Politics The Left vs. The Right...Where does the hatred lie?

[barfo]

Makes perfect sense.

Im happy to pay for those truly in need. why is itr contradictory to not want ot pay for those NOT in need? or taking advantage of a system which enables downhill behavior?

You want to decide who is in need. Seems a bit controlling on your part. Do you also want to decide which roads get repaved? Which weapons the military buys? Or is it just the poor that you want control over?

Do you think there might be any waste in military spending? What do you do to make sure that you aren't enabling bad habits at the Pentagon?

barfo

 

[Orion Bailey]

You want to decide who is in need. Seems a bit controlling on your part. Do you also want to decide which roads get repaved? Which weapons the military buys? Or is it just the poor that you want control over?

Do you think there might be any waste in military spending? What do you do to make sure that you aren't enabling bad habits at the Pentagon?

barfo

Who said me? I didnt. I think there should be more investigate steps to determine need over just filing for something and the government trusting whats put on the request for aid.

Everything needs oversite, including the military.

 

[barfo]

Who said me? I didnt. I think there should be more investigate steps to determine need over just filing for something and the government trusting whats put on the request for aid.

Everything needs oversite, including the military.

Oh, ok. So the government should spend more of your money to monitor all the poor people to make sure they don't get a penny more than they deserve.
You'd be happy to pay more in taxes than you currently do and expand the government bureaucracy & workforce just to make sure nobody gets away with anything?

barfo

 

[barfo]

How about tax cheats? There are a lot of them. Would you be in favor of hiring enough IRS auditors so that every tax return can be fully audited and investigated if necessary to catch all the tax cheaters?

barfo

 

[Orion Bailey]

Oh, ok. So the government should spend more of your money to monitor all the poor people to make sure they don't get a penny more than they deserve.
You'd be happy to pay more in taxes than you currently do just to make sure nobody gets away with anything?

barfo

Well that's kinda a vague sweeping statement too, but yes. It it stops selfish greedy people from taking advantage, id do it, because I don't think the oversite would need to maintain the level it starts out as once the truly bad people are weeded out. They go on a list and then when they ask for aid, the records and investigation is already there, so it wouldn't be a forever thing. It would be a transition thing to ... drain the swamp.

To me, as long as we allow loopholes we aren't really fixing or improving anything. Just a different type of running in circles.


But again this wasnt about money expenditures. Its about hatred of opposing views.

Do you hate me now because I have disagreed with you? IF not, do you have any idea why others might?

 

[Orion Bailey]

How about tax cheats? There are a lot of them. Would you be in favor of hiring enough IRS auditors so that every tax return can be fully audited and investigated if necessary to catch all the tax cheaters?

barfo

Sure. once caught they wont be doing it again.

 

[RR7]

It just seems like you want to, at least initially, spend more money, have more control, oversight, etc. because a few people might be taking advantage of the system? But what of UHC? We send people to people's houses to make sure they're not eating chips all day? Is there a BMI threshold you have to maintain to keep insurance? What of those that drink or smoke? Is there a stipend or kick back to healthy people who don't use it? Is it better to not have UHC, get private insurance companies huge profits, bankrupt people, and have others get sick and die untreated just to make sure that there isn't someone being lazy and ALSO getting health coverage?

Let's say each pay check I get currently, $50 is taken out to go to my health insurance. Or, that same amount is taken out to cover UHC. I still just fail to have seen anything you've said to support the first one over the second. Because of chip eaters? Of fraud? Of big government?

 

[barfo]

But again this wasnt about money expenditures. Its about hatred of opposing views.

Do you hate me now because I have disagreed with you? IF not, do you have any idea why others might?

No, that is not at all the reason I hate you.

I think others don't hate you. Why do you think you are hated? Do you think maybe it has to do with your not being breast-fed, or your relationship with your father? Do you remember an incident in kindergarten that you want to talk about?

barfo

 

[barfo]

Sure. once caught they wont be doing it again.

Ok. How much are you willing to spend to make sure nobody cheats?

barfo

 

[Orion Bailey]

No, that is not at all the reason I hate you.

I think others don't hate you. Why do you think you are hated? Do you think maybe it has to do with your not being breast-fed, or your relationship with your father? Do you remember an incident in kindergarten that you want to talk about?

barfo

got it. so we are back to not having a constructive conversation and asking ridiculous questions again... I think you should reread the thread again and see what others have already said about hating those who disagree with thier viewpoint.

If you are going to deny this and converse about it and instead twist and weave like you just did, then we wont get anywhere.

One person, who i have much respect for basically said as much and then said they are leaving the forum. Because my conservative views differ from theirs.

 

[Orion Bailey]

Ok. How much are you willing to spend to make sure nobody cheats?

barfo

Loaded question, typical though....

As much as it takes?

Again, the innitial funding will be expensive, but I believe will curtail as the bad seeds are weeded out and less oversite is thus required.

 

[barfo]

got it. so we are back to not having a constructive conversation and asking ridiculous questions again... I think you should reread the thread again and see what others have already said about hating those who disagree with thier viewpoint.

If you are going to deny this and converse about it and instead twist and weave like you just did, then we wont get anywhere.

One person, who i have much respect for basically said as much and then said they are leaving the forum. Because my conservative views differ from theirs.

Not sure what you are hoping to get out of this conversation, but if you tell me what will make you happy I'll try to say it for you.

barfo

 

[barfo]

Loaded question, typical though....

As much as it takes?

Again, the innitial funding will be expensive, but I believe will curtail as the bad seeds are weeded out and less oversite is thus required.

Ok, let's say your tax obligation has to increase by an additional 20% of your income. Ok with you?

barfo

 

[Orion Bailey]

Not sure what you are hoping to get out of this conversation, but if you tell me what will make you happy I'll try to say it for you.

barfo

I would refer you back to other op or my questions about hatred to you. But instead of answering you return questions with somewhat irrational questions. So i'm not sure either, other than... more?

Or more fitting I think is, if you are not wanting to discuss, debate the OP, then what are you looking for in continuing to post in a round about way?

 

[Orion Bailey]

Ok, let's say your tax obligation has to increase by an additional 20% of your income. Ok with you?

barfo

Oversimplified....

It would all depend. What is happening to the funds the IRS confiscates due to cheating?

 

[barfo]

Oversimplified....

It would all depend. What is happening to the funds the IRS confiscates due to cheating?

Obviously, the government would keep them. What do you think would happen?

If you mean would that reduce the cost, yes it would. But let's say the NET cost to you is an additional 20% of your income. OK with that?

barfo

 

[jonnyboy]

I agree the Dems are different today, but truly, they have very little in common with the Trumpist Republicans.

I know you will hate this, but the Dems are the party of fiscal conservatism for one. Clinton created and left a surplus. W blew it on tax cuts and wars. Obama and Biden fixed W's mess, and then Trump again blew a hole in the deficit with a 2 trillion tax cut.

Similarly, the Dems are the party that still believes in the rule of law, and supporting allies and alliances. NATO kept the peace. Russia is not our friend. Trumpist Republicans think the opposite.

We really have nothing in common with the GOP at this point, other than we both have to take corporate money.

If Democrats wrote world history that’s about how it would read. It’s great you’ve found a basket to put all your eggs in but personally I don’t think I could ever talk that swell about EITHER of the two parties without having a gun to my back or a direct deposit linked to my checking account.

 

[Orion Bailey]

Obviously, the government would keep them. What do you think would happen?

If you mean would that reduce the cost, yes it would. But let's say the NET cost to you is an additional 20% of your income. OK with that?

barfo

Its still not a black and white question in my mind. What is the plan to reduce costs moving forward as cheaters are weeded out?

With that siad, I think you are grossly inflating the cost of oversite. 20% more tax revenue to pay for an oversite? Seems mighty high. Id say 5%. And yes Id be fine with that as long as the procedure is aimed at getting rid of cheaters and thus, over time, minimizing the overhead costs.

 

[Orion Bailey]

If Democrats wrote world history that’s about how it would read. It’s great you’ve found a basket to put all your eggs in but personally I don’t think I could ever talk that swell about EITHER of the two parties without having a gun to my back or a direct deposit linked to my checking account.

I think the hatred is growing on the dem side because some republicans have acknowledge that they have things to fix and so, we are the evil ones, when really both parties have issues to fix.

For mew, I find it amusing how the left thinks the right is evil, but will not point anything out on their side that could also be contributing to the derailment of our society.

To me it feels as though they believe they are correct on all facets and if you disagree with one of them, your part of the problem, when really to me, the problem is all this blank."your wrong, im right" mentality without taking time to dissect issues and move from one to the next, etc.

Somewhat similar to what the video in the OP is stating.

 

[Hoopguru]

Because Welfare is intended to , doesnt mean thats what happens. some on Welfare take advantage of the system where I dont think senior citizens really do.

entities meaning individuals. Not companies. but if we go companies, yes, I also beleive the government isnt very efficient in overhead costs. compared to private companies.

The State of Oregon systems are about as inefficient as you can find.

 

[Orion Bailey]

The State of Oregon systems are about as inefficient as you can find.

Yep.
Just ask @THE HCP how his unemployement is going.

One of the reasons why I believe in limited government. If they cant be efficient with the system they currently have, how an we get more efficient by expanding? I see it becoming less efficient, and the main reason why Id prefer each state to have more control and the feds have less.

Less control and more oversite of what IS controlled.

 

[Orion Bailey]

but hey, lets give the government more control of our money to dole out as they see fit instead of letting people keep thier money and fend more for themselves.
I just dont agree with it.
The reality is life and death is for everyone. period, but life is not the same for all and it never will be.

 

[Orion Bailey]

Oh, ok. So the government should spend more of your money to monitor all the poor people to make sure they don't get a penny more than they deserve.
You'd be happy to pay more in taxes than you currently do and expand the government bureaucracy & workforce just to make sure nobody gets away with anything?

barfo

Why do you think its only poor? I know of a few people in my past who have been well off and take advantage of every thing they can from the government. They dont need it, but they take it.

 

[wizenheimer]

If Democrats wrote world history that’s about how it would read. It’s great you’ve found a basket to put all your eggs in but personally I don’t think I could ever talk that swell about EITHER of the two parties without having a gun to my back or a direct deposit linked to my checking account.

well, I think you're well off base here, but some things are true, and one of the truths is:

"a government that robs peter to pay paul can always count on the support of paul"

 

[barfo]

Its still not a black and white question in my mind. What is the plan to reduce costs moving forward as cheaters are weeded out?

There is no plan to reduce enforcement. That would be counterproductive, you know as well as I do that those that want to cheat will cheat if they are allowed to. They aren't going to 'learn their lesson' by a temporary increase in enforcement, just like seeing a radar cop on the freeway just one time does not lead to a permanent reduction in speed.

With that siad, I think you are grossly inflating the cost of oversite. 20% more tax revenue to pay for an oversite? Seems mighty high. Id say 5%. And yes Id be fine with that as long as the procedure is aimed at getting rid of cheaters and thus, over time, minimizing the overhead costs.

You can eliminate some cheaters by spending more. To eliminate ALL cheating, you have to spend a lot, because you have to check literally everyone.
There is a curve crossing where the return is lower than the cost. It sounds like you are so offended by cheating that you are willing to spend more to stop it than you'll gain by stopping it. Yet you don't seem to be as offended by other types of cheating, such as inflated military contracts, or, dare I say it, the Republican party's corruption.

barfo

 

[barfo]

The State of Oregon systems are about as inefficient as you can find.

Yep.

One of the reasons why I believe in limited government. If they cant be efficient with the system they currently have, how an we get more efficient by expanding? I see it becoming less efficient, and the main reason why Id prefer each state to have more control and the feds have less.

Less control and more oversite of what IS controlled.

Fascinating.

barfo

 

[barfo]

Why do you think its only poor? I know of a few people in my past who have been well off and take advantage of every thing they can from the government. They dont need it, but they take it.

I don't, but that seemed to be your focus earlier in the thread ("welfare").

barfo

 

[Orion Bailey]

There is no plan to reduce enforcement. That would be counterproductive, you know as well as I do that those that want to cheat will cheat if they are allowed to. They aren't going to 'learn their lesson' by a temporary increase in enforcement, just like seeing a radar cop on the freeway just one time does not lead to a permanent reduction in speed.



You can eliminate some cheaters by spending more. To eliminate ALL cheating, you have to spend a lot, because you have to check literally everyone.
There is a curve crossing where the return is lower than the cost. It sounds like you are so offended by cheating that you are willing to spend more to stop it than you'll gain by stopping it. Yet you don't seem to be as offended by other types of cheating, such as inflated military contracts, or, dare I say it, the Republican party's corruption.

barfo

you assume much.
I get the curve you explained. But to say i dont care about how military money is spent is assuming. I do believe in a strong military defense. History has proven its needed to maintain. However we would need to examine all aspects of military funding because i too believe it could use some overhaul regarding certain programs.

But you know whats starting to get to me? Is you keep sidestepping the question.
How about that hate and where does it come from and why?

 

[Orion Bailey]

Fascinating.

barfo

context barfo. I want states to have more control than the feds. That doesn't mean more control overall.
Your twists are what is fascinating....

 

[Orion Bailey]

I don't, but that seemed to be your focus earlier in the thread ("welfare").

barfo

Really?
Okay man.

whos next?
Barfos spins are circling know where.
My focus has been on the hate. People steer the convo away and then barfo says its what im focusing on?
Anyone interested in an HONEST discussion?