A parting shot--PPACA doesn't provide something for nothing, it merely controls the costs of health insurance so those of us who have limited resources and are stuck in jobs that don't provide coverage can purchase health insurance.

I'm getting obese sitting at my computer participating in this thread. Time to take a break. Especially since I don't have health insurance to pay for the costs if I develop diabetes or heart disease.

I read this as 'your job' being to present your point-of-view in a partisan manner, and if someone disagrees with it their responsibility is to present their point-of-view from their partisanship, for the two viewpoints to crash in the middle because each viewpoint is based in a very narrow presentation that has no basis in reality.

I'd much prefer a conversation that allowed for reality to play a component. We can have our separate perspectives and understandings of that reality, certainly, but either we live in the same world or we don't, and if we don't I'm not sure what purpose there is in conversing.

To assert that capitalism is altruistic without acknowledging that that is an idealized position or allowing for the large scale of evidence that capitalism is, in practice, often heartless is to base one's argument in unreality. You don't win because nobody successfully argued the other side, you just end the conversation because few people want to waste their time engaging with someone who is so intellectually dishonest.

Most wealthy people will invest 80% or more of their wealth in investments with proven track records of earning- including comodities which are rpeseumed will gain in value. At best these investments provide more capital for other investors with more appetite for risk to invest in newer ventures.

that being said, everyone focuses on Ronald Reagans tax breaks- few point out that he also raised capital gains taxes. Personally I think this is important because having investment income taxed higher than capital gains tends to encourage a view of companies as commodities to be grown and harvested instead of invested in for long term productivity. Yes companies have a life cycle and tehre is a time to harvest, but the current tax code encourages a short growing season as it were...

If Reagan were to run for President in 2012, he wouldn't even get the GOP nomination because he'd be too moderate. He cut taxes at the beginning of his Presidency, then raised them every other year.

heck, bush sr would probably be too moderate for the current Republican feild. Which leaves teh question of what party will rise to replace them when they finally do crash and burn- will we be looking at a Democrats versus Libertarians matchup?

Or maybe the pole will be pulled back to the middle. I don't see a party that is purely libertarian doing well in a general election.

Not right now, but in 10-20 years perhaps.

Indeed, there's a generational shift on the horizon too. My generation is around that age of assuming power, seems that the majority of youth, regardless if they sway towards the left or right, or consider themselves dems and repubs, seem to be radically different than the previous gen, and not quite as partisan as the boomers, or so it seems anyway.

My job is to present my views, and to respond to the views of others so that I can come to a better understanding of what others think and feel and perhaps grow as a person. I have been known, on occasion to change my mind when someone has gone to the effort to convince me that I am wrong. I also don't appreciate you labeling my views as Partisan. I do ascribe to a political ideology, but I don't think it's the one you believe it is. I'm allowed to have my own opinions that happen to disagree with yours without automatically belonging to the "enemy" party. But hey, this thread isn't about "How to argue" it's about healthcare. As far as I'm concerned, we're just

Lord, I hope we don't have to wait that long. I'm voting for Johnson, since Paul let me down (arguably not his fault, but we won't get into that here). At least he should have enough representation at the convention to sway the platform back to where it needs to be.

Rand Paul 2016

While Rand Paul has said like two things that were good ideas or at least in the right direction (requiring legislators to read bills before signing them is a good idea, but they need a better way to read the tomes the bills have become.) He is still super far right, he isn't as radical as his daddy, but he's still to the far right and that's what folks have been talking about. Folks like Rand Paul tend to worship Reagan like people center of left worship JFK or FDR, but if Reagan couldn't win with the policy that's been hailed as the cornerstone of modern conservatism, then thing HAVE become too partisan, I don't think anyone meant to insult you Mr. Lemur, but that political pole that has gone all the way to the right of radical conservatism. There are some right wingers who ascribe to outright anarchy, and folks are entitled to their own opinion, but the pandering to a small minority needs to stop.