from the Health and Human Services Department are part of the nation’s healthcare overhaul and largely follow recommendations from an advisory group released last month.

The U.S. Institute of Medicine (IOM) report, commissioned by the Obama administration, recommended that all U.S.-approved birth control methods — including the “morning-after pill,” taken shortly after intercourse to stop a pregnancy — be added to the list of preventive health services.

[Continues at Reuters]

, , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Anonymous

    This is some bullshit. Ain’t nothing free world. Another addition to the overburdened, misused insurance system. Expect costs and premiums to rise. Insurance is supposed to be for big expenses not checkups and fucking birthcontrol. Obama you star-eyed moron I can’t wait for 2012.

  • Anonymous

    This is some bullshit. Ain’t nothing free world. Another addition to the overburdened, misused insurance system. Expect costs and premiums to rise. Insurance is supposed to be for big expenses not checkups and fucking birthcontrol. Obama you star-eyed moron I can’t wait for 2012.

    • jasonpaulhayes

      Unwanted Water-Headed Babies cost more than Birth Control. Also, Checkups help to prevent “big expenses” as you so eloquently put it. Its called Health Maintenance and no its not free … it’s Tax Money well spent to help control the huge problem that is unwanted children, to help keep people healthy and able bodied so as not to burden anyone more than they already do.

      Wise Up!

      • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

        Well clearly the problem with unwanted children is people not wanting them… durr (as a conservative might say)

    • chinagreenelvis

      Shut the living fuck up.

    • Hadrian999

      so it’s some unholy commie abomination that people ever ever get to actually use the insurance they pay an arm and leg monthly for? oh and that 2012 thing, have you seen the retards that are in the running for the nomination, i doubt he will be losing that election

      • Common Sense

        you don’t use car insurance to get your oil changed

        • Hadrian999

          my car insurance is also only a couple of hundred bucks a year

          • emperorreagan

            And part of that premium is to cover people who don’t have car insurance.

            Which is why I also don’t have a problem with states mandating car insurance as a term of owning/operating a car. It reduces my share of the cost of uninsured drivers by pushing coverage rates higher.

        • emperorreagan

          It doesn’t cost anyone else a penny if you ruin your engine.  Doesn’t even cost your insurance company anything.We all pay the hospital bills for people who have children, but can’t afford it.  We all pay the bills for kids that are dumped in shelters and foster care.  We pay those bills both through taxes as well as through the rates hospitals charge being passed on to customers who can afford to pay.I’d rather have the lower cost passed on through my insurance than the higher costs of providing for more kids.

          • Common Sense

            here’s a simple solution: use a fucking condom. And if chose not to despite your television, the public school system, PSAs, and your own common sense, well… tough shit!

          • Common Sense

            The public sector seems to have the terms “government programs” and “charity” awfully confused and we’re seeing the results of that in Washington right now. There’s no money, this welfare state is broke

          • Mysophobe

            That’s our country’s biggest problem, welfare? Someone out there sure wants you to believe that. They live in gated communities with private security and fully understand that desperate people do desperate things (crime), but they just don’t give a shit. Ask yourself, who has the power to crash our economy? Who has the power to create prosperity? The weak and powerless, or the wealthy and powerful? If the “job creators” have failed us after all the corporate welfare we’ve given them the past decade, the government has to step in and help some folks or chaos ensues. Surely you realize that.

            .

          • Common Sense

            you have failed yourself coming to rely on the government. live within your means people. all i ever hear is class envy and blame the rich blame the. While some have earned their fortunes through exploitation and illegal means, many many have not, but have earned their fortunes through hard work and making the right investments. Don’t fall for the myth that the playing field isn’t fair. I literally know people who couldn’t read in high school that now are making six figures in the private sector through starting their own businesses.

          • DeepCough

            I’ll say it again: stupid Teabagger.

          • Common Sense

            ouch ooo it burns ouch, lol being conservative is a cross to bear living in New York. trust me, name-calling and labeling is nothing to me

          • Jin The Ninja

            that’s good to hear you take that particular social “burden” so well….
            >.>

          • DeepCough

            That’s the problem with you conservatives: you prefer to carry the cross instead of using it for anything useful.

          • Mysophobe

            The people you are carrying water for have a boot on your neck and you don’t even realize it. You seem like a younger person and thus you may not understand the gravity of the situation, but let me assure you that this is not the way it has always been. Tax rates have been at historic lows for a decade, and what few important business and financial regulations that still exist are poorly enforced. If ever in our history your conservative utopia should have emerged, it’s now. So, where is it? Oh wait, I forgot. It’s all these damned poor people holding us back!

          • Common Sense

            i’m not looking for a utopia

          • Jin The Ninja

            neither are most of us, just a green and blue world with air and water and community.

          • Mysophobe

            Fair enough, nor do I want a socialist utopia. Our most prosperous times were a result of healthy debate from all political persuasions. Despite what you may believe, the progressive voice in America has been ignored for the most part, and the socialist voice is virtually non-existent. If one disregards party affiliation, most policy debate in Congress is between the far-right and center-right positions. Like it or not, it’s conservative policies that got us here. I don’t necessarily endorse the hostility you have received here, but i definitely understand it. This is the end-game of unregulated capitalism, whereby it consumes itself. Economists have predicted it for decades, hence the need for strong regulation and resistance of corporate influence in Washington. Now we’ve crossed the rubicon. It’s gonna be painful, but probably for the best in the long run.

          • Andrew

            The playing field is fair! And sugar plums and lollipops and rainbows covered with cherry-flavored hookers! 

          • Common Sense

            nice, i’ll give you props here

          • Tuna Ghost

            wait, you don’t get to admit that and then just move on like it isn’t important.  The playing field isn’t level.  This is very, very important, because too much of the country acts like it is.  “Poor people are poor because they don’t want to work!” and “Blacks whine too much about racism, its really not a problem anymore!” are things I hear from far too many people.  And not just rednecks, I hear it from elected officials!  This is fucking shameful, and it needs to be addressed.  

          • Mr Willow

            While some have earned their fortunes through exploitation and illegal means, many many have not,

            That is the problem, right there! Are you prepared to strip the fortunes of those that acquired them illegally or through exploitation? Or are you going to react as every other conservative in the country: Oh, well?

            I can’t help but think of the title Atlas Shrugged. Who cares that people have been forced out of their homes, work in demoralising conditions, are now dead because of this worship of the almighty dollar. So what, people are rich, and if people are not rich it is not because some CEO wanted to continue to hoard his wealth so he laid off an entire factory, it is not because of the continued automation that simultaneously forces people out of work, it’s the evil government telling them that they cannot operate their factories as if they were sweatshops, that they have to install ventilation in their mines, that they have to actually consider the fleshy machinery that makes the accumulation of all their wealth possible are living, breathing individuals who have families to support, that get sick, that get injured as a result of shoddy and sub-standard workplace conditions. 

            Do you know what happens when there is a ‘free-market’, when your precious private industries are allowed to employ whatever means to earn a profit?

            A catastrophe in the form of a near global economic meltdown!!

            I could tell you not to fall for the myth that the free-market operates through competition and innovation, but that would be wasted effort because you obviously have not been paying attention to what has been happening to the glorious ‘free-market’. We are supposed to believe all these different organisations are working against one another in healthy competition, but in reality if one large company does not like the competition they simply buy the other company. That is how we have ended up with six media companies, some of which also hold ownership over car companies, insurance companies, energy companies, and weapons companies. 

            And none of this consolidation ever leads to innovation, it leads to laziness and blandness. There are never any risks taken, which is why all the cars look essentially the same, why all the movies consist of remakes and sequels, and why half the technology we possess is five years behind any other first world nation. Other areas of the world have internet speed twice that of the US. Take a look at the tech Japan has: robotics, holograms, and GPS in their phones damn near a decade before any consumer in the US thought it was possible. 

            With the shrinking of the number of companies on all levels—technology, energy, communications—the quality of the product steadily decreases. Remember when Cingular was acquired by AT&T? Cingular’s network was fantastic, and AT&T scrapped it. Now we fall into the predicament of having too few people with too much money and influence that no one can even approach them. 

            The playing field is not fair, people are dying, and your apologetics are nothing but spit upon the graves.

          • Jin The Ninja

            that was an epic and most excellent response!

            very much liked.

          • commonsense– ain’t.

            spot on.

            what freemarketzmyazzholes fail to grok is that by its very nature a free market canNOT remain free–  every player on that field will exert every effort to tilt that field to their own advantage . . . if only to prevent that advantage from accruing to their competition.
            or did you skip the Sherman Anti Trust Act in HS?

            so, once the myth of freemarketzmyazz is dispelled generally, or that it’s UNfreeing is per se a result of G meddling, the entire house of cards built upon that theology MUST crumble.
            or admit that like any other theology, it not only requires  faith in absence of proff, it requires faith in the face of contravening proof– no matter how overwhelming.

            newsflash to the objectivist ideologues– go ahead, shrug away– don’t you get that your very own theology is built on the notion of ubermenschen stepping into the opportunistic breach.

            don’t let the door hit you in your privileged asses on the way out– we’ll be just fine without your narcissistic parasitic asses

          • Tuna Ghost

            Don’t fall for the myth that the playing field isn’t fair.
            You’re right, there’s no such thing as racism anymore.  Or class issues.  Those are complete myths.  

          • Tuna Ghost

            How is it “broke”?  In what way?  I hear this all the time, but nobody can tell me why.  

          • Tuna Ghost

            There’s no money

            And you really believe that’s the Welfare system’s fault?  That’s why there’s no money?  Buddy someone has lied to you.  Go read some statistics on how much of the debt comes from welfare, medicare and medicaid.  Then compare that to the debt incurred from the money spent on the Defense budget.  

          • Common Sense

            “national defense” aka imperialism is our biggest waste of money. Our foreign policy does nothing but ensure we lose more money and more personal liberty. I’m all for massive restructuring and cuts to our military. However, our welfare system is also unethical in a sense of the entitlement it creates and has created a helpless society where people rely on their government to wipe their ass for them

          • Tuna Ghost

            However, our welfare system is also unethical…

            Are you using “also” here to mean “in addition to the Defense budget”, or “in addition to putting a drain on the national economy”?  One is a true statement, the other is not.  

            The problem with statements like “People who rely on their government to wipe their ass for them” is that it is emotive without actually saying anything substantive.  There’s a great deal of room between someone living off of disability checks, content to never to do anything to earn a real wage, and an elderly woman taking care of her grandson, using welfare and medicare to stay alive.  Both cases are someone relying on the government to “wipe their ass”, but one is the sort of ass-wiping the government should be doing in any civilized country.  
            Between these two cases, there is a lot of room and a lot of opinions on what is justified use of everybody’s money and what is not.  There’s a debate to be had in that area, sure.  Probably several.  But the fact that there is a minority abusing the system does not make it “broken”.  As a smarter man than me once said, it all boils down to whether or not you give a shit: whether or not you care if the elderly woman across town can afford her medicine, whether or not the poverty-stricken family’s children are able to eat at least two meals a day, whether or not people are literally dying in our streets from hunger or exposure (which happens, frequently, in cities like my hometown of Detroit).  Scrapping the whole system  so that nobody is using your tax dollars to not have to go to work is a level of greed, selfishness and immaturity bordering on obscene.  

            Saying the system is “broken” because it is able to be abused while it is still performing the duties it was meant to perform is ignorance, plain and simple.  Saying the playing field is level, that the government does not need to intervene to make life better for the less fortunate because it is their own fault for being poor, is ignoring reality on a sickening level.  

          • Common Sense

            I meant “in addition”. And yes, I agree that it is a problem that many cannot take care of themselves and their families under current conditions, however it doesn’t need to be the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT which pays the bills. Again, this is where LOCAL communities, charities, religious and cultural institutions come in.

          • Mr Willow

            Alright, this is really starting to piss me off. 

            In America, the People are the Government. We elect people to Represent us in the hopes that they will make certain the country functions in the most efficient manner possible. That means building Roads (*edit* and Trains and other means of Public Transport), that means building Hospitals, that means, yes, providing for Defense (not imperialism), and that means that People are able to Live, and are able to work. If People are Sick, they cannot work, if they are Disabled, they cannot work, if they are Unhappy, they cannot work. 

            All taxes do are to collect the People’s money, in limited quantities according to how much each person has, and allocates funds to programs that (should) seek to help all People equally. It is not the Government providing for People, it is the People providing for One Another. Taking care of our own is not some big conspiracy to make you poor. 

            Despite what conservatives say, there are very few people who just sit around and live off of Medicaid or Social Security. Are there? Sure, but it costs the People more financially, in safety, and in overall morale to be without healthcare and safe work conditions than it does making sure some deadbeat doesn’t want to work. In fact, that is where the Local Community can step in and solve that problem as well. If the circumstances were flipped, we had National Healthcare, and all the things associated with this evil march toward socialism that conservatives fear so much, what’s to stop a deadbeat’s friends or family from urging them into a job, making them get a job, or offering them a job? 

            Nothing.

          • Common Sense

            regardless of the impact on society, whether good or bad, it’s simply not within the federal government’s role provided by the constitution.

          • Jin The Ninja

            I don’t think Mr. Willow is advocating for wholesale statist policies at all, and i think it’s very telling you miss the humanist subtly in his comments.  From what i read above, it’s about community., and giving the “least amongst us” a decent life.

          • Mr Willow

            Quite. Thank you.

          • Tuna Ghost

            It does need to be the Federal Government, otherwise it wouldn’t get done.  I agree that Federal authority needs to be challenged to prove why it exists on a case-by-case basis, but this is one case where it can meet that challenge easily.  

          • Tuna Ghost

            Okay, I feel like I’m not getting through to you, and it could be because everyone is reacting with hostility to you.  Ad hominems are no way to argue, and I will not be the one to tell you that you’re wrong because you’re a conservative or a libertarian or whatever.  So let’s try this again:

            We all agreed that people dying in the streets, poor families not being able to feed their children, and the elderly being abandoned to die alone is a bad thing.  We agreed that this should not happen in any country that calls itself “civilized”.  So we looked around and said “how can we stop this?”.

            Charity organizations and religious organizations had been trying to stop this for quite some time at that point, but the problem persisted.  That is why the Federal Government got involved.  Private organizations weren’t able to make much of a dent in the problem.  But the Federal Government could, and eventually did.  

            Regardless of what you think the Constitution says, it is the government’s responsibility to ensure a basic level of decency and standards in the quality of life of its citizens.  That’s a big part of the “establish Justice” and “promote the general Welfare”, and especially the “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” bits of a document you seem to take very seriously.  

            You may be tempted to say “well, why can’t state governments take care of it?  Why does it have to be the Federal Government?”  Because we gave that a shot, and it didn’t take.  Its similar to the problem you have with private organizations: there’s financial issues, and its far too easy for the opinions of a few to infect the system.  For years, southern states were allowed to practice institutionalized racism due to holdover bits of culture, ignorance, and simple hatred.  This should not be allowed.  Personal opinions should not influence who gets the care they need.  We can’t have someone saying “well, I’ll help the poor and sick, but not the polish poor and sick”.  That isn’t establishing Justice or promoting the general Welfare or securing the blessings of Liberty.  There is no ideology that should be preserved at the cost of basic human and civil rights.  This is very important, so I’m going to repeat it: There is no ideology that should be preserved at the cost of basic human and civil rights.  Especially in regard to the preamble of the Constitution.  It describes the aims of the document quite clearly.  Simply put, federal programs have thus far been the only way to make sure these aims are tackled on a national level for all citizens.  

            Now you may be tempted to say “But the constitution also grants certain powers to the federal government, and this isn’t one of those powers”, which is going to upset a lot of people.  The aims of that document are stated clearly in the preamble.  The Constitution is not a static document, regardless of whether or not the authors intended it to be.  That was then.  This is now.  I’ll say it again: There is no ideology that should be preserved at the cost of basic human and civil rights.  Sacrificing lives in an attempt to adhere to some ideology concerned about sticking as closely as possible to a document written before half the country was settled, when black people were still literally considered 3/5 of a person, when the average life span was 40 years, when the infant mortality rate was through the goddam roof, when leeches were still considered a viable option for medical care, when a level of death and despair that would shock us now was considered normal, is simply madness.  Absolute madness.  

            Going backwards isn’t going to fix anything, especially going back to a system that we adjusted because it had so many goddam problems.  

          • 5by5

            This is the wealthiest country in the world. We have PLENTY of money. 

            The Fed just gave the banks $16 TRILLION from their back pocket. The entire national debt is $14.1 trillion. The business people in this country could have paid off the entire bill and had nearly $2 trillion left over for every social program under the sun, along with NASA, infrastructure renewal (which would produce jobs and help the recovery), clean energy research, etc.We have MORE than enough for everyone’s need, were it not for  a few asshat’s greed.

          • Common Sense

            lol what entitles you to that money? earn something for yourself.

          • Mr Willow

            If businesses aren’t hiring (you know, unemployment and all) or are actively laying people off, noöne can earn anything, and can therefore not put money back into the system, continuing what is known as an economy. 

            What is happening is that several people refuse to pay employees, so the cycle cannot occur.

          • Andrew

            Money is a human invention, a medium of exchange created and agreed upon by a society as a whole.  It’s merely potential value, not wealth in and of itself.  As such, while individuals may truthfully claim to not have enough money, a society cannot claim the same.  What there is a lack of is production, and efficient distribution.

            There’s plenty of money.  It’s just hoarded in Wall Street’s computers.

          • Common Sense

            that’s why true conservatives support the gold standard. gold has value, you can debate human greed and shiny rocks but regardless gold is a highly valuable commodity and much more safe than our current system of worthless paper and electronic numbers

          • Andrew

            Gold’s only objective value is as a conductor of electricity.  Other than that, it’s value is as subjective as paper and electronic numbers.  To link a medium of exchange’s value to a finite commodity when the nation’s needs and production are constanly in flux is insane and stupid.  A sane backing for money would be the GNP.

          • Common Sense

            gold HAS value. We are but mere animals occupying this rock in space and for whatever reason gold has been accepted since the dawn of civilization as a highly sought-after and valuable means of exchange. I guess our ancestors just liked the way it looked. Regardless of origin and sanity behind the practice, gold still maintains its value. Whether or not you believe in this value, there are still many who do around the globe and judging my today’s skyrocketing value of the element, gold will be around for many years to come.

          • Mr Willow

            and for whatever reason gold has been accepted since the dawn of civilization as a highly sought-after and valuable means of exchange.

            That is a blatant lie. As I said in reply to your previous statement (see below), on this continent (America: North, South, and Central), cocoa beans, coffee beans, arrowheads, and a whole host of things that were actually useful (i.e. they could provide you with nourishment) were used as currency. When Cortez, and later Columbus, marched through, it was noted that not only did they leave gold in the rivers, but had a very limited understanding of private ownership. They used what is called a gift economy.

            Shells, tea, various grains and seeds, all have been used as currency throughout history, which seems more beneficial in the long run because the majority of these things can be eaten, or used to acquire things that can be eaten (in the case of arrowheads). But such a thing is silly *cough*cough* because then we could all just grow our own money. 

          • Jin The Ninja

            not a surprise he doesn’t KNOW that, but i am still SURPRISED he doesn’t.

            :S

          • Tuna Ghost

            We are but mere animals occupying this rock in space and for whatever reason gold has been accepted since the dawn of civilization as a highly sought-after and valuable means of exchange

            Demonstrably false.  Gold was not used as currency in the Americas until Europeans arrived, despite its abundance.  This fact can be discovered with even the most basic research.  

            Gold’s value is just as meaningless as paper money’s value.  The only sane backing of money is, as has been pointed out to you, as was realized long ago and is why the country’s leaders decided to switch, production and goddam work.  Granted, those things are down in this country, but switching back is not going to help anything grow.  Gold is not suited for an economy that wants to grow.  

          • Jin The Ninja

            ;)

          • Jin The Ninja

            I defer to tuna and Mr. Willow,

            but you definitely need to brush up on your early history if you are going to make broad (and ridiculous) proclamations like that. 

          • Tuna Ghost

            P.S.  It should also be noted that at the same time the Americas were being colonized, Europe was moving toward a more virtual currency.  When stocks and futures trading started, it was because of the notions of value were moving towards currency based on production and things that have real value.  That is the trend we’ve been in for centuries.  Why reverse all that?  

          • Mr Willow

            Bullshit. 

            The only practical application gold has is as an electrical conductor. You think the government is oppressive? It doesn’t hold a candle to money.

            Currency is the most egregious invention of mankind, and it was only made more horrible when somebody decided shiny things were more valuable than consumable things. Remember what was currency on this continent before the Spanish came here searching for gold? Coffee beans, or cocoa beans. (depending on the region)

            But that is flawed, because then we could all just grow our own money and do what all these jackass conservatives keep telling us to do: Be self sufficient!!

          • Andrew

            Be aware that your “Tough shit!” may be aimed at the parents, but it’ll hit the chidren.

          • Common Sense

            it may, and its a shame. That’s where communities, religious/cultural institutions, and charity come in. Not the burdened system of welfare and entitlement we have today.

          • Andrew

            I’d rather force the rich to pay more, whether they like it or not, thanks.

          • Common Sense

            then what incentive do they have to live here? While immoral, its perfectly clear why some go to extraordinary lengths to avoid the disproportionate taxes the wealthy face. What incentive do they have to innovate if their profits will just be plundered? There are poor people in this country, and well that sucks. But its no more the wealthy man’s problem then the poor man next to him. It is admirable and righteous to donate one’s fortune to charity and to help those less fortunate than themselves. However, realistically, people, whether through Robin Hood or the government have no right to forcefully take somebody’s hard-earned possessions and redistribute it as they see fit.

          • Mr Willow

            its perfectly clear why some go to extraordinary lengths to avoid the disproportionate taxes the wealthy face.

            And it should be perfectly clear why they are subject to disproportionate taxes: because they have disproportionate incomes.

          • Common Sense

            i’m against a federal income tax at all. And if not that than a flat-tax across the board, for example 15% whether you make 50 million a year or 50 dollars a year. What ever happened to “shared sacrifice”?

          • Jin The Ninja

            did you not read good Mr. Willow’s comment at ALL?

          • Andrew

            As if the poor and middle class aren’t sacrificing enough.

          • Mr Willow

            What ever happened to “shared sacrifice”?

            I don’t know. Perhaps the banks should give back all the bailout money they received as an entitlement (too big to fail means they’re ‘entitled’ to tax payer money just as much as a poor person who is dying and can’t afford it). Perhaps all the energy, weapon, and food corporations should return their subsidies. 

            I cannot understand why anyone would speak ill of keeping our countrymen healthy, safe in their place of employment, and happy if we are able, and am truly angered that in the same breath they can defend enormous sums of money spent propping up a few dozen individuals that make so much on their own they could afford their own Navy, in what ultimately amounts to corporate welfare. 

            I guess I’m an idiot, or am just too generous for my own good, because I feel that noöne is above helping his fellow man.

          • Common Sense

            i’m very much opposed to warfare, subsidies, and corporate welfare as well. come on do you even know the true conservative issues?

          • Hadrian999

            the problem you run into is that these mythical “true conservatives” don’t exist or would rather vote for hypocrites to get a “win” over those evil socialist humanist commie baby killing democrats than actually vote for people who will touch these alleged conservative issues. every “conservative” in government is big spending big government, corporate parasites that get a pass because they say jesus and free market every once in a while while carrying water for multinationals and defense contractors. if you want conservatives judged my these ideals you are talking about then they must actually implement them not play the same old games and only talk about them when they want to rile up the party serfs

          • Common Sense

            I agree, it is a big problem. But I see people waking up, and I hope that (although its a long shot) we can get Ron Paul for the nomination. If not the nomination, at least continue exposing the hypocrisy of the GOP and promote libertarian ideology to mainstream America. You can’t argue that Libertarianism ideas are making big gains in this country. So if not Ron, hopefully we’ll see a principled Rand Paul run in 2016

          • DeepCough

            Ron and Rand Paul are not nearly enough to solve the multifold problems with the United States. Until Americans do a massive overhaul of their own government of revolutionary proportions, then 2012 will surely be the end as we know it.

          • Mr Willow

            I defer to Hadrian.

          • chonus

            How much did GE, the world’s largest corporation, pay in taxes last year?

            It is the wealthy man’s problem, or so says Jesus…

          • Common Sense

            I never said that was right, they should very well pay their taxes

          • Andrew

            GE’s taxes aren’t “plunder?”

          • E.B. Wolf

            Where would they all go, Somalia? If the taxes on the wealthiest people went back to 1990’s rates, they would still be among the lowest in the developed world.

            Coupled with tearing up all those “free trade” agreements that have been all the rage for the past 20 years or so, the poor, poor billionaires wouldn’t be able to threaten to take their ball and go home anytime someone suggests their free ride comes to an end.

            “Oh, you’re going to pack up your toys and leave because taxes are to high? Well, now you’re a foreign company big shot. Which means you’re going to start paying tariffs on all imports if you want to do business in the biggest consumer market on the planet.”

          • Common Sense

            or move to developing markets that realize deregulation is the key to a healthy economy?

          • DeepCough

            If deregulation were the key to a healthy economy, then why did the motherfucking private banks become insolvent?! THINK, MAN, THINK!

          • E.B. Wolf

            Of course. The deregulation craze of the last 25 odd years has just done wonders with the U.S. economy; particularly in how it liberated us from the nightmare years of the 50’s and 60’s when our economy was truly the envy of the world.

            And where would these mythical “developing markets” be exactly? Europe is out because it’s a socialist cesspool in the eyes of Randian economics devotees. 

            Japan? Taiwan? South Korea? Nope. They still embrace ethnic nationalism; so they won’t be too keen on a bunch of foreigners moving in and setting up shop.

            Russia? Please. Try walking into that country and telling them you must be left free to conduct business however you see fit. It would be amusing to see a soft American suit trying to make that argument with the business end of an AK 47 shoved up their ass.

            China? See Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea.

            Most of the Middle East is out, with the exception of the UAE. But they’re essentially the Arab version of the Beverly Hillbillies who’ve built the world’s most elaborate mirage on a foundation of sand.

            India and Australia are already quite developed.

            So already you’re down to South America and Africa. Bon Voyage. Don’t forget to pack a bulletproof vest. 

          • Tuna Ghost

            Yes, deregulation is a great idea, because banks and financial investment firms don’t need to be monitored!  Its not like they’d ruin the global economy by screwing people over in a shortsighted attempt to OH WAIT

            C’mon, guy.  I mean, this is recent history.  Its like you’re just shooting off conservative talking points with no substance or context or awareness of implications in the reality we share.

          • 5by5

            Let them leave. I’m not seeing a down side here. Next we’ll just write a law that says if you want to leave, you give up 80% of all your property before you go. And PS. you can also kiss my ass on the way out the door. If you don’t appreciate the freedoms this country gives you, we’ll be happy to take some back from you.

          • Common Sense

            or how about they have the right to their own property (unethical bailouts, subsidies, bla bla aside) and have the right to take it and leave

          • Jin The Ninja

            the idea of private property is against libertarian ideology.

            “If I were asked to answer the following question: What is slavery? and I should answer in one word, It is murder!, my meaning would be understood at once. No extended argument would be required . . . Why, then, to this other question: What is property? may I not likewise answer, It is robbery!, without the certainty of being misunderstood; the second proposition being no other than a transformation of the first?

            Joseph Pierre Proudhon

          • uncommonsensical

            shhh!!!– don’t look behind the curtain … !

          • Tuna Ghost

            However, realistically, people, whether through Robin Hood or the government have no right to forcefully take somebody’s hard-earned possessions and redistribute it as they see fit.
            “This is MY money, and nobody is going to make me use a single cent of it to help the sick or the needy or do anything with it that I don’t approve of first.  I will help the sick and the needy if I so choose, and I if I do choose, I get to decide which sick and which needy get financial aid from me.”

            Wrong.  This is a community, and simply put you do NOT have a right to decide what every cent you earn does.  And before you say anything, no, this doesn’t make it a socialist system.  

          • Common Sense

            That’s called plunder. No matter how noble your motives it still taking one’s private possessions by force and redistributing it as they deem fit.

          • Andrew

            “Tough shit!”

          • DeepCough

            You do realize that the Bush tax cuts have done just that: redistribute wealth to certain people–certain rich people.

          • Common Sense

            again, i’m against a federal income tax but if necessary could compromise to an even tax rate across the boards. Whether you make 1 billion or 1 dollar a year, everybody pays the same percentage.

          • Tuna Ghost

            Its only plunder if you think you “own” every cent you earn, as if you earned it in a vacuum rather than in a system within a community.  You don’t have a right to every cent you earn, therefore its not “plunder”.  

          • Nuggett

            No it’s not.  You vote for the politicians, then they make the fucking rules.  You get to vote.  That is your power.  

            If you want to vote for the guy who doesn’t tax the rich, by all means…

            And, “taking one’s private possessions by force”.  Please don’t pull the fairness card here.  It’s a waste of our time.  Taxing the guy with 2 yachts, a summer home, and a home in Italy 5% extra so hardworking poor people don’t starve is not “unfair” or worthy of alarm.  It’s not a communist concept, it’s a moral concept.  People vote with their morals, and, in your case, a lack thereof.  Never forget what you fucking stand for.

          • Nuggett

            Common Sense:

            I hope you don’t claim to be a Christian.  If so, you are espousing an opinion that is the complete antithesis of the words of Christ regarding this matter.

            You said…”But its no more the wealthy man’s problem then the poor man next to him.”

            I’m sure you don’t need scriptural references, as I’m sure your proclivities to the right render you in the company of christian types.  

            On another note, and unrelated to religion, it is simply better for human relations and civility for the wealthy to contribute to those less fortunate.  I vote “Yea” if the town council votes for the farmers with an overabundant supply of corn to contribute unneeded hoards to the starving.  If the fortunate farmer votes “Nay”, then he is acting selfishly, immorally, and in fear.  AND, it appears you are on his side.

            END of discussion.

          • Wall Street penitent.

            that’s the silly argument– so fine, don’t let the door hit you in the *ss on the way out.
            first the cons argue that taxing the rich to death wouldn’t solve the fiscal problem and THEN they threaten US that the rich will all leave if we raise taxes on them even slightly.

            can’t have it both ways– either their tax dollars matter or they don’t.

            but to the real core of your argument– the tax history of the post WW2 position calls BS on you.
            not ME– actual historical fact, unlike the pseudo Conlaw rewrites of Merkin history.

          • no longer Randy

            so you’d rather have folks on their knees begging for charitable medical care?
            and THAT’s not socialism how exactly?
            because it’s not formalized and leaves its beneficiaries without human dignity?

            you’re still socializing the costs of their care– just not socializing the profits that health insurance cartels are making off denying care to the rest of us.

            freemarketzmyazzholes.

          • quartz99

            Condoms don’t always work. Sometimes they break. Sometimes they fail to work even when they didn’t break. And relying on a condom takes away the ability of a woman to be responsible for her own body and gives that control to men. I suppose, considering the rest of the far right trolling you’re doing,
            you think that’s where that control should be anyway so I suppose I’m
            probably wasting my metaphorical breath. Among other things, the consequences for a woman of being raped are so much worse if she doesn’t have access to birth control that she’s in control of, whether daily pills or the morning after to prevent the sperm from taking hold.

            The pill also has a low failure rate. The best course (short of abstinence, which is stupid to expect of people) is actually to use both the pill and a condom, unless you have a family history of certain types of cancer whose risk can be increased by use of the pill, because the odds of _both_ failing are a bit astronomical.

          • 5by5

            And if the condom breaks, or the guy doesn’t put it on right, what’s the woman supposed to do, pray to god he doesn’t have good swimmers?

            Spoken just like a con, “Hey little lady, leave this life-changing prospect up to the man, and if something goes wrong, you eat all the pain.”

            With all due respect, go fuck YOURSELF.

          • Common Sense

            or you could pay for your own fucking birth control or chose an insurer who willingly provides it themselves? You are easily the least intelligent person who I’ve had to debate thus far on this thread.

          • Jin The Ninja

            No, that’d be you.

          • 5by5

            And if the condom breaks, or the guy doesn’t put it on right, what’s the woman supposed to do, pray to god he doesn’t have good swimmers?

            Spoken just like a con, “Hey little lady, leave this life-changing prospect up to the man, and if something goes wrong, you eat all the pain.”

            With all due respect, go fuck YOURSELF.

        • Redacted

          And you don’t brush your teeth with dish soap, what does that have to do with anything asshole?

    • Emc

      Anon is right.
      The rest of you are delusional.

      • DeepCough

        To quote Dick Cheney, “Go fuck yourself.”

  • http://twitter.com/jasonpaulhayes jasonpaulhayes

    Unwanted Water Headed Babies cost more than Birth Control. Also, Checkups help to prevent “big expenses” as you so eloquently put it. Its called Health Maintenance and no its not free … it’s Tax Money well spent to help control the huge problem that is unwanted children, to help keep people healthy and able bodied so as not to burden anyone more than they already do.

    Wise Up!

  • chinagreenelvis

    Shut the living fuck up.

  • Mamagriff50

    Kudos! Fewer unwanted pregnancies..=..fewer unwanted chidren. FAR to many are in the welfare and foster care system, or are being raised by their grandparents who then recieve government support [foodstamps, medicaid etc…] less burden on the system.

  • Mamagriff50

    Kudos! Fewer unwanted pregnancies..=..fewer unwanted chidren. FAR to many are in the welfare and foster care system, or are being raised by their grandparents who then recieve government support [foodstamps, medicaid etc…] less burden on the system.

    • Common Sense

      so let’s force PRIVATE companies to provide it at a federal level, right?

      • DeepCough

        Stupid Teabagger.

        • Common Sense

          you say Tea Bagger like its an insult…turn off The Daily Show guy

          • Jin The Ninja

            LMFAO.  i apologise to deep in advance in case he wanted to take this one himself.

            Tea-bagger is an insult. it means,” f*cking ignoramus tool of koch & co. ”

            I hope that clarified it for you.

          • Common Sense

            just because the Tea Party got hijacked doesn’t mean its message is wrong. I stand for personal liberty and limited government. ain’t nothin’ wrong with that. (btw although i have great respect for them, I’m not a member of any tea party organization, unless you lump in Ron Paul supporters)

          • Jin The Ninja

            Except the myth of right wing “liberty” directly implies randian sociopathy, and a fascist state.

            how does that earl grey taste with a splash of sense?

          • DeepCough

            The Tea Party has always been filled with ultraconservative nuts with only one talking point: “Socialism is bad,” and they allow themselves to be manipulated by one of the biggest corporately run media outlets in the country: Fox News. The Tea Party claims Obama has done more harm to the U.S. in 2 years compared to the two terms of the Bush administration, but I say the they’ve done infinitely more harm to the social fabric of the than the Hippies ever did.

          • DeepCough

            *of the nation than the Hippies ever did.

          • Tuna Ghost

            “Limited Government” except when it comes to women’s bodies, it seems.  Or the military.  

          • Common Sense

            clearly you have not read my other posts and are resorting to “conservative” stereotypes

          • Jin The Ninja

            So you are in favour of a 90% reduction in military spending?

          • 5by5

            CommonStupidity: If you stand for individual liberty and limited government, you should have no problem with providing women of all income brackets (including the poor who cannot afford it otherwise) with reproductive freedom. To restrict a woman’s right to control her body is the ULTIMATE government intervention, not to mention a violation of her 4th and 14th Amendment rights.

          • Common Sense

            that’s not the argument, it’s a matter of FORCING insurance companies to provide birth control.

          • dumbsaint

            Tea bagging is also when your drop your balls into someone’s mouth.

          • Jin The Ninja

            thank you saint, i was quite remiss in forgetting that oh-so enjoyable denotation as well.

          • dumbsaint

            I thought it pertinent!

          • Tuna Ghost

            It’s not just the Daily Show that things/says that, buddy.  

          • Anarchy Pony

            You do know that Thomas Paine, the man that wrote Common Sense, would find most tea party positions and beliefs to be abominable right?

          • Jin The Ninja

            good point Old Soul, paine was into a thing called, “social justice” something the t-party seems to find abhorrent.

        • Jaymalls

          lol.. so Joe The Plumer = TeaBag Jimmy???

      • NarwhalNecropsy

        Private companies basically run the country so…damn right. They can pay for all of it.

      • Linsang811

         Let’s make everything into a private company and give them all carte blanch to rape the American people in every conceivable way. Typical teatard.

  • Markov Cheney

    EUGENICS NEW WORLD ORDER ETC ETC ETC !!!!!! ETC!!! 

  • Markov Cheney

    EUGENICS NEW WORLD ORDER ETC ETC ETC !!!!!! ETC!!! 

    • Killthestork

      The return of Jesus something about crystal skulls reptiles that can walk and talk Nibiru holographs in the sky humans evolving into more spiritual beings cataclysmic scenarios planet alignment flying pigs Justin Biber and oatmeal!!!

  • Hadrian999

    so it’s some unholy commie abomination that people ever ever get to actually use the insurance they pay an arm and leg monthly for? oh and that 2012 thing, have you seen the retards that are in the running for the nomination, i doubt he will be losing that election

  • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

    Well clearly the problem with unwanted children is people not wanting them… durr (as a conservative might say)

  • Emc

    Anon is right.
    The rest of you are delusional.

  • Anonymous

    this should have been implemented years ago

  • MoralDrift

    this should have been implemented years ago

  • Shrimp&WhiteWine

    Great job US Government forcing insurance companies to offer birth control, so much for property rights and the free market! just force legislation on the private sector without and effort on your part. Whether or not you think easier to obtain birth-control is a good idea, forcing companies too offer it certainly is not.

  • Shrimp&WhiteWine

    Great job US Government forcing insurance companies to offer birth control, so much for property rights and the free market! just force legislation on the private sector without and effort on your part. Whether or not you think easier to obtain birth-control is a good idea, forcing companies too offer it certainly is not.

    • E.B. Wolf

      Fuck the free market.

      • E.B. Wolf

        correction: the “free market.”

      • Common Sense

        what do you propose as an alternative?

        • Jin The Ninja

          something fucking fair.

          • Common Sense

            LOL

          • Jin The Ninja

            you know something not capitalist. with human rights and the environment actually considered.

          • quartz99

            I’m right there with you (think I’ve “like”d just about every comment you made on this thread even) but the sad fact is that all forms of interpersonal interaction in humans devolves to a form of corrupt capitalism eventually when you get a group of more than four to ten people because the majority of people either want power over their fellows, want to feel superior to (“keeping up with the Joneses”) their fellows, or want someone to solve their problems for them so they don’t have to think (these people are usually then exploited by the first two groups). Small co-ops can work if you get the right people. But human nature will destroy them on any societal scale.

            Edit to add: That’s not to say that I think we shouldn’t keep trying to make it better. I just have this feeling that there’s a certain point where we need to just acknowledge humanity for what it is and wrap the laws around that rather than thinking we can fall back on the “goodness” of people.

          • Jin The Ninja

            thank you, quartz for your very reasoned response. we do have many  sentiments in common. liked.

          • Common Sense

            something fair! and sugar plums and lollipops and rainbows covered with cherry-flavored hookers!

          • Jin The Ninja

            better than rivers of blood and industrial run-off. fields of scorched earth and dead bodies. acid rain and sewer mutants……. oh wait

          • Common Sense

            none of those were the result of true-conservative policies. A true conservative knows the value of a clean environment as well as the disgraceful moral and economic costs of war.

          • Common Sense

            just to clarify: it doesn’t matter if those policies were on an individual, corporate, or government level

          • Jin The Ninja

            the difference between the socialist worldview and the conservative worldview, is the con’s believe the responsibility lies solely on the individual. the lone wolf. which means the corps, the banks can do whatever they want, as long as people are doing their “job” while the socialist worldview believes the responsibility lies with the community as a whole, and if the certain members have difficulty it is there responsibility (the village’s) to help them so they are a strengthened whole.  it is the difference between a fragmented reality and a holistic one.

          • Andrew

            The fatal flaw in “libertarian” theology is that corporations are not individuals.

          • Jin The Ninja

            i’ve yet to see, hear, or speak with a conservative whom believes in any of those things. except ron paul whom i think is amenable.

          • Common Sense

            Yes, Ron Paul has sparked a new wave of conservative Americans, many of which see things this way.

          • Jin The Ninja

            But his is still not the ideal progressive vision. His ideology is amenable to many progressives because of the non-existent left wing voice.

            i still maintain that human rights/the environment/sanity are antithetical to capitalism.

          • 5by5

            No, simply a choice. We aren’t animals. Brutish behavior is something we can choose NOT to engage in. And you, like most ignorant cons, forget the value of cooperation and altruism in survival.

            Your limited thinking yields limited results.

          • 5by5

            No, simply a choice. We aren’t animals. Brutish behavior is something we can choose NOT to engage in. And you, like most ignorant cons, forget the value of cooperation and altruism in survival.

            Your limited thinking yields limited results.

        • E.B. Wolf

          Burn this motherfucker down.

          • Common Sense

            touche, sir.

        • DeepCough

          Warren “Ghetto Superstar” Beatty for President, homes.

        • 5by5

          The fair market.

        • 5by5

          The fair market.

    • Mysophobe

      Free market? Grow up, the free market is a fairy tale. Most large corporations have a stated practice of privatizing profits and socializing losses. Yes, even those poor, helpless for-profit health insurance companies. American corporations exist because We The People allow them to. We provide a court system to enforce their contracts, a monetary system, infrastructure, an educated workforce, etc. They are NOT sovereign entities and they do NOT have inalienable rights. We should have more, not less, say in how they serve the best interests of the American people. We lose sight of these facts at our continued peril.

      • Common Sense

        what you just described is not the free market the constitution intended for, but rather what greedy corporations and lawyers have created

        • Hadrian999

          intent is worthless the only thing that matters is effect, a totally free market leads to greedy corporate manipulation of the system, you can keep saying it will be different this time but it wont, there will always be a power running thing, who that power is is the thing up for debate, when you remove regulation and over site the biggest most corrupt bastard wins

          • Common Sense

            lol i’ve never spoken to somebody so far at the bottom of the well of doom, gloom, and disparity before. what’s the weather like down there?

          • Jin The Ninja

            not sunny, but definitely gritty realist.

          • Hadrian999

            sorry i’m “gloomy” but i have seen firsthand what happens when people rely on intent and poor planning and i have seen the human consequences

        • Mysophobe

          This may come as a surprise to you, but the Constitution doesn’t mention corporations, capitalism or a free market economy.

          • Common Sense

            you’re right, it called for a very limited federal government

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_EAPUJHWIYQJWKN7HUCSCVHKVTQ David Meadows

            Actually our four fathers had very mixed opinions on how big or small they wanted the federal government to be including their power.  What they all agreed on is that they wanted a government that represented the people, not mega corporations such as the East India Trade company that the British government represented.  The real Boston Tea Party was a protest against huge corporate tax cuts for the British East India Company, the largest trans-national corporation then in existence. This corporate tax cut threatened to decimate small Colonial businesses by helping the BEIC pull a Wal-Mart against small entrepreneurial tea shops, and individuals began a revolt that kicked-off a series of events that ended in the creation of The United States of America.  They also love to quote Thomas Pain, yet if you read his other works such as Agrarian Justice, he was for things such as social security, and other ideals that would be considered socialist.

        • Jin The Ninja

          i thought all cons believed “greed” was the natural human reaction…

          while that is not my paradigm, in our contemporary world, it is a very common reaction….specifically regarding capitalism.

    • Hadrian999

      there has never been nor will there ever be a free market, it’s a myth. from outright protectionist government policies and sweetheart federal contracts to things like the walmart effect skewing the playing field the “free market”is nothing but another bit of mythology the right uses to attempt to get it’s way. If you operate a meat packing plant you have to do things they way the government says, same thing if you manufacture bicycles, cribs, car seats and any number of other products, we have regulations, not because somebody decided hey lets be dicks to businesses but because  there was a time when we didn’t have business regulations and  and industrialists behaved in a fashion that made regulation necessary.

  • Common Sense

    you don’t use car insurance to get your oil changed

  • Common Sense

    so let’s force PRIVATE companies to provide it at a federal level, right?

  • emperorreagan

    First genuinely good news I’ve read in a few days. 

    I’d be for giving away free birth control pills all over the world.

    Too many people.  People imagine that technology will stave off biological and ecologic realities forever.  I’d rather be proactive and encourage measures to reduce population now.

  • emperorreagan

    First genuinely good news I’ve read in a few days. 

    I’d be for giving away free birth control pills all over the world.

    Too many people.  People imagine that technology will stave off biological and ecologic realities forever.  I’d rather be proactive and encourage measures to reduce population now.

    • Common Sense

      again, no mention of the ethics of forcing federal laws onto private companies?

    • Common Sense

      again, no mention of the ethics of forcing federal laws onto private companies?

      • emperorreagan

        Nope.  I have no ethical quandaries on the issue.  I don’t believe health insurance should be a private, for-profit business in the first place.  

        I also have no particular attachment to the religion of the free market or the mythology built up about private companies being the be-all, end-all of economic evolution.

        • Common Sense

          Well I can see we are too far apart on the issues to really even debate. Good luck to you on your journey.

          • Jin The Ninja

            You mean, you are too divorced from the realities of the world, and the associations of knowledge to debate, generally.

          • Mr Willow

            Ha!

          • Common Sense

            lol the conservatives are the ones divorced from reality? (I’m not talking neocons)

          • DeepCough

            You conservatives are divorced from reality: you are completely unaware of the fact that the concept of “free markets” is a LIBERAL idea!

          • Common Sense

            despite what you hear in the main-stream liberal and conservative are not opposite…

          • Jin The Ninja

            I doubt anyone on dis-info thinks they are.

            because, most of us understand the relationship of neo-liberalism to conservatism.

          • DeepCough

            Conservatism and Liberalism, while they are both mixed points of view, are diametrically opposed ideologies on the political spectrum of Left, Right, and Center. That’s Poli-Sci 101, bitch.

      • DeepCough

        And where’s the ethics of private insurance companies forcing people out of their own health insurance policies for a “pre-existing condition?” Care to tell me what the fuck is so ethical about that?

        • Common Sense

          That’s where charity and righteous doctors used to come in and provide care for little to no cost. However after government intrusion and the threat of malpractice lawsuits, this sadly isn’t the case often enough. I’m not saying the dollar is the allmighty power to obey, I’m saying that these issues have real costs and require solutions other than tax dollars and government mandates.

          • DeepCough

            I got news for you: the free market does not give a flying fuck who is sick and who is not sick, and anyone who decides to practice medicine in the United States is not doing out of the goodness and kindness of their hearts, they do it to make money.

          • Common Sense

            believe it or not, yes, individuals once out of the kindness of their heart, not because of government mandate, used to aid the sick for little to no charge.

          • Andrew

            That was before they read Ayn Rand.

          • Elmyr23

            those people are probaly more socialist than you would ever like. Why? becuase they care about people not thier pocket

          • Anarchy Pony

            Yes, those people often had no vested interest in market solutions either.

      • E.B. Wolf

        Why care about ethics when dealing with companies that have no ethics? The bottom line is that it saves money for taxpayers.

      • Tuna Ghost

        Nope.  Healthcare shouldn’t be a business in the first place.

      • 5by5

        CommonNutbag: For real irony, ponder this — back in the day, Nixon wanted to mandate that all private companies be forced to pay for ALL their employees health care. That no individual would pay for health care, ONLY companies. Are you going to try to tell us that Nixon was a Socialist too? Because I could really use a good laugh this morning….

      • Butter Knife

        Do you mean to say that companies shouldn’t be forced to follow laws?

        So the Federal Government shouldn’t be allowed to require companies to pay taxes? How about forcing them not to hire private armies and run around the countryside massacring people?

        If we aren’t forcing Federal laws onto private companies, we aren’t forcing them onto anyone, and the Federal Government no longer has any reason (or means) to exist.

        I don’t associate dissolving the Union with the Tea Party, so I”m going to assume that’s not what you meant, despite the fact it is precisely what you said.

        Perhaps what you meant is the ethics of forcing a private company to pay for people’s birth control. That would be MUCH more sane.

        You would be right, of course, if the companies being forced to do so were in the business of selling cars or delivering parcels; that would be an arbitrary and unjust burden. However, we’re talking about health insurance companies, and their product is paying for health care; mandating that they pay for their customers’ health care is neither arbitrary nor unjust.

        Furthermore, you presumably believe that health insurance is a free market where individuals can simply choose a different provider if they don’t like the one they have. That is not entirely true. For one thing, most people get health insurance through their employer, which means that their choice of insurer is limited to whoever their employer has a deal with. Furthermore, the insurance market itself is heavily regulated in terms of who is allowed to participate, with the biggest limiting factor being that participants be solvent for a large percentage of potential claims; you may think this unjust, but prior to such rules insurance coverage was often worth less than the paper the policy was written on, as companies would open, collect premiums, then close shop and run away with the money.

        Speaking of which, in other comments you indicate a belief that “charity and righteous doctors” used to help people when they were unable to afford medical care. When was this? To what extent? I don’t question that such charities have always been around, or that some doctors have always been willing to care for the poor without direct compensation… but at what point was that sufficient to care for everyone? We used to have plagues, the poor frequently died of entirely preventable and easily treatable diseases, the prevailing medical practice was simply to quarantine the sick and leave them to live or die as God saw fit. Is that really the system you want to bring back?

  • Common Sense

    again, no mention of the ethics of forcing federal laws onto private companies?

  • emperorreagan

    It doesn’t cost anyone else a penny if you ruin your engine.  Doesn’t even cost your insurance company anything.

    We all pay the hospital bills for people who have children, but can’t afford it.  We all pay the bills for kids that are dumped in shelters and foster care.  We pay those bills both through taxes as well as through the rates hospitals charge being passed on to customers who can afford to pay.

    I’d rather have the lower cost passed on through my insurance than the higher costs of providing for more kids.

  • emperorreagan

    Moved.

  • Hadrian999

    my car insurance is also only a couple of hundred bucks a year

  • Hadrian999

    my car insurance is also only a couple of hundred bucks a year

  • emperorreagan

    It doesn’t cost anyone else a penny if you ruin your engine.  Doesn’t even cost your insurance company anything.We all pay the hospital bills for people who have children, but can’t afford it.  We all pay the bills for kids that are dumped in shelters and foster care.  We pay those bills both through taxes as well as through the rates hospitals charge being passed on to customers who can afford to pay.I’d rather have the lower cost passed on through my insurance than the higher costs of providing for more kids.

  • emperorreagan

    It doesn’t cost anyone else a penny if you ruin your engine.  Doesn’t even cost your insurance company anything.We all pay the hospital bills for people who have children, but can’t afford it.  We all pay the bills for kids that are dumped in shelters and foster care.  We pay those bills both through taxes as well as through the rates hospitals charge being passed on to customers who can afford to pay.I’d rather have the lower cost passed on through my insurance than the higher costs of providing for more kids.

  • emperorreagan

    Nope.  I have no ethical quandaries on the issue.  I don’t believe health insurance should be a private, for-profit business in the first place.  

    I also have no particular attachment to the religion of the free market or the mythology built up about private companies being the be-all, end-all of economic evolution.

  • emperorreagan

    And part of that premium is to cover people who don’t have car insurance.

    Which is why I also don’t have a problem with states mandating car insurance as a term of owning/operating a car.

  • DeepCough

    And where’s the ethics of private insurance companies forcing people out of their own health insurance policies for a “pre-existing condition?” Care to tell me what the fuck is so ethical about that?

  • DeepCough

    Stupid Teabagger.

  • DeepCough

    To quote Dick Cheney, “Go fuck yourself.”

  • Anonymous

    Wow, for the first time I actually agree with the government.  All you naysayers should stop your bitching.  You know as well as I do there is an epidemic of unwanted pregnancies.  Why don’t you volunteer at a low income school and witness the vast number of students who are mistreated and abused at home?  If the pro-lifers fight this off,  I will shit my pants.  This isn’t a form of eugenics and with that form of reasoning you are just giving the Truth Movement a bad rep (like it already has).  I don’t own a vagina, but I at least know that the Pill just creates a wall in the fallopian tubes, thus preventing conception–NOT aborting.  I’m glad they are tackling the real culprit behind the never-ending abortion debate: the actual act of coitus!

  • StillAtMyMoms

    Wow, for the first time I actually agree with the government.  All you naysayers should stop your bitching.  You know as well as I do there is an epidemic of unwanted pregnancies.  Why don’t you volunteer at a low income school and witness the vast number of students who are mistreated and abused at home?  If the pro-lifers fight this off,  I will shit my pants.  This isn’t a form of eugenics and with that form of reasoning you are just giving the Truth Movement a bad rep (like it already has).  I don’t own a vagina, but I at least know that the Pill just creates a wall in the fallopian tubes, thus preventing conception–NOT aborting.  I’m glad they are tackling the real culprit behind the never-ending abortion debate: the actual act of coitus!

  • Common Sense

    you say Tea Bagger like its an insult…turn off The Daily Show guy

  • Common Sense

    here’s a simple solution: use a fucking condom. And if chose not to despite your television, the public school system, PSAs, and your own common sense, well… tough shit!

  • Common Sense

    The public sector seems to have the terms “government programs” and “charity” awfully confused and we’re seeing the results of that in Washington right now. There’s no money, this welfare state is broke

  • E.B. Wolf

    Why care about ethics when dealing with companies that have no ethics? The bottom line is that it saves money for taxpayers.

  • Common Sense

    That’s where charity and righteous doctors used to come in and provide care for little to no cost. However after government intrusion and the threat of malpractice lawsuits, this sadly isn’t the case often enough. I’m not saying the dollar is the allmighty power to obey, I’m saying that these issues have real costs and require solutions other than tax dollars and government mandates.

  • E.B. Wolf

    Fuck the free market.

  • Common Sense

    Well I can see we are too far apart on the issues to really even debate. Good luck to you on your journey.

  • E.B. Wolf

    correction: the “free market.”

  • Common Sense

    what do you propose as an alternative?

  • Mysophobe

    Free market? Grow up, the free market is a fairy tale. Most large corporations have a stated practice of privatizing profits and socializing losses. Yes, even those poor, helpless for-profit health insurance companies. American corporations exist because We The People allow them to. We provide a court system to enforce their contracts, a monetary system, infrastructure, an educated workforce, etc. They are NOT sovereign entities and they do NOT have inalienable rights. We should have more, not less, say in how they serve the best interests of the American people. We lose sight of these facts at our continued peril.

  • Hadrian999

    there has never been nor will there ever be a free market, it’s a myth. from outright protectionist government policies and sweetheart federal contracts to things like the walmart effect skewing the playing field the “free market”is nothing but another bit of mythology the right uses to attempt to get it’s way. If you operate a meat packing plant you have to do things they way the government says, same thing if you manufacture bicycles, cribs, car seats and any number of other products, we have regulations, not because somebody decided hey lets be dicks to businesses but because  there was a time when we didn’t have business regulations and  and industrialists behaved in a fashion that made regulation necessary.

  • Anonymous

    LMFAO.  i apologise to deep in advance in case he wanted to take this one himself.

    Tea-bagger is an insult. it means,” f*cking ignoramus tool of koch & co. ”

    I hope that clarified it for you.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_Y372Q655QDXYIKIHHMWOEBLE7Q DavidM

    I don’t recommend making this a moral or religious issue. It is a dollars and cents practical decision…little money spent on society in order to save a ton of money and heartache on society by lowering the incidence of unexpected pregnancy and what follows.

    I see so many more abuses to the medical social welfare system. For example, in my town many women on welfare get plastic surgery enhancements including boob jobs and liposuction, all on the tax payers dime. I’m sure there are much worse abuses too. Someone follow with more examples of such abuses so folks can focus on more immediate issues!

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_Y372Q655QDXYIKIHHMWOEBLE7Q DavidM

    I don’t recommend making this a moral or religious issue. It is a dollars and cents practical decision…little money spent on society in order to save a ton of money and heartache on society by lowering the incidence of unexpected pregnancy and what follows.

    I see so many more abuses to the medical social welfare system. For example, in my town many women on welfare get plastic surgery enhancements including boob jobs and liposuction, all on the tax payers dime. I’m sure there are much worse abuses too. Someone follow with more examples of such abuses so folks can focus on more immediate issues!

  • Anonymous

    You mean, you are too divorced from the realities of the world, and the associations of knowledge to debate generally.

  • DeepCough

    I got news for you: the free market does not give a flying fuck who is sick and who is not sick, and anyone who decides to practice medicine in the United States is not doing out of the goodness and kindness of their hearts, they do it to make money.

  • Anonymous

    something fucking fair.

  • Anonymous

    something fucking fair.

  • E.B. Wolf

    Burn this motherfucker down.

  • E.B. Wolf

    Burn this motherfucker down.

  • Common Sense

    just because the Tea Party got hijacked doesn’t mean its message is wrong. I stand for personal liberty and limited government. ain’t nothin’ wrong with that. (btw although i have great respect for them, I’m not a member of any tea party organization, unless you lump in Ron Paul supporters)

  • DeepCough

    Warren “Ghetto Superstar” Beatty for President, homes.

  • Common Sense

    LOL

  • Common Sense

    touche, sir.

  • Mr Willow

    Ha!

  • Anonymous

    Except the myth of right wing “liberty” directly implies randian sociopathy, and a fascist state.

    how does that earl grey taste with a splash of sense?

  • Anonymous

    you know something not capitalist. with human rights and the environment actually considered.

  • Anonymous

    And you don’t brush your teeth with dish soap, what does that have to do with anything asshole?

  • Anonymous

    I’m right there with you (think I’ve “like”d just about every comment you made on this thread even) but the sad fact is that all forms of interpersonal interaction in humans devolves to a form of corrupt capitalism eventually when you get a group of more than four to ten people because the majority of people either want power over their fellows, want to feel superior to (“keeping up with the Joneses”) their fellows, or want someone to solve their problems for them so they don’t have to think (these people are usually then exploited by the first two groups). Small co-ops can work if you get the right people. But human nature will destroy them on any societal scale.

  • Andrew

    Be aware that your “Tough shit!” may be aimed at the parents, but it’ll hit the chidren.

  • Anonymous

    Condoms don’t always work. Sometimes they break. Sometimes they fail to work even when they didn’t break. And relying on a condom takes away the ability of a woman to be responsible for her own body and gives that control to men. I suppose, considering the rest of the far right trolling you’re doing,
    you think that’s where that control should be anyway so I suppose I’m
    probably wasting my metaphorical breath. Among other things, the consequences for a woman of being raped are so much worse if she doesn’t have access to birth control that she’s in control of, whether daily pills or the morning after to prevent the sperm from taking hold.

    The pill also has a low failure rate. The best course (short of abstinence, which is stupid to expect of people) is actually to use both the pill and a condom, unless you have a family history of certain types of cancer whose risk can be increased by use of the pill, because the odds of _both_ failing are a bit astronomical.

  • Common Sense

    believe it or not, yes, individuals once out of the kindness of their heart, not because of government mandate, used to aid the sick for little to no charge.

  • Mysophobe

    That’s our country’s biggest problem, welfare? Someone out there sure wants you to believe that. They live in gated communities with private security and fully understand that desperate people do desperate things (crime), but they just don’t give a shit. Ask yourself, who has the power to crash our economy? Who has the power to create prosperity? The weak and powerless, or the wealthy and powerful? If the “job creators” have failed us after all the corporate welfare we’ve given them the past decade, the government has to step in and help some folks or chaos ensues. Surely you realize that.

    .

  • DeepCough

    The Tea Party has always been filled with ultraconservative nuts with only one talking point: “Socialism is bad,” and they allow themselves to be manipulated by one of the biggest corporately run media outlets in the country: Fox News. The Tea Party claims Obama has done more harm to the U.S. in 2 years compared to the two terms of the Bush administration, but I say the they’ve done infinitely more harm to the social fabric of the than the Hippies ever did.

  • DeepCough

    *of the nation than the Hippies ever did.

  • Anon

    better to hold on until the first wave of cost cutting scandal is passed as in cases like these large corporations will always try to cut costs at the expense quality standards until people are actively watching them

  • Andrew

    That was before they read Ayn Rand.

  • Anon

    better to hold on until the first wave of cost cutting scandal is passed as in cases like these large corporations will always try to cut costs at the expense quality standards until people are actively watching them

  • Common Sense

    what you just described is not the free market the constitution intended for, but rather what greedy corporations and lawyers have created

  • Killthestork

    Great news! Now all we need are free vasectomies and my life is complete…don’t worry hopefully the lack of child birth will save money in the long run.

    antinatalist

  • Common Sense

    lol the conservatives are the ones divorced from reality? (I’m not talking neocons)

  • Killthestork

    Great news! Now all we need are free vasectomies and my life is complete…don’t worry hopefully the lack of child birth will save money in the long run.

    antinatalist

  • Hadrian999

    intent is worthless the only thing that matters is effect, a totally free market leads to greedy corporate manipulation of the system, you can keep saying it will be different this time but it wont, there will always be a power running thing, who that power is is the thing up for debate, when you remove regulation and over site the biggest most corrupt bastard wins

  • Common Sense

    you have failed yourself coming to rely on the government. live within your means people. all i ever hear is class envy and blame the rich blame the. While some have earned their fortunes through exploitation and illegal means, many many have not, but have earned their fortunes through hard work and making the right investments. Don’t fall for the myth that the playing field isn’t fair. I literally know people who couldn’t read in high school that now are making six figures in the private sector through starting their own businesses.

  • Common Sense

    it may, and its a shame. That’s where communities, religious/cultural institutions, and charity come in. Not the burdened system of welfare and entitlement we have today.

  • DeepCough

    You conservatives are divorced from reality: you are completely unaware of the fact that the concept of “free markets” is a LIBERAL idea!

  • Anonymous

    thank quartz for your very reasoned response. we do have many  sentiments in common. liked.

  • Common Sense

    lol i’ve never spoken to somebody so far at the bottom of the well of doom, gloom, and disparity before. what’s the weather like down there?

  • Mysophobe

    This may come as a surprise to you, but the Constitution doesn’t mention corporations, capitalism or a free market economy.

  • Common Sense

    something fair! and sugar plums and lollipops and rainbows covered with cherry-flavored hookers!

  • Anonymous

    not sunny, but definitely gritty realist.

  • Common Sense

    despite what you hear in the main-stream liberal and conservative are not opposite…

  • Common Sense

    you’re right, it called for a very limited federal government

  • Anonymous

    I doubt anyone on dis-info thinks they are.

    because, most of us understand the relationship of neo-liberalism to conservatism.

  • Killthestork

    The return of Jesus something about crystal skulls reptiles that can walk and talk Nibiru holographs in the sky humans evolving into more spiritual beings cataclysmic scenarios planet alignment flying pigs Justin Biber and oatmeal!!!

  • Anonymous

    better than rivers of blood and industrial run-off. fields of scorched earth and dead bodies. acid rain and sewer mutants……. oh wait

  • Common Sense

    none of those were the result of true-conservative policies. A true conservative knows the value of a clean environment as well as the disgraceful moral and economic costs of war.

  • Common Sense

    just to clarify: it doesn’t matter if those policies were on an individual, corporate, or government level

  • Anonymous

    i’ve yet to see, hear, or speak with a conservative whom believes in any of those things. except ron paul whom i think is amenable.

  • Hadrian999

    sorry i’m “gloomy” but i have seen firsthand what happens when people rely on intent and poor planning and i have seen the human consequences

  • NarwhalNecropsy

    Private companies basically run the country so…damn right. They can pay for all of it.

  • DeepCough

    Conservatism and Liberalism, while they are both mixed points of view, are diametrically opposed ideologies on the political spectrum of Left, Right, and Center. That’s Poli-Sci 101, bitch.

  • DeepCough

    I’ll say it again: stupid Teabagger.

  • Mysophobe

    The people you are carrying water for have a boot on your neck and you don’t even realize it. You seem like a younger person and thus you may not understand the gravity of the situation, but let me assure you that this is not the way it has always been. Tax rates have been at historic lows for a decade, and what few important business and financial regulations that still exist are poorly enforced. If ever in our history your conservative utopia should have emerged, it’s now. So, where is it? Oh wait, I forgot. It’s all these damned poor people holding us back!

  • Andrew

    The playing field is fair! And sugar plums and lollipops and rainbows covered with cherry-flavored hookers! 

  • Andrew

    I’d rather force the rich to pay more, whether they like it or not, thanks.

  • Linsang811

     Let’s make everything into a private company and give them all carte blanch to rape the American people in every conceivable way. Typical teatard.

  • Common Sense

    i’m not looking for a utopia

  • Common Sense

    nice, i’ll give you props here

  • Common Sense

    ouch ooo it burns ouch, lol being conservative is a cross to bear living in New York. trust me, name-calling and labeling is nothing to me

  • Common Sense

    then what incentive do they have to live here? While immoral, its perfectly clear why some go to extraordinary lengths to avoid the disproportionate taxes the wealthy face. What incentive do they have to innovate if their profits will just be plundered? There are poor people in this country, and well that sucks. But its no more the wealthy man’s problem then the poor man next to him. It is admirable and righteous to donate one’s fortune to charity and to help those less fortunate than themselves. However, realistically, people, whether through Robin Hood or the government have no right to forcefully take somebody’s hard-earned possessions and redistribute it as they see fit.

  • Anonymous

    Tea bagging is also when your drop your balls into someone’s mouth.

  • Common Sense

    Yes, Ron Paul has sparked a new wave of conservative Americans, many of which see things this way.

  • Anonymous

    the difference between the socialist worldview and the conservative worldview, is the con’s believe the responsibility lies solely on the individual. the lone wolf. which means the corps, the banks can do whatever they want, as long as people are doing their “job” while the socialist worldview believes the responsibility lies with the community as a whole, and if the certain members have difficulty it is there responsibility (the village’s) to help them so they are a strengthened whole.  it is the difference between a fragmented reality and a holistic one.

  • Anonymous

    thank you saint, i was quite remiss in forgetting that oh-so enjoyable denotation as well.

  • Anonymous

    neither are most of us, just a green and blue world with air and water and community.

  • Thoughts

    This is great news. In about 20 or so years, if this policy continues, crime will decline and unemployment will go down. 

    • Jin The Ninja

      how do you figure?

      • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

        Read the book Freakonomics. Crime rates decline after a generation of reduced accidental pregnancy. After the Roe v Wade…no immediate change…but almost 15 years after…crime started to crash nationwide across the board…despite the counterclaims by the press about drug related epidemics of crime (which were statistically nonexistant.) The point was that a huge generation of potentially unwanted children who would have been statistically more inclined to arrest simply didn’t come into being…lowering crime by default.
         

        • Jin The Ninja

          thank you for the recommend, i’ve seen it many times at the library but never bothered. i will check it out.

        • Redacted

          Makes sense to me.

  • Thoughts

    This is great news. In about 20 or so years, if this policy continues, crime will decline and unemployment will go down. 

  • Anonymous

    that’s good to hear you take that particular social “burden” so well….
    >.>

  • Mysophobe

    Fair enough, nor do I want a socialist utopia. Our most prosperous times were a result of healthy debate from all political persuasions. Despite what you may believe, the progressive voice in America has been ignored for the most part, and the socialist voice is virtually non-existent. If one disregards party affiliation, most policy debate in Congress is between the far-right and center-right positions. Like it or not, it’s conservative policies that got us here. I don’t necessarily endorse the hostility you have received here, but i definitely understand it. This is the end-game of unregulated capitalism, whereby it consumes itself. Economists have predicted it for decades, hence the need for strong regulation and resistance of corporate influence in Washington. Now we’ve crossed the rubicon. It’s gonna be painful, but probably for the best in the long run.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_EAPUJHWIYQJWKN7HUCSCVHKVTQ David Meadows

    Actually our four fathers had very mixed opinions on how big or small they wanted the federal government to be including their power.  What they all agreed on is that they wanted a government that represented the people, not mega corporations such as the East India Trade company that the British government represented.  The real Boston Tea Party was a protest against huge corporate tax cuts for the British East India Company, the largest trans-national corporation then in existence. This corporate tax cut threatened to decimate small Colonial businesses by helping the BEIC pull a Wal-Mart against small entrepreneurial tea shops, and individuals began a revolt that kicked-off a series of events that ended in the creation of The United States of America.  They also love to quote Thomas Pain, yet if you read his other works such as Agrarian Justice, he was for things such as social security, and other ideals that would be considered socialist.

  • Mr Willow

    While some have earned their fortunes through exploitation and illegal means, many many have not,

    That is the problem, right there! Are you prepared to strip the fortunes of those that acquired them illegally or through exploitation? Or are you going to act as every other conservative in the country: Oh, well?

    I can’t help but think of the title Atlas Shrugged. Who cares that people have been forced out of their homes, work in demoralising conditions, are now dead because of this worship of the almighty dollar. So what, people are rich, and if people are not rich it is not because some CEO wanted to continue to hoard his wealth so he laid off an entire factory, it is not because of the continued automation that simultaneously forces people out of work, it’s the evil government telling them that they cannot operate their factories as if they were sweatshops, that they have to install ventilation in their mines, that they have to actually consider the fleshy machinery that makes the accumulation of all their wealth possible are living, breathing individuals who have families to support, that get sick, that get injured as a result of shoddy and sub-standard workplace conditions. 

    Do you know what happens when there is a ‘free-market’, when your precious private industries are allowed to employ whatever means to earn a profit?

    A catastrophe in the form of a near global economic meltdown!!

    I could tell you not to fall for the myth that the free-market operates through competition and innovation, but that would be wasted effort because you obviously have not been paying attention to what has been happening to the glorious ‘free-market’. We are supposed to believe all these different organisations are working against one another in healthy competition, but in reality if one large company does not like the competition they simply buy the other company. That is how we have ended up with six media companies, some of which also hold ownership over car companies, insurance companies, energy companies, and weapons companies. 

    And none of this consolidation ever leads to innovation, it leads to laziness and blandness. There are never any risks take, which is why all the cars look essentially the same, why all the movies consist of remakes and sequels, and why we don’t have half the technology we possess is five years behind any other first world nation. Other areas of the world have internet speed twice that of the US. Take a look at the tech Japan has: robotics, holograms, and GPS in their phones damn near a decade before any consumer in the US thought it was possible. 

    With the shrinking of the number of companies on all levels—technology, energy, communications—the quality of the product steadily decreases. Remember when Cingular was acquired by AT&T? Cingular’s network was fantastic, and AT&T scrapped it. Now we fall into the predicament of having too few people with too much money and influence that no one can even approach them. 

    The playing field is not fair, people are dying, and your apologetics are nothing but spit upon the graves.

  • Auto78541061

    About goddamn time.

  • Auto78541061

    About goddamn time.

  • Anonymous

    that was an epic and most excellent response!

    very much liked.

  • Anonymous

    But his is still not the ideal progressive vision. His ideology is amenable to many progressives because of the non-existent left wing voice.

    i still maintain that human rights/the environment/sanity are antithetical to capitalism.

  • Anonymous

    i thought all cons believed “greed” was the natural human reaction…

    while that is not my paradigm, in our contemporary world, it is a very common reaction….specifically regarding capitalism.

  • Anonymous

    how do you figure?

  • Anonymous

    I thought it pertinent!

  • Mr Willow

    its perfectly clear why some go to extraordinary lengths to avoid the disproportionate taxes the wealthy face.

    And it should be perfectly clear why they are subject to disproportionate taxes: because they have disproportionate incomes.

  • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

    Read the book Freakonomics. Crime rates decline after a generation of reduced accidental pregnancy. After the Roe v Wade…no immediate change…but almost 15 years after…crime started to crash nationwide across the board…despite the counterclaims by the press about drug related epidemics of crime (which were statistically nonexistant.) The point was that a huge generation of potentially unwanted children who would have been statistically more inclined to arrest simply didn’t come into being…lowering crime by default.
     

  • Anonymous

    thank you for the recommend, i’ve seen it many times at the library but never bothered. i will check it out.

  • DeepCough

    That’s the problem with you conservatives: you prefer to carry the cross instead of using it for anything useful.

  • Juno Akagata

    At best – It’s about damn time!!  Although in my opinion this doesn’t go far enough. This will still help only a few woman – Meaning only those who can actually afford health insurance. I’m 40 years old and I can’t afford health insurance so this doesn’t help people like me at all. Birth control pills should be available over the counter at every single pharmacy in the United States. Part of being a responsible parent is also knowing when NOT to have a child!!! I’m so tired of the government and religious institutions telling me what I can and cannot do with my own body! Isn’t there supposed to be something in the Constitution about church and state being separate?? Yeah- right…………….

  • Juno Akagata

    At best – It’s about damn time!!  Although in my opinion this doesn’t go far enough. This will still help only a few woman – Meaning only those who can actually afford health insurance. I’m 40 years old and I can’t afford health insurance so this doesn’t help people like me at all. Birth control pills should be available over the counter at every single pharmacy in the United States. Part of being a responsible parent is also knowing when NOT to have a child!!! I’m so tired of the government and religious institutions telling me what I can and cannot do with my own body! Isn’t there supposed to be something in the Constitution about church and state being separate?? Yeah- right…………….

  • Elmyr23

    “U.S. health insurance companies must offer women free birth control and other preventive health care services”
    for all of you to retarded to read and comprehend. You have to pay for health insurance.

    • Common Sense

      that was being argued originally before it turned into this shitstorm. You can find it in the comments

      • Jin The Ninja

        “shitstorm”?

        oh you mean, the vast majority of public opinion on dis-info strongly or very strongly disagreed with you?

        oh that’s right. or left if you REALLY think about it.

        • Common Sense

          i’ve heard nothing to counteract the true conservative approach other than poor people are so helpless rich people are so mean lets make the rich pay for everything blah blah blah

          • Jin The Ninja

            and i’ve heard nothing but fox news talking points from you- which translates, “blah blah blah.”

          • Common Sense

            well I guess there isn’t much argument left. Look, to be clear conservatives/libertarians aren’t heartless sociopaths who couldn’t give two shits about the human condition. We are volunteers within our communities and are active political organizers. We speak out against immoral practices and would like to see the current government changed just as much as you. Our means of achieving what we believe to be the best society are just different. We recognize that you can’t force people together. Let people be free to associate and work as they please. We are also realists. We recognize that you can’t depend on a large overburdened government to regulate everything in life without paying too high of a cost. It is important to secure the safety and security of yourself and your loved ones first, to be sure you have your own local sources of food, to have items of real value such as gold (again as I’ve mentioned above gold’s value is deemed by humans, it is just “shiny rocks” but it has a globally recognized value and has been a prized commodity since the beginning of civilization). A small, simplified government is the most manageable, efficient and effective form of government. That is why state’s rights are crucial for libertarians. True change and prosperity starts at the local, not the federal level.

          • Jin The Ninja

            I think biggest point of contention, is that you use the word “libertarian” like it is some right wing immaculate conception, when “libertarian-socialism” is the original meaning, referring to a fair and just world- as opposed to your version, where we return to mercantile capitalism trading gold ducats and no one will be greedy, but everyone will carry guns. seems pretty ahistorical to me.

          • Common Sense

            I’m not looking to turn the world into a Hollywood western. State’s rights, as well as the largely moral society we enjoy (despite what the evening news tells you) will do a pretty good job of keeping the people civil. Myself, and a growing number of others in this country, would like to correct the errors made in the past century by those who have ignored and abused the constitution of the United States. Will this happen? Will your socialism continue to grow in the United States? Only history will say.

          • Jin The Ninja

            Jefferson’s original conception of gov’t has a lot more in common with my version of “libertarianism” than yours. And yes, your version sounds like a western, or perhaps to take a genre-nod from ayn rand dystopic fiction. History is not a thing, it is neither progressive nor regressive, it is fluid and has ebbs and flows. Many of your compatriots would be happy with a return to slavery- how do you reconcile that?

          • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

            Hey Jin…ever notice the free market/states rights/weak central authority weenies like Common Sense never mention Haiti? Because its the poster child for their philosophy. Not exactly an AynRand-ian fantasy land…but its what always happens when people say “central government should be weak and ineffectual!”. We already had that shit…it was called feudalism and the entire planet spent a couple centuries working overtime to get away from it. In fact…contempt for feudalism is what drove people from Europe to America, inspired the framers of the constitution to aim for something better…and generally made the US a success. A pity the Tea Party doesn’t grasp that the Koch Brothers and friends are the new monarchies of todays world…and in revolutionary terms…their lips are firmly puckered to kiss old King Georges sphincter.

          • Jin The Ninja

            Vox, i sincerely don’t know why OR how they don’t realise the reality of what the right is/means.

            I don’t understand them at all! either their interpretation of american history or the constitution.

            AND you are totally on-point about Haiti. It has been the testing ground for imperialist, colonialist and neo-liberal policies for 400 years.  See i believe, that they (the esoteric monarchs of today) would LOVE a haiti in america.

            they are the serfs who defend their lord until the end.

          • DeepCough

            Like I said, you’re a stupid cunt Teabagger who’s main talking point through the entire goddamn thread has been, “Socialism is bad,” and you also forget that the whole reason why government was established in the first place was to DO THINGS. Since the U.S. is a government by, of, and for the people, I do not see anything–ANYTHING–wrong with providing birth control TO the people. Now go back to masturbating to the Fountainhead you fucking dumbass.

          • Tuna Ghost

            State’s rights, as well as the largely moral society we enjoy (despite what the evening news tells you) will do a pretty good job of keeping the people civil.

            Except we have no reason to think that, because it certainly didn’t go down like that in the past.  Here’s one example why why Federal powers were extended: because a parts of the country saw nothing wrong with discriminating against minorities, due to holdover bits of culture and plain ol’ ignorance and hatred.  

          • Tuna Ghost

            again as I’ve mentioned above gold’s value is deemed by humans, it is just “shiny rocks” but it has a globally recognized value and has been a prized commodity since the beginning of civilization
            And then several people corrected you, since you obviously haven’t bothered to check if any of that were true.

            True change and prosperity starts at the local, not the federal level.

            Except when it doesn’t, as is shown at several points in US history in regard to general welfare and civil rights.  Why are you ignoring this very, very simple fact?  Ignoring won’t make it go away.  

          • Andrew

            You’ve heard nothing to counteract vague conservative theory but the facts that not enough rich people are compassionate enough to help the many poor who have no means other than government aid.

  • Elmyr23

    “U.S. health insurance companies must offer women free birth control and other preventive health care services”
    for all of you to retarded to read and comprehend. You have to pay for health insurance.

  • Elmyr23

    In a side note, i would like to note that people on my facebook and any other social community only seem to comment and care when it comes to the poor. Most of these responses seem to come from people thinking they are some how paying for the poor and that pisses them off. Shows how much fox news (cheap punch) has affected us. care not about the top 1% but flame hard when ever poor people get some kind of help.

  • Elmyr23

    In a side note, i would like to note that people on my facebook and any other social community only seem to comment and care when it comes to the poor. Most of these responses seem to come from people thinking they are some how paying for the poor and that pisses them off. Shows how much fox news (cheap punch) has affected us. care not about the top 1% but flame hard when ever poor people get some kind of help.

  • Elmyr23

    those people are probaly more socialist than you would ever like. Why? becuase they care about people not thier pocket

  • Anonymous

    Makes sense to me.

  • Anonymous

    How much did GE, the world’s largest corporation, pay in taxes last year?

    It is the wealthy man’s problem, or so says Jesus…

  • Tuna Ghost

    It’s not just the Daily Show that things/says that, buddy.  

  • Tuna Ghost

    “Limited Government” except when it comes to women’s bodies, it seems.  Or the military.  

  • Tuna Ghost

    Nope.  Healthcare shouldn’t be a business in the first place.

  • Anonymous

    lol.. so Joe The Plumer = TeaBag Jimmy???

  • Bbo

    anyone else not understand how disinfo puts commends.

  • Bbo

    anyone else not understand how disinfo puts commends.

  • Tuna Ghost

    How is it “broke”?  In what way?  I hear this all the time, but nobody can tell me why.  

  • Tuna Ghost

    Don’t fall for the myth that the playing field isn’t fair.
    You’re right, there’s no such thing as racism anymore.  Or class issues.  Those are complete myths.  

  • Tuna Ghost

    Jews jews jews oh no 

  • Tuna Ghost

    There’s no money

    And you really believe that’s the Welfare system’s fault?  That’s why there’s no money?  Buddy someone has lied to you.  Go read some statistics on how much of the debt comes from welfare, medicare and medicaid.  Then compare that to the debt incurred from the money spent on the Defense budget.  

  • Markov Cheney

    The SECRETS of the UNIVERSE!!! 
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGqqztT4ZHs

  • E.B. Wolf

    Where would they all go, Somalia? If the taxes on the wealthiest people went back to 1990’s rates, they would still be among the lowest in the developed world.

    Coupled with tearing up all those “free trade” agreements that have been all the rage for the past 20 years or so, the poor, poor billionaires wouldn’t be able to threaten to take their ball and go home anytime someone suggests their free ride comes to an end.

    “Oh, you’re going to pack up your toys and leave because taxes are to high? Well, now you’re a foreign company big shot. Which means you’re going to start paying tariffs on all imports if you want to do business in the biggest consumer market on the planet.”

  • Common Sense

    that was being argued originally before it turned into this shitstorm. You can find it in the comments

  • Common Sense

    i’m against a federal income tax at all. And if not that than a flat-tax across the board, for example 15% whether you make 50 million a year or 50 dollars a year. What ever happened to “shared sacrifice”?

  • Common Sense

    “national defense” aka imperialism is our biggest waste of money. Our foreign policy does nothing but ensure we lose more money and more personal liberty. I’m all for massive restructuring and cuts to our military. However, our welfare system is also unethical in a sense of the entitlement it creates and has created a helpless society where people rely on their government to wipe their ass for them

  • Anonymous

    “shitstorm”?

    oh you mean, the vast majority of public opinion on dis-info strongly or very strongly disagreed with you?

    oh that’s right. or left if you REALLY think about it.

  • Anonymous

    “shitstorm”?

    oh you mean, the vast majority of public opinion on dis-info strongly or very strongly disagreed with you?

    oh that’s right. or left if you REALLY think about it.

  • 5by5

    Fewer unwanted pregnancies, and therefore in 20 years, less crime too. Nice.

  • 5by5

    Fewer unwanted pregnancies, and therefore in 20 years, less crime too. Nice.

  • 5by5

    Fewer unwanted pregnancies, and therefore in 20 years, less crime too. Nice.

  • 5by5

    CommonStupidity: If you stand for individual liberty and limited government, you should have no problem with providing women of all income brackets (including the poor who cannot afford it otherwise) with reproductive freedom. To restrict a woman’s right to control her body is the ULTIMATE government intervention, not to mention a violation of her 4th and 14th Amendment rights.

  • 5by5

    CommonStupidity: If you stand for individual liberty and limited government, you should have no problem with providing women of all income brackets (including the poor who cannot afford it otherwise) with reproductive freedom. To restrict a woman’s right to control her body is the ULTIMATE government intervention, not to mention a violation of her 4th and 14th Amendment rights.

  • 5by5

    CommonNutbag: For real irony, ponder this — back in the day, Nixon wanted to mandate that all private companies be forced to pay for ALL their employees health care. That no individual would pay for health care, ONLY companies. Are you going to try to tell us that Nixon was a Socialist too? Because I could really use a good laugh this morning….

  • 5by5

    CommonTeabagger: Just admit it. This isn’t about limiting government. The reason why you’ve clamped your ideological teeth around this like a pit bull, is because it’s about limiting women.

  • 5by5

    CommonTeabagger: Just admit it. This isn’t about limiting government. The reason why you’ve clamped your ideological teeth around this like a pit bull, is because it’s about limiting women.

    • Common Sense

      derp.

  • 5by5

    The fair market.

  • 5by5

    No, simply a choice. We aren’t animals. Brutish behavior is something we can choose NOT to engage in. And you, like most ignorant cons, forget the value of cooperation and altruism in survival.

    Your limited thinking yields limited results.

  • 5by5

    And if the condom breaks, or the guy doesn’t put it on right, what’s the woman supposed to do, pray to god he doesn’t have good swimmers?

    Spoken just like a con, “Hey little lady, leave this life-changing prospect up to the man, and if something goes wrong, you eat all the pain.”

    With all due respect, go fuck YOURSELF.

  • 5by5

    Let them leave. I’m not seeing a down side here. Next we’ll just write a law that says if you want to leave, you give up 80% of all your property before you go. And PS. you can also kiss my ass on the way out the door. If you don’t appreciate the freedoms this country gives you, we’ll be happy to take some back from you.

  • 5by5

    This is the wealthiest country in the world. We have PLENTY of money. 

    The Fed just gave the banks $16 TRILLION from their back pocket. The entire national debt is $14.1 trillion. The business people in this country could have paid off the entire bill and had nearly $2 trillion left over for every social program under the sun, along with NASA, infrastructure renewal (which would produce jobs and help the recovery), clean energy research, etc.We have MORE than enough for everyone’s need, were it not for  a few asshat’s greed.

  • Anonymous

    did you not read good Mr. Willow’s comment at ALL?

  • Andrew

    The fatal flaw in “libertarian” theology is that corporations are not individuals.

  • Andrew

    The fatal flaw in “libertarian” theology is that corporations are not individuals.

  • Andrew

    As if the poor and middle class aren’t sacrificing enough.

  • Andrew

    As if the poor and middle class aren’t sacrificing enough.

  • Andrew

    As if the poor and middle class aren’t sacrificing enough.

  • Andrew

    Money is a human invention, a medium of exchange created and agreed upon by a society as a whole.  It’s merely potential value, not wealth in and of itself.  As such, while individuals may truthfully claim to not have enough money, a society cannot claim the same.  What there is a lack of is production, and efficient distribution.

    There’s plenty of money.  It’s just hoarded in Wall Street’s computers.

  • Mr Willow

    What ever happened to “shared sacrifice”?

    I don’t know. Perhaps the banks should give back all the bailout money they received as an entitlement (too big to fail means they’re ‘entitled’ to tax payer money just as much as a poor person who is dying and can’t afford it). Perhaps all the energy, weapon, and food corporations should return their subsidies. 

    I cannot understand why anyone would speak ill of keeping our countrymen healthy, safe in their place of employment, and happy if we are able, and am truly angered that in the same breath they can defend enormous sums of money going toward corporate welfare. 

    I guess I’m an idiot, or am just too generous for my own good, because I feel that noöne is above helping his fellow man. 

  • Butter Knife

    Do you mean to say that companies shouldn’t be forced to follow laws?

    So the Federal Government shouldn’t be allowed to require companies to pay taxes? How about forcing them not to hire private armies and run around the countryside massacring people?

    If we aren’t forcing Federal laws onto private companies, we aren’t forcing them onto anyone, and the Federal Government no longer has any reason (or means) to exist.

    I don’t associate dissolving the Union with the Tea Party, so I”m going to assume that’s not what you meant, despite the fact it is precisely what you said.

    Perhaps what you meant is the ethics of forcing a private company to pay for people’s birth control. That would be MUCH more sane.

    You would be right, of course, if the companies being forced to do so were in the business of selling cars or delivering parcels; that would be an arbitrary and unjust burden. However, we’re talking about health insurance companies, and their product is paying for health care; mandating that they pay for their customers’ health care is neither arbitrary nor unjust.

    Furthermore, you presumably believe that health insurance is a free market where individuals can simply choose a different provider if they don’t like the one they have. That is not entirely true. For one thing, most people get health insurance through their employer, which means that their choice of insurer is limited to whoever their employer has a deal with. Furthermore, the insurance market itself is heavily regulated in terms of who is allowed to participate, with the biggest limiting factor being that participants be solvent for a large percentage of potential claims; you may think this unjust, but prior to such rules insurance coverage was often worth less than the paper the policy was written on, as companies would open, collect premiums, then close shop and run away with the money.

    Speaking of which, in other comments you indicate a belief that “charity and righteous doctors” used to help people when they were unable to afford medical care. When was this? To what extent? I don’t question that such charities have always been around, or that some doctors have always been willing to care for the poor without direct compensation… but at what point was that sufficient to care for everyone? We used to have plagues, the poor frequently died of entirely preventable and easily treatable diseases, the prevailing medical practice was simply to quarantine the sick and leave them to live or die as God saw fit. Is that really the system you want to bring back?

  • Butter Knife

    Do you mean to say that companies shouldn’t be forced to follow laws?

    So the Federal Government shouldn’t be allowed to require companies to pay taxes? How about forcing them not to hire private armies and run around the countryside massacring people?

    If we aren’t forcing Federal laws onto private companies, we aren’t forcing them onto anyone, and the Federal Government no longer has any reason (or means) to exist.

    I don’t associate dissolving the Union with the Tea Party, so I”m going to assume that’s not what you meant, despite the fact it is precisely what you said.

    Perhaps what you meant is the ethics of forcing a private company to pay for people’s birth control. That would be MUCH more sane.

    You would be right, of course, if the companies being forced to do so were in the business of selling cars or delivering parcels; that would be an arbitrary and unjust burden. However, we’re talking about health insurance companies, and their product is paying for health care; mandating that they pay for their customers’ health care is neither arbitrary nor unjust.

    Furthermore, you presumably believe that health insurance is a free market where individuals can simply choose a different provider if they don’t like the one they have. That is not entirely true. For one thing, most people get health insurance through their employer, which means that their choice of insurer is limited to whoever their employer has a deal with. Furthermore, the insurance market itself is heavily regulated in terms of who is allowed to participate, with the biggest limiting factor being that participants be solvent for a large percentage of potential claims; you may think this unjust, but prior to such rules insurance coverage was often worth less than the paper the policy was written on, as companies would open, collect premiums, then close shop and run away with the money.

    Speaking of which, in other comments you indicate a belief that “charity and righteous doctors” used to help people when they were unable to afford medical care. When was this? To what extent? I don’t question that such charities have always been around, or that some doctors have always been willing to care for the poor without direct compensation… but at what point was that sufficient to care for everyone? We used to have plagues, the poor frequently died of entirely preventable and easily treatable diseases, the prevailing medical practice was simply to quarantine the sick and leave them to live or die as God saw fit. Is that really the system you want to bring back?

  • Butter Knife

    Do you mean to say that companies shouldn’t be forced to follow laws?

    So the Federal Government shouldn’t be allowed to require companies to pay taxes? How about forcing them not to hire private armies and run around the countryside massacring people?

    If we aren’t forcing Federal laws onto private companies, we aren’t forcing them onto anyone, and the Federal Government no longer has any reason (or means) to exist.

    I don’t associate dissolving the Union with the Tea Party, so I”m going to assume that’s not what you meant, despite the fact it is precisely what you said.

    Perhaps what you meant is the ethics of forcing a private company to pay for people’s birth control. That would be MUCH more sane.

    You would be right, of course, if the companies being forced to do so were in the business of selling cars or delivering parcels; that would be an arbitrary and unjust burden. However, we’re talking about health insurance companies, and their product is paying for health care; mandating that they pay for their customers’ health care is neither arbitrary nor unjust.

    Furthermore, you presumably believe that health insurance is a free market where individuals can simply choose a different provider if they don’t like the one they have. That is not entirely true. For one thing, most people get health insurance through their employer, which means that their choice of insurer is limited to whoever their employer has a deal with. Furthermore, the insurance market itself is heavily regulated in terms of who is allowed to participate, with the biggest limiting factor being that participants be solvent for a large percentage of potential claims; you may think this unjust, but prior to such rules insurance coverage was often worth less than the paper the policy was written on, as companies would open, collect premiums, then close shop and run away with the money.

    Speaking of which, in other comments you indicate a belief that “charity and righteous doctors” used to help people when they were unable to afford medical care. When was this? To what extent? I don’t question that such charities have always been around, or that some doctors have always been willing to care for the poor without direct compensation… but at what point was that sufficient to care for everyone? We used to have plagues, the poor frequently died of entirely preventable and easily treatable diseases, the prevailing medical practice was simply to quarantine the sick and leave them to live or die as God saw fit. Is that really the system you want to bring back?

  • Common Sense

    that’s not the argument, it’s a matter of FORCING insurance companies to provide birth control.

  • Common Sense

    clearly you have not read my other posts and are resorting to “conservative” stereotypes

  • Common Sense

    derp.

  • Common Sense

    or move to developing markets that realize deregulation is the key to a healthy economy?

  • Common Sense

    i’m very much opposed to warfare, subsidies, and corporate welfare as well. come on do you even know the true conservative issues?

  • Common Sense

    or how about they have the right to their own property (unethical bailouts, subsidies, bla bla aside) and have the right to take it and leave

  • Common Sense

    I never said that was right, they should very well pay their taxes

  • Common Sense

    I never said that was right, they should very well pay their taxes

  • Common Sense

    that’s why true conservatives support the gold standard. gold has value, you can debate human greed and shiny rocks but regardless gold is a highly valuable commodity and much more safe than our current system of worthless paper and electronic numbers

  • Common Sense

    lol what entitles you to that money? earn something for yourself.

  • Common Sense

    or you could pay for your own fucking birth control or chose an insurer who willingly provides it themselves? You are easily the least intelligent person who I’ve had to debate thus far on this thread.

  • Common Sense

    i’ve heard nothing to counteract the true conservative approach other than poor people are so helpless rich people are so mean lets make the rich pay for everything blah blah blah

  • Tuna Ghost

    However, our welfare system is also unethical…

    Are you using “also” here to mean “in addition to the Defense budget”, or “in addition to putting a drain on the national economy”?  One is a true statement, the other is not.  

    The problem with statements like “People who rely on their government to wipe their ass for them” is that it is emotive without actually saying anything substantive.  There’s a great deal of room between someone living off of disability checks, content to never to do anything to earn a real wage, and an elderly woman taking care of her grandson, using welfare and medicare to stay alive.  Both cases are someone relying on the government to “wipe their ass”, but one is the sort of ass-wiping the government should be doing in any civilized country.  
    Between these two cases, there is a lot of room and a lot of opinions on what is justified use of everybody’s money and what is not.  There’s a debate to be had in that area, sure.  Probably several.  But the fact that there is a minority abusing the system does not make it “broken”.  As a smarter man than me once said, it all boils down to whether or not you give a shit: whether or not you care if the elderly woman across town can afford her medicine, whether or not the poverty-stricken family’s children are able to eat at least two meals a day, whether or not people are literally dying in our streets from hunger or exposure (which happens, frequently, in cities like my hometown of Detroit).  Scrapping the whole system  so that nobody is using your tax dollars to not have to go to work is a level of greed, selfishness and immaturity bordering on obscene.  

    Saying the system is “broken” because it is able to be abused while it is still performing the duties it was meant to perform is ignorance, plain and simple.  Saying the playing field is level, that the government does not need to intervene to make life better for the less fortunate because it is their own fault for being poor, is ignoring reality on a sickening level.  

  • Tuna Ghost

    However, realistically, people, whether through Robin Hood or the government have no right to forcefully take somebody’s hard-earned possessions and redistribute it as they see fit.
    “This is MY money, and nobody is going to make me use a single cent of it to help the sick or the needy or do anything with it that I don’t approve of first.  I will help the sick and the needy if I so choose, and I if I do choose, I get to decide which sick and which needy get financial aid from me.”

    Wrong.  This is a community, and simply put you do NOT have a right to decide what every cent you earn does.  And before you say anything, no, this doesn’t make it a socialist system.  

  • Hadrian999

    the problem you run into is that these mythical “true conservatives” don’t exist or would rather vote for hypocrites to get a “win” over those evil socialist humanist commie baby killing democrats than actually vote for people who will touch these alleged conservative issues. every “conservative” in government is big spending big government, corporate parasites that get a pass because they say jesus and free market every once in a while while carrying water for multinationals and defense contractors. if you want conservatives judged my these ideals you are talking about then they must actually implement them not play the same old games and only talk about them when they want to rile up the party serfs

  • Anonymous

    and i’ve heard nothing but fox news talking points from you- which translates, “blah blah blah.”

  • Andrew

    Gold’s only objective value is as a conductor of electricity.  Other than that, it’s value is as subjective as paper and electronic numbers.  To link a medium of exchange’s value to a finite commodity when the nation’s needs and production are constanly in flux is insane and stupid.  A sane backing for money would be the GNP.

  • Mr Willow

    If businesses aren’t hiring (you know, unemployment and all) or are actively laying people off, noöne can earn anything, and can therefore not put money back into the system, continuing what is known as an economy. 

    What is happening is that several people refuse to pay employees, so the cycle cannot occur. 

  • Common Sense

    I meant “in addition”. And yes, I agree that it is a problem that many cannot take care of themselves and their families under current conditions, however it doesn’t need to be the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT which pays the bills. Again, this is where LOCAL communities, charities, religious and cultural institutions come in.

  • Common Sense

    I meant “in addition”. And yes, I agree that it is a problem that many cannot take care of themselves and their families under current conditions, however it doesn’t need to be the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT which pays the bills. Again, this is where LOCAL communities, charities, religious and cultural institutions come in.

  • Mr Willow

    Bullshit. 

    The only practical application gold has is as an electrical conductor. You think the government is oppressive? It doesn’t hold a candle to money.

    Currency is the most egregious invention of mankind, and it was only made more horrible when somebody decided shiny things were more valuable than consumable things. Remember what was currency on this continent before the Spanish came here searching for gold? Coffee beans, or cocoa beans. 

    But that is flawed, because then we could all just grow our own money and do what all these jackass conservatives keep telling us to do: Be self sufficient!!

  • Common Sense

    I agree, it is a big problem. But I see people waking up, and I hope that (although its a long shot) we can get Ron Paul for the nomination. If not the nomination, at least continue exposing the hypocrisy of the GOP and promote libertarian ideology to mainstream America. You can’t argue that Libertarianism ideas are making big gains in this country. So if not Ron, hopefully we’ll see a principled Rand Paul run in 2016

  • Mr Willow

    I defer to Hadrian.

  • Andrew

    You’ve heard nothing to counteract vague conservative theory but the facts that not enough rich people are compassionate enough to help the many poor who have no means other than government aid.

  • Common Sense

    That’s called plunder. No matter how noble your motives it still taking one’s private possessions by force and redistributing it as they deem fit.

  • Andrew

    “Tough shit!”

  • Andrew

    “Tough shit!”

  • Andrew

    GE’s taxes aren’t “plunder?”

  • Non Sense

    I see my brother Common has been here

  • Non Sense

    I see my brother Common has been here

  • Non Sense

    I see my brother Common has been here

  • Common Sense

    well I guess there isn’t much argument left. Look, to be clear conservatives/libertarians aren’t heartless sociopaths who couldn’t give two shits about the human condition. We are volunteers within our communities and are active political organizers. We speak out against immoral practices and would like to see the current government changed just as much as you. Our means of achieving what we believe to be the best society are just different. We recognize that you can’t force people together. Let people be free to associate and work as they please. We are also realists. We recognize that you can’t depend on a large overburdened government to regulate everything in life without paying too high of a cost. It is important to secure the safety and security of yourself and your loved ones first, to be sure you have your own local sources of food, to have items of real value such as gold (again as I’ve mentioned above gold’s value is deemed by humans, it is just “shiny rocks” but it has a globally recognized value and has been a prized commodity since the beginning of civilization). A small, simplified government is the most manageable, efficient and effective form of government. That is why state’s rights are crucial for libertarians. True change and prosperity starts at the local, not the federal level.

  • Common Sense

    well I guess there isn’t much argument left. Look, to be clear conservatives/libertarians aren’t heartless sociopaths who couldn’t give two shits about the human condition. We are volunteers within our communities and are active political organizers. We speak out against immoral practices and would like to see the current government changed just as much as you. Our means of achieving what we believe to be the best society are just different. We recognize that you can’t force people together. Let people be free to associate and work as they please. We are also realists. We recognize that you can’t depend on a large overburdened government to regulate everything in life without paying too high of a cost. It is important to secure the safety and security of yourself and your loved ones first, to be sure you have your own local sources of food, to have items of real value such as gold (again as I’ve mentioned above gold’s value is deemed by humans, it is just “shiny rocks” but it has a globally recognized value and has been a prized commodity since the beginning of civilization). A small, simplified government is the most manageable, efficient and effective form of government. That is why state’s rights are crucial for libertarians. True change and prosperity starts at the local, not the federal level.

  • Common Sense

    gold HAS value. We are but mere animals occupying this rock in space and for whatever reason gold has been accepted since the dawn of civilization as a highly sought-after and valuable means of exchange. I guess our ancestors just liked the way it looked. Regardless of origin and sanity behind the practice, gold still maintains its value. Whether or not you believe in this value, there are still many who do around the globe and judging my today’s skyrocketing value of the element, gold will be around for many years to come.

  • DeepCough

    You do realize that the Bush tax cuts have done just that: redistribute wealth to certain people–certain rich people.

  • DeepCough

    If deregulation were the key to a healthy economy, then why did the motherfucking private banks become insolvent?! THINK, MAN, THINK!

  • DeepCough

    Ron and Rand Paul are not nearly enough to solve the multifold problems with the United States. Until Americans do a massive overhaul of their own government of revolutionary proportions, then 2012 will surely be the end as we know it.

  • Mr Willow

    Alright, this is really starting to piss me off. 

    In America, the People are the Government. We elect people to Represent us in the hopes that they will make certain the country functions in the most efficient manner possible. That means building Roads, that means that means building Hospitals, that means, yes, providing for Defense (not imperialism), and that means that People are able to Live, and are able to work. If People are Sick, they cannot work, if they are Disabled, they cannot work, if they are Unhappy, they cannot work. 

    All taxes do are to collect the People’s money, in limited quantities according to how much each person has, and allocates funds to programs that (should) seek to help all People equally. It is not the Government providing for People, it is the People providing for One Another. Taking care of our own is not some big conspiracy to make you poor. 

    Despite what conservatives say, there are very few people who just sit around and live off of Medicaid or Social Security. Are there? Sure, but it costs the People more financially, in safety, and in overall morale to be without healthcare and safe work conditions than it does making sure some deadbeat doesn’t want to work. In fact, that is where the Local Community can step in and solve that problem as well. If the circumstances were flipped, we had National Healthcare, and all the things associated with this evil march toward socialism that conservatives fear so much, what’s to stop a deadbeat’s friends or family from urging them into a job, making them get a job, or offering them a job? 

    Nothing.

  • Common Sense

    again, i’m against a federal income tax but if necessary could compromise to an even tax rate across the boards. Whether you make 1 billion or 1 dollar a year, everybody pays the same percentage.

  • Common Sense

    regardless of the impact on society, whether good or bad, it’s simply not within the federal government’s role provided by the constitution.

  • Anonymous

    I think biggest point of contention, is that you use the word “libertarian” like it is some right wing immaculate conception, when “libertarian-socialism” is the original meaning, referring to a fair and just world- as opposed to your version, where we return to mercantile capitalism trading gold ducats and no one will be greedy, but everyone will carry guns. seems pretty ahistorical to me.

  • Common Sense

    I’m not looking to turn the world into a Hollywood western. State’s rights, as well as the largely moral society we enjoy (despite what the evening news tells you) will do a pretty good job of keeping the people civil. Myself, and a growing number of others in this country, would like to correct the errors made in the past century by those who have ignored and abused the constitution of the United States. Will this happen? Will your socialism continue to grow in the United States? Only history will say.

  • Anonymous

    Jefferson’s original conception of gov’t has a lot more in common with my version of “libertarianism” than yours. And yes, your version sounds like a western, or perhaps to take a genre-nod from ayn rand dystopic fiction. History is not a thing, it is neither progressive nor regressive, it is fluid and has ebbs and flows. Many of your compatriots would be happy with a return to slavery- how do you reconcile that?

  • Anonymous

    So you are in favour of a 90% reduction in military spending?

  • Anonymous

    the idea of private property is against libertarian ideology.

    “If I were asked to answer the following question: What is slavery? and I should answer in one word, It is murder!, my meaning would be understood at once. No extended argument would be required . . . Why, then, to this other question: What is property? may I not likewise answer, It is robbery!, without the certainty of being misunderstood; the second proposition being no other than a transformation of the first?

    Joseph Pierre Proudhon

  • Anonymous

    the idea of private property is against libertarian ideology.

    “If I were asked to answer the following question: What is slavery? and I should answer in one word, It is murder!, my meaning would be understood at once. No extended argument would be required . . . Why, then, to this other question: What is property? may I not likewise answer, It is robbery!, without the certainty of being misunderstood; the second proposition being no other than a transformation of the first?

    Joseph Pierre Proudhon

  • Anonymous

    I don’t think Mr. Willow is advocating for wholesale statist policies at all, and i think it’s very telling you miss the humanist subtly in his comments.  From what i read above, it’s about community., and giving the “least amongst us” a decent life.

  • E.B. Wolf

    Of course. The deregulation craze of the last 25 odd years has just done wonders with the U.S. economy; particularly in how it liberated us from the nightmare years of the 50’s and 60’s when our economy was truly the envy of the world.

    And where would these mythical “developing markets” be exactly? Europe is out because it’s a socialist cesspool in the eyes of Randian economics devotees. 

    Japan? Taiwan? South Korea? Nope. They still embrace ethnic nationalism; so they won’t be too keen on a bunch of foreigners moving in and setting up shop.

    Russia? Please. Try walking into that country and telling them you must be left free to conduct business however you see fit. It would be amusing to see a soft American suit trying to make that argument with the business end of an AK 47 shoved up their ass.

    China? See Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea.

    Most of the Middle East is out, with the exception of the UAE. But they’re essentially the Arab version of the Beverly Hillbillies who’ve built the world’s most elaborate mirage on a foundation of sand.

    India and Australia are already quite developed.

    So already you’re down to South America and Africa. Bon Voyage. Don’t forget to pack a bulletproof vest. 

  • Mr Willow

    Quite. 

  • Mr Willow

    and for whatever reason gold has been accepted since the dawn of civilization as a highly sought-after and valuable means of exchange.

    That is a blatant lie. As I said in reply to your previous statement (see below), on this continent (America: North, South, and Central), cocoa beans, coffee beans, arrowheads, and a whole host of things that were actually useful (i.e. they could provide you with nourishment) were used as currency. When Cortez, and later Columbus, marched through, it was noted that not only did they leave gold in the rivers, but had a very limited understanding of private ownership. They used what is called a gift economy.

    Shells, tea, various grains and seeds, all have been used as currency throughout history, which seems more beneficial in the long run because the majority of these things can be eaten, or used to acquire things that can be eaten (in the case of arrowheads). But such a thing is silly *cough*cough* because then we could all just grow our own money. 

  • Mr Willow

    and for whatever reason gold has been accepted since the dawn of civilization as a highly sought-after and valuable means of exchange.

    That is a blatant lie. As I said in reply to your previous statement (see below), on this continent (America: North, South, and Central), cocoa beans, coffee beans, arrowheads, and a whole host of things that were actually useful (i.e. they could provide you with nourishment) were used as currency. When Cortez, and later Columbus, marched through, it was noted that not only did they leave gold in the rivers, but had a very limited understanding of private ownership. They used what is called a gift economy.

    Shells, tea, various grains and seeds, all have been used as currency throughout history, which seems more beneficial in the long run because the majority of these things can be eaten, or used to acquire things that can be eaten (in the case of arrowheads). But such a thing is silly *cough*cough* because then we could all just grow our own money. 

  • DeepCough

    Like I said, you’re a stupid cunt Teabagger who’s main talking point through the entire goddamn thread has been, “Socialism is bad,” and you also forget that the whole reason why government was established in the first place was to DO THINGS. Since the U.S. is a government by, of, and for the people, I do not see anything–ANYTHING–wrong with providing birth control TO the people. Now go back to masturbating to the Fountainhead you fucking dumbass.

  • Tuna Ghost

    Its only plunder if you think you “own” every cent you earn, as if you earned it in a vacuum rather than in a system within a community.  You don’t have a right to every cent you earn, therefore its not “plunder”.  

  • Tuna Ghost

    We are but mere animals occupying this rock in space and for whatever reason gold has been accepted since the dawn of civilization as a highly sought-after and valuable means of exchange

    Demonstrably false.  Gold was not used as currency in the Americas until Europeans arrived, despite its abundance.  This fact can be discovered with even the most basic research.  

    Gold’s value is just as meaningless as paper money’s value.  The only sane backing of money is, as has been pointed out to you, as was realized long ago and is why the country’s leaders decided to switch, production and goddam work.  Granted, those things are down in this country, but switching back is not going to help anything grow.  Gold is not suited for an economy that wants to grow.  

  • Tuna Ghost

    Yes, deregulation is a great idea, because banks and financial investment firms don’t need to be monitored!  Its not like they’d ruin the global economy by screwing people over in a shortsighted attempt to OH WAIT

    C’mon, guy.  I mean, this is recent history.  Its like you’re just shooting off conservative talking points with no substance or context or awareness of implications in the reality we share.

  • Tuna Ghost

    It does need to be the Federal Government, otherwise it wouldn’t get done.  I agree that Federal authority needs to be challenged to prove why it exists on a case-by-case basis, but this is one case where it can meet that challenge easily.  

  • Tuna Ghost

    State’s rights, as well as the largely moral society we enjoy (despite what the evening news tells you) will do a pretty good job of keeping the people civil.

    Except we have no reason to think that, because it certainly didn’t go down like that in the past.  Here’s one example why why Federal powers were extended: because a parts of the country saw nothing wrong with discriminating against minorities, due to holdover bits of culture and plain ol’ ignorance and hatred.  

  • Anonymous

    ;)

  • Anonymous

    I defer to tuna and Mr. Willow,

    but you definitely need to brush up on your early history if you are going to make broad (and ridiculous) proclamations like that. 

  • Anonymous

    not a surprise he doesn’t KNOW that, but i am still SURPRISED he doesn’t.

    :S

  • Anonymous

    not a surprise he doesn’t KNOW that, but i am still SURPRISED he doesn’t.

    :S

  • Tuna Ghost

    Okay, I feel like I’m not getting through to you, and it could be because everyone is reacting with hostility to you.  Ad hominems are no way to argue, and I will not be the one to tell you that you’re wrong because you’re a conservative or a libertarian or whatever.  So let’s try this again:

    We all agreed that people dying in the streets, poor families not being able to feed their children, and the elderly being abandoned to die alone is a bad thing.  We agreed that this should not happen in any country that calls itself “civilized”.  So we looked around and said “how can we stop this?”.

    Charity organizations and religious organizations had been trying to stop this for quite some time at that point, but the problem persisted.  That is why the Federal Government got involved.  Private organizations weren’t able to make much of a dent in the problem.  But the Federal Government could, and eventually did.  

    Regardless of what you think the Constitution says, it is the government’s responsibility to ensure a basic level of decency and standards in the quality of life of its citizens.  That’s a big part of the “establish Justice” and “promote the general Welfare”, and especially the “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” bits of a document you seem to take very seriously.  

    You may be tempted to say “well, why can’t state governments take care of it?  Why does it have to be the Federal Government?”  Because we gave that a shot, and it didn’t take.  Its similar to the problem you have with private organizations: there’s financial issues, and its far too easy for the opinions of a few to infect the system.  For years, southern states were allowed to practice institutionalized racism due to holdover bits of culture, ignorance, and simple hatred.  This should not be allowed.  Personal opinions should not influence who gets the care they need.  We can’t have someone saying “well, I’ll help the poor and sick, but not the polish poor and sick”.  That isn’t establishing Justice or promoting the general Welfare or securing the blessings of Liberty.  There is no ideology that should be preserved at the cost of basic human and civil rights.  This is very important, so I’m going to repeat it: There is no ideology that should be preserved at the cost of basic human and civil rights.  Especially in regard to the preamble of the Constitution.  It describes the aims of the document quite clearly.  Simply put, federal programs have thus far been the only way to make sure these aims are tackled on a national level for all citizens.  

    Now you may be tempted to say “But the constitution also grants certain powers to the federal government, and this isn’t one of those powers”, which is going to upset a lot of people.  The aims of that document are stated clearly in the preamble.  The Constitution is not a static document, regardless of whether or not the authors intended it to be.  That was then.  This is now.  I’ll say it again: There is no ideology that should be preserved at the cost of basic human and civil rights.  Sacrificing lives in an attempt to adhere to some ideology concerned about sticking as closely as possible to a document written before half the country was settled, when black people were still literally considered 3/5 of a person, when the average life span was 40 years, when the infant mortality rate was through the goddam roof, when leeches were still considered a viable option for medical care, when a level of death and despair that would shock us now was considered normal, is simply madness.  Absolute madness.  

    Going backwards isn’t going to fix anything, especially going back to a system that we adjusted because it had so many goddam problems.  

  • Tuna Ghost

    wait, you don’t get to admit that and then just move on like it isn’t important.  The playing field isn’t level.  This is very, very important, because too much of the country acts like it is.  “Poor people are poor because they don’t want to work!” and “Blacks whine too much about racism, its really not a problem anymore!” are things I hear from far too many people.  And not just rednecks, I hear it from elected officials!  This is fucking shameful, and it needs to be addressed.  

  • Tuna Ghost

    P.S.  It should also be noted that at the same time the Americas were being colonized, Europe was moving toward a more virtual currency.  When stocks and futures trading started, it was because of the notions of value were moving towards currency based on production and things that have real value.  That is the trend we’ve been in for centuries.  Why reverse all that?  

  • Nuggett

    Common Sense:

    I hope you don’t claim to be a Christian.  If so, you are espousing an opinion that is the complete antithesis of the words of Christ regarding this matter.

    You said…”But its no more the wealthy man’s problem then the poor man next to him.”

    I’m sure you don’t need scriptural references, as I’m sure your proclivities to the right render you in the company of christian types.  

    On another note, and unrelated to religion, it is simply better for human relations and civility for the wealthy to contribute to those less fortunate.  I vote “Yea” if the town council votes for the farmers with an overabundant supply of corn to contribute unneeded hoards to the starving.  If the fortunate farmer votes “Nay”, then he is acting selfishly, immorally, and in fear.  AND, it appears you are on his side.

    END of discussion.

  • Nuggett

    No it’s not.  You vote for the politicians, then they make the fucking rules.  You get to vote.  That is your power.  

    If you want to vote for the guy who doesn’t tax the rich, by all means…

    And, “taking one’s private possessions by force”.  Please don’t pull the fairness card here.  It’s a waste of our time.  Taxing the guy with 2 yachts, a summer home, and a home in Italy 5% extra so hardworking poor people don’t starve is not “unfair” or worthy of alarm.  It’s not a communist concept, it’s a moral concept.  People vote with their morals, and, in your case, a lack thereof.  Never forget what you fucking stand for.

  • Old Soul

    You do know that Thomas Paine, the man that wrote Common Sense, would find most tea party positions and beliefs to be abominable right?

  • Old Soul

    Yes, those people often had no vested interest in market solutions either.

  • no longer Randy

    so you’d rather have folks on their knees begging for charitable medical care?
    and THAT’s not socialism how exactly?
    because it’s not formalized and leaves its beneficiaries without human dignity?

    you’re still socializing the costs of their care– just not socializing the profits that health insurance cartels are making off denying care to the rest of us.

    freemarketzmyazzholes.

  • Wall Street penitent.

    that’s the silly argument– so fine, don’t let the door hit you in the *ss on the way out.
    first the cons argue that taxing the rich to death wouldn’t solve the fiscal problem and THEN they threaten US that the rich will all leave if we raise taxes on them even slightly.

    can’t have it both ways– either their tax dollars matter or they don’t.

    but to the real core of your argument– the tax history of the post WW2 position calls BS on you.
    not ME– actual historical fact, unlike the pseudo Conlaw rewrites of Merkin history.

  • uncommonsensical

    shhh!!!– don’t look behind the curtain … !

  • commonsense– ain’t.

    spot on.

    what freemarketzmyazzholes fail to grok is that by its very nature a free market canNOT remain free–  every player on that field will exert every effort to tilt that field to their own advantage . . . if only to prevent that advantage from accruing to their competition.
    or did you skip the Sherman Anti Trust Act in HS?

    so, once the myth of freemarketzmyazz is dispelled generally, or that it’s UNfreeing is per se a result of G meddling, the entire house of cards built upon that theology MUST crumble.
    or admit that like any other theology, it not only requires  faith in absence of proff, it requires faith in the face of contravening proof– no matter how overwhelming.

    newsflash to the objectivist ideologues– go ahead, shrug away– don’t you get that your very own theology is built on the notion of ubermenschen stepping into the opportunistic breach.

    don’t let the door hit you in your privileged asses on the way out– we’ll be just fine without your narcissistic parasitic asses

  • commonsense– ain’t.

    spot on.

    what freemarketzmyazzholes fail to grok is that by its very nature a free market canNOT remain free–  every player on that field will exert every effort to tilt that field to their own advantage . . . if only to prevent that advantage from accruing to their competition.
    or did you skip the Sherman Anti Trust Act in HS?

    so, once the myth of freemarketzmyazz is dispelled generally, or that it’s UNfreeing is per se a result of G meddling, the entire house of cards built upon that theology MUST crumble.
    or admit that like any other theology, it not only requires  faith in absence of proff, it requires faith in the face of contravening proof– no matter how overwhelming.

    newsflash to the objectivist ideologues– go ahead, shrug away– don’t you get that your very own theology is built on the notion of ubermenschen stepping into the opportunistic breach.

    don’t let the door hit you in your privileged asses on the way out– we’ll be just fine without your narcissistic parasitic asses

  • Anonymous

    good point Old Soul, paine was into a thing called, “social justice” something the t-party seems to find abhorrent.

  • Anonymous

    good point Old Soul, paine was into a thing called, “social justice” something the t-party seems to find abhorrent.

  • Anonymous

    No, that’d be you.

  • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

    Hey Jin…ever notice the free market/states rights/weak central authority weenies like Common Sense never mention Haiti? Because its the poster child for their philosophy. Not exactly an AynRand-ian fantasy land…but its what always happens when people say “central government should be weak and ineffectual!”. We already had that shit…it was called feudalism and the entire planet spent a couple centuries working overtime to get away from it. In fact…contempt for feudalism is what drove people from Europe to America, inspired the framers of the constitution to aim for something better…and generally made the US a success. A pity the Tea Party doesn’t grasp that the Koch Brothers and friends are the new monarchies of todays world…and in revolutionary terms…their lips are firmly puckered to kiss old King Georges sphincter.

  • Anonymous

    Vox, i sincerely don’t know why OR how they don’t realise the reality of what the right is/means.

    I don’t understand them at all! either their interpretation of american history or the constitution.

    AND you are totally on-point about Haiti. It has been the testing ground for imperialist, colonialist and neo-liberal policies for 400 years.  See i believe, that they (the esoteric monarchs of today) would LOVE a haiti in america.

    they are the serfs who defend their lord until the end.

  • Tuna Ghost

    again as I’ve mentioned above gold’s value is deemed by humans, it is just “shiny rocks” but it has a globally recognized value and has been a prized commodity since the beginning of civilization
    And then several people corrected you, since you obviously haven’t bothered to check if any of that were true.

    True change and prosperity starts at the local, not the federal level.

    Except when it doesn’t, as is shown at several points in US history in regard to general welfare and civil rights.  Why are you ignoring this very, very simple fact?  Ignoring won’t make it go away.  

  • louis vuitton outlets
21
More in American, Birth Control, Department of Health and Human Services, Health Care, Insurance, medical insurance, Morning After Pill, Obama Administration, United States, US Institute of Medicine, Women
Entire South Dakota Town For Sale For $800,000

For under a million dollars, you can purchase Scenic, South Dakota, a small town with weather-worn charm that includes a jail, post office, dance hall, and several saloons that have...

Close