Universal Wealthcare

I would say I told you so, but I guess I just did. The House Democrats, who never met anyone they couldn’t onerously tax, have done it again, coming up with a “plan” for “Universal Healthcare” that the wealthy would almost entirely subsidize through what I would call a “pyramid” tax. Of course, these politicians are exempt, as they have their own, gold- plated care system that ensures that everyone can be as old and senile as Sen. Byrd, or function with half a brain like Teddy Kennedy. For the rest of us, not so much.

Beginning in 2011, the plan would target all income over $350,000 a year for families and $280,000 a year for individuals, Democratic sources said. The surtax would start at 1 percent, rise to around 1.5 percent for families earning more than $500,000, then step up again, to around 3 percent, for families earning more than $1 million, Democrats said.

That would raise about $550 billion over the next decade, Democrats said — about half the cost of reforms that are expected to cost about $1 trillion. The surtax percentages could rise two years later, they added, if lawmakers think additional cash is needed to cover the cost of health-care reform.

washingtonpost.com

Oh- that’s right- they have put in language that could increase the taxes even more if they feel they need to siphon off more of your hard- earned money for their own venal purposes, and they will, be very sure of that- Dems spend money like drunken sailors (sorry, don’t mean to slur sailors- its just a metaphor)- but wait- some doctors say that this “healthcare” is not needed nor is it wanted, unless you want to die at the rate patients do in Canada and Britain.

If you need a heart bypass, you may wait more than a year for surgery. One patient in four dies while waiting- this saves money for Britain. One in five British patients with treatable lung cancer waits so long for treatment, that they have become untreatable by the time they see a specialist. This is another way Britain keeps healthcare costs down.

If you are in Canada, and you need an MRI, hope the government agrees. Canada actively restricts the use of magnetic resonance imaging. in fact, and has fewer MRI machines per capita than Hungary, South Korea, or the Czech Republic.

An estimated 60% of Canada’s radiology equipment is outdated, some of it so old that replacement parts are no longer available. Canadians often come to the U.S. to get the testing they cannot get in Canada.

PhysiciansForReform.org

That is a 25% death rate for heart patients, and a 20% rate for lung cancer patients. The United States does better, and we do it with state of the art machines, not rationed care. 

The House Dems hope that with this tax upon tax upon tax idea they have, that they can still have their cake and eat it too, with regards to the state of healthcare, but when the government gets into your business it’s never good.

The top federal tax rate currently stands at 35 percent, but Democrats have vowed to raise it to 39.6 percent next year, when cuts enacted during the Bush administration expire. Combined with other federal tax adjustments, the surtax could leave most taxpayers with annual incomes more than $350,000 facing top federal rates of at least 45 percent, said Robert Carroll, a senior fellow at the nonprofit Tax Foundation.

“One has to decide whether the health-care reform package they’re talking about is worth imposing such high tax rates on the most productive members of society,” Carroll said.

washingtonpost.com

That’s right, the most productive members of society–  and you need to ask yourself if they want to continue to carry everyone’s water at such an over- taxed rate. I would not- heck, if it was me, I would be looking at brochures of Belize, or perhaps Costa Rica, where our money has some true buying power.

The big problem is that a lot of the earners who actually make $350,000 and more are small businesses- many of them have been in construction, and they do their taxes on a personal 1040- which makes them responsible for everything their company buys and sells, unlike corporate taxes. So these people bear the burden of their company, while they personally do not actually make that same amount of money they have to declare, so they actually are unfairly taxed.

If you gross, as a company, $350,000- well, some of that money goes to wages for your workers, some for equipment repair, or purchase of new equipment, some for insurance, some for gas and other transportation costs. Whatever is left, and that might be 60- 70% of the gross, is the owner’s share- take the onerous taxation into account, and the owners of a small business may only actually make 20- 30% of the gross, and yet his taxes are based on the gross amount. This is not right.

“In the middle of a serious recession, with unemployment nearing double digits nationwide, the last thing we need is a tax increase on small businesses, which will cost the American economy even more jobs,” said Michael Steel, spokesman for House  Minority Leader John A. Boehner (Ohio).

washingtonpost.com

The Democratic majority has chosen this way, the way of excessive taxation, simply because it is easy for their limited intellect- they don’t have to try and strain their brains to find a truly equitable way to do this healthcare reform, they just institute more taxes. So easy- so wrong.

This is a blueprint on how to kill initiative and hard work.
Blake

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

49 Responses to “Universal Wealthcare”

  1. Darrel says:

    DAR
    Filled with howlers, all debunked before. You don’t care about truth, you don’t care about accuracy, and you don’t learn. This is a bad combination.

    Just one, then I need to do something useful.

    BLK: “The big problem is that a lot of the earners who actually make $350,000 and more are small businesses”>>

    DAR
    Notice the word “make.”

    BLK: If you gross, as a company, $350,000- well, some of that money goes to…[expenses]>>

    DAR
    If you gross 350k, you are not “making” 350k.

    BLK: “…the owners of a small business may only actually make 20- 30% of the gross,…>>

    DAR
    Or less.

    BLK: “…and yet his taxes are based on the gross amount. This is not right.”

    DAR
    No, it isn’t (factually) right.

    One just shakes their head. I can’t imagine anyone taking your writings seriously at this point. And that’s unfortunate. So on to something better.

    D.
    ———————-
    “We’ve all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of
    Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true.” –Robert Wilensky

    • Blake says:

      Actually, it is factually correct, you just can’t own up to the accuracy of this, but I am not surprised. You liberals never own up to ANY responsibility- you just think if you yell “Bush”- well, that does NOT do it.
      You and the other free thinkers remind me of a small brat who claps his hands over his ears and yells, nonononononono- ad nauseum, as if that makes the facts go away.
      To you everything is a “howler”- perhaps it is you who are the monkey here.

    • Blake says:

      If you “gross” 350k, you are making that amount, you are just not allowed to KEEP that amount, because of bills, expenses, and the electro-lux mouths of Dems in Congress who love to suck the money out of your wallets.

    • Randy says:

      Anyone who files taxes claiming all of a small businesses revenue as personal income is flat out stupid, and I don’t haphazardly call people stupid. They would do well to spend a fraction of that money on a CPA.

      Darrel,

      The Wilensky quote is hilarious. I hadn’t heard that before. Thanks.

      • Blake says:

        The way some people file taxes might be suspect, but you must not be familiar with sub- contractors and the building business.
        Builders, in order to shed themselves of employee obligations, have declared that everyone who works for them must be a sub contractor, so as to escape the worker’s compensation insurance, or actually paying into Social Security and withholding.
        In effect everyone becomes a one- man business, so every man must pay into SS what his share would be, AND what his “bosses” share would be, effectively doubling a man’s contribution.
        Often, when someone starts a business, (lets say a construction business), they still have that mindset, and on top of that, they must hire illegal aliens, because there is no longer a “future” for blue collar workers in that trade.
        When he hires illegals, he knows that any SS numbers are false, but what can he do? So he hires them, and at the end of the year, the govt. asks how come the numbers do not match- he shrugs his shoulders, and generally has to pay the workers taxes also, unless he can prove that he did act in “good faith”- good luck with that excuse and the IRS.
        Yes, a CP would help, but many of these people are, despite having a high gross, have little money left at the end, and some do not even know what a CPA is, just that it costs money they do not have.

        • Randy says:

          Money they don’t have because they are paying taxes that they shouldn’t pay, and are not legally obligated to pay. To be fair, there are some special instances where it may make sense to file one’s small business revenues as personal income. If a person has little overhead and doesn’t incur many costs in materials and such, they could get away with filing on personal income alone. I managed a small business that did into the millions of dollars in revenues per year. We regularly utilized the services of independent contractors and had around 15 regular employees at any given time. What I took home in personal income was less than $50,000/yr. The owners didn’t take home much more than I did. We filed our personal taxes accordingly and the business filed accordingly. We even went a step further than a CPA and hired a tax attorney to keep things on the straight and narrow. When filing as a business, according to the business license held, the tax liabilities change. There are provisions where you can employ contractors and not withhold any money for taxes, and put the burden directly on them. If one employs a person directly, it makes more sense to fill out the appropriate tax forms and withhold taxes accordingly. I am digressing though:

          Why would the owners of that business pay personal income taxes on millions of dollars in revenues when they were only obligated to pay taxes on the income they take home? They would pay more in taxes than they were “making”.

        • Blake says:

          It can be as simple as having to pay, first a business tax, on the money the business, then a personal tax on the money you took home, and still, for the small businessman, you are being doubly taxed.
          Also, there is the DBA dilemma that the IRS just LOVES to misunderstand- I guarantee you they will willfully get it wrong 80% of the time.

        • Randy says:

          Yes, it can be that simple. Sort of. Your personal income is usually pretty simple. Business taxes, not so much. That’s why it is best to hire a professional to do that for you. It saves both time and money. While you will be spending on a CPA, you won’t be wasting time that you could be using running the business more efficiently, and it is more likely that important deductions and credits won’t be missed. Using the example of the business I used to manage, revenues were in the millions. Most of that money was spent on overhead, labor, materials, office equipment, etc. etc. A business, small or large, doesn’t pay income tax on that money. While the money is generated by the business, much of it is spent just as quickly maintaining the business operations. That money is taxed very differently. Not doubly, differently.
          Usually at a much lower rate, if any at all. Many of those expenses can be legally passed on to other exchanges of money and services as well.

    • Blake says:

      Even a blind Wilensky can find an acorn every once in awhile.

  2. Darrel says:

    DAR
    Oh, just one other little bit. Not too serious really. I saw this picture the other day in my science magazine and it instantly made me think of how, like the adult human in the background, I try to assist you and Bigd. On the left, Bigd, more distinguished and intelligent (look at the wisdom in those eye). After getting to know you better, Blake, I see you sort of as the little fellow in the center.

    Lots of sound and fury. Not so much significance!

    D.

    • Blake says:

      It wouldn’t matter what I said, you’d take the opposite side. These are facts, just not convenient facts for you- especially about Canada- I can understand your touchiness- having relatives (distant) in Montreal, I can see why you might be tender at criticism of the failing health system, and why so many for- profit facilities have sprung up. If I was Canadian, I would be touchy about my country killing so many of my countrymen.
      “Soylent Green is made from Canadians!”

      • Darrel says:

        BLK: It wouldn’t matter what I said, you’d take the opposite side.>>

        DAR
        That’s not true. When you are right I will agree with you and back you up. And you will appreciate it when I do because backing things up is a bit of a specialty of mine. Unfortunately, I haven’t had much opportunity to back you up very often. I’ll try harder.

        BLK: These are facts, just not convenient facts for you- especially about Canada->>

        DAR
        Canadians are quite satisfied with their health care but forget them, use any other similar peer country. You accuse me of bias but I am not patriotic, I am interested in pragmatic, utilitarian, results for everyone.

        An anecdote from yesterday:

        My wife has a slightly suspicious mole on her leg. She is thinking of getting it looked at, i.e. tested. She is hesitating because she hasn’t been able to get insurance yet (non-citizen) but now can (just got green card). If she even goes to get this tested (negative or not), this may effect her ability to get insurance (cancer test on record). She has a friend this happened to on a cancer test that was in fact, negative.

        This country, is, insane.

        People who defend this insanity are cult members who are so wedded to ideology they can’t think straight.

        BLK: I can understand your touchiness- having relatives (distant) in Montreal,>>

        DAR
        Not sure which orifice you pulled that one out of but I have a good idea. I don’t have any relatives in Montreal nor do I know anyone there.

        Now let’s review. A couple questions for you Blake. Please answer them. From an extensive international poll by Gallup I have referenced before:

        “One-fourth of American respondents are either “very” or “somewhat” satisfied with “the availability of affordable healthcare in the nation,” (6% very satisfied and 19% somewhat satisfied).”

        Dar: That’s 25% satisfied, total.

        “This level of satisfaction is significantly lower than in Canada, where 57% are satisfied with the availability of affordable healthcare, including 16% who are very satisfied.”

        Dar: That’s 73% satisfied, total.

        Question for Blake. Which country is (far) more satisfied with the availability and affordability of healthcare?

        Next:

        “44% of Americans are very dissatisfied with the availability of affordable healthcare, and nearly three-fourths (72%) are either somewhat or very dissatisfied.”

        Dar: That’s 72% dissatisfied. The number for Canada is 17%, the number for Great Britain is 25%.

        Question for Blake: how many times greater is the US dissatisfaction than the Canadian dissatisfaction? (hint: divide 72 by 17. You should get 4.2). 4.2x greater dissatisfaction? That’s an extraordinary number!

        Next:

        On “the quality of medical care [the countries] are not overly different — 48% of Americans, 52% of Canadians, and 42% of Britons say they are satisfied.”

        Question: Which country has the highest satisfaction with the “quality of medical care?”

        Conclusion: “72% of Americans say they are dissatisfied with the availability of affordable healthcare, and 50% are dissatisfied with the quality of medical care…”

        Are those good numbers Blake? Are they better than Canada’s numbers?

        Source:
        Healthcare System Ratings: U.S., Great Britain, Canada

        • Blake says:

          IF you read for comprehension, you would have been able to parse that it is I who has the relatives in Montreal- try again the numbers in Canada and Great Britain are skewed because the dissatisfied people are dead.

        • Darrel says:

          I am sorry you have relatives in Montreal.

          Why were you afraid to answer my questions?

          I never run from questions. If I ever do, please call me a coward.

          D.

        • Savonarola says:

          DAR
          “This level of satisfaction is significantly lower than in Canada, where 57% are satisfied with the availability of affordable healthcare, including 16% who are very satisfied.”

          Dar: That’s 73% satisfied, total.

          SAV
          I don’t think so. The 57% “includes” the 16% very satisfied. That’s 57% satisfied total, with 41% somewhat satisfied.

          Notice, though, that any way you slice it, the Canadian system is better-liked.

        • Darrel says:

          SAV
          “The 57% “includes” the 16% very satisfied. That’s 57% satisfied total, with 41% somewhat satisfied.”>>

          DAR
          Excellent catch Sav, you’re exactly right. This means Canadian satisfaction with regard to the availability of affordable healthcare is 2.3x greater than the US’s.

          D.

        • Blake says:

          I don’t run from anything, but when you frame questions, and then answer them to YOUR satisfaction, I have better things to do.

  3. Darrel says:

    Look what happens when an industry hack tries to float some of these same dishonest smears in front of Kucinich. He gets a beautiful smack down. Two and a half minute video clip:

    Dennis Kucinich Pummels Right Wing Dr. On Canadian Healthcare System.

    • Blake says:

      Anyone who takes Kucinich seriously has a perception problem- they actually think he is relevant to ANYTHING in the real world- he an elf, for God’s sake! I think I saw him in the Lord of the Rings.

  4. victoria says:

    Kucinich??? Are you serious. And I listened to that and that was nothing but Kucinich acting like an ass. That was no conversation because he did not want to hear any answers–just act powerful and like a know it all. No lib wants to actually have a conversation and hear any other side but their own.

    http://www.apatheticvoter.com/Newsletter_Articles/CanadianHealthcareSystem.htm

    • Darrel says:

      VIC:
      Kucinich??? Are you serious.>>

      DAR
      Yes. And he was far too kind. I would have grilled that little shrew Gratzer until he needed medical attention. I bet he has good insurance, so no worries.

      Your link is to some paragraph of internet spittle. Undated, completely anonymous, 100% unreferenced, 100% rubbish.

      Have you no discernment at all?

      D.

        • Darrel says:

          VIC: “Try this one and deny it.”>>

          DAR
          You’re funny. The Fraser Institute is a far right Libertarian Think Tank. (Global warming deniers of course). If you think libertarians aren’t taken seriously in this country (and they are not, they could hold their conventions in a phone booth) they are laughed at in Canada. Positively, laughed at.

          Better than read your article, I went and read the study it was based upon. Same author. That’s what he’s referring to anyway.
          It’s a nice PDF. Looks shiny on fancy paper I bet. Trouble is, did you notice, almost no footnotes? I noticed that after the first two pages (of 22). Just in the first two pages, lot’s and lot’s of claims, lots of howlers, but not even an attempt to back any of it up. They tell you to read a report (page one), and then nothing until page 13, (and that’s just their own junk!) They have a reference list at the back but who knows where they got what? This wouldn’t pass a high school class assignment!

          For the love of Peter Murphy. This is poop on a stick dressed up to look like a proper paper. It’s not remotely a serious paper. Don’t be fooled. It’s crap, top to bottom, crap. Laughable.

          If you want to defend any of it, do so. I’ll roast you to a crisp.

          Let me give you a sample:

          This Fraser document claims (wiki summary): “treatment time from initial referral by a GP through consultation with a specialist to final treatment, across all specialties and all procedures (emergency, non-urgent, and elective), averaged 17.7 weeks in 2005.”

          Where did they get this? Who knows. It has almost NO FOOTNOTES. It’s a hackwork piece of junk made so rightwing nutbars who don’t know the difference between sh-t and shinola will pass it around and think they have verified something.

          What does the Canadian Institute for Health Information say about the above? Or rather, I should say, what do they SHOW? Well, you can read it all here:

          http://www.cihi.ca/cihiweb/en/downloads/aib_provincial_wait_times_e.pdf

          See, they actually went through and measured all of these stats, in great detail, in every province, for many categories. Each page is filled with footnotes backing up their claims, and showing the Fraser think tank numbers on wait times are complete garbage.

          You want to defend your article? Pick your best cherries, and bring it on.

          How about this one. Skinner claims the “…percentage of the population that was “effectively” uninsured for non-emergency, necessary medical services in 2007 was not that different in the United States and Canada: 7.9 percent in the United States compared to at least 6 percent in Canada.”

          Do you believe that? Do you know how insane you have to be to believe that?

          Libertarian insane.

          D.

        • Blake says:

          Victoria, you cannot convince the insane- give it up- an exercise in futility.
          They are in love with their own little world, and nothing you or I say will change their minds, regardless of their protestations.

        • Savonarola says:

          BLAKE
          Victoria, you cannot convince the [insult]….
          nothing you or I say will change their minds,

          SAV
          If something you say actually makes sense, then there’s a chance. If something you say is actually backed up by evidence, then there’s a damn good chance. But neither you nor Victoria seem too concerned with getting either of these things right.

        • Darrel says:

          BLK: “nothing you or I say will change their minds”>>

          DAR
          That’s not true. I have changed my beliefs about many things and will in the future. If you have better reasons, better evidence, better arguments, I will change my beliefs to yours, regarding *anything.* No exceptions. I have NO sacred cows.

          To a freethinker:

          “Sacred cows make the tastiest hamburger.”
          –Abbie Hoffman

          It’s hard for humans to change their beliefs. But like anything, the more you practice at it, the more you work to make sure your beliefs are in accord with reality, the easier it becomes.

          D.
          ——————
          “What makes a free thinker is not his beliefs, but the way in which he holds them. If he holds them because his elders told him they were true when he was young, or if he holds them because if he did not he would be unhappy, his thought is not free; but if he holds them because, after careful thought, he finds a balance of evidence in their favor, then his thought is free,…”
          –Bertrand Russell, “The Value of Free Thought”

        • Blake says:

          According to Russell, then I too think free- because my beliefs are grounded in hard won experience and the examination of human nature.
          My beliefs in God are based on my faith, and the sheer improbability of everything coming together as it has, by accident.

        • Blake says:

          You see, Darrel? Victoria provides some proof, and you immediately dismiss this- this is your pattern- if something doesn’t agree with your ideology, just claim it’s “worthless rightwing conspiracy theory”, and mock it.
          Canada has fewer Libertarians, because they’ve invested so much of their lives into believing this socialist pap that they are increasingly unable to break their minds free of their inherent liberal bias.

        • Darrel says:

          BLK: You see, Darrel? Victoria provides some proof,>>

          DAR
          I explained, specifically, the problems with the article (which took her 20 secs to google, and me half an hour to research). You apparently don’t have high threshold for “proof.”

          BLK: “…and you immediately dismiss this->>

          DAR
          I didn’t immediately dismiss this. I read the report (PDF) the article was based on and researched the author and the group that put it together. I wonder if she even read the article.

          BLK: Canada has fewer Libertarians, because they’ve invested so much of their lives into believing this socialist pap…>>

          DAR
          I don’t mind libertarians actually. I agree with them on a lot of things. Someone even floated my name once to run for the party here in Arkansas but I wasn’t a citizen at the time.
          I think they provide a useful counterpoint at times. But they are nutty, and you can’t take the ideologues too seriously. And I don’t think they are going anywhere as a viable party. Fringe.

          BLK:
          According to Russell, then I too think free- because my beliefs are grounded in hard won experience and the examination of human nature.>>

          DAR
          Everybody wants to be a freethinker. Even the most religiously devoted people come up to our booth and tell us how they are freethinkers. Then we ask them if they base their beliefs upon faith, authority and established belief. And of course they do. That’s not what freethinking is. It’s the opposite of that.

          BLK: My beliefs in God are based on my faith,>>

          DAR
          There is nothing more antithetical to freethinking than basing your beliefs upon “faith.” Here is a quote about this I just posted for you. Take a moment to read it perhaps.

          BLK: and the sheer improbability of everything coming together as it has, by accident.>>

          DAR
          To have a good understanding of this “improbability” it would be best if you had a very good understanding of science, physics, biology and an intimate knowledge of many other aspects of the world around you. There are people who spend a lifetime gaining such a depth of knowledge. They *overwhelmingly* agree with me. See below.

          D.
          ——————
          Leading Scientists Reject God Belief

          “The July 1998 “Nature” reports its new survey this year finding that 93% of what it categorizes as “great” scientists do not believe in a god.

          The 1998 study follows up on the landmark 1914 survey by U.S. psychologist James H. Leuba,… When Leuba repeated his survey some twenty years later, he found that these percentages had increased to 67% and 85%, respectively.

          Nature replicated Leuba’s initial 1914 study in 1996, reporting little change,… This year, it replicated the second prong of Leuba’s study, studying “greater” scientists (criterion: membership in the National Academy of Sciences). Its survey found “near universal rejection of the transcendent by NAS natural scientists. . .

          Specifically Nature found only 7% of greater” scientists expressed belief in a personal god, compared to 27.7% in 1914 and 15% in 1933,…”

        • Savonarola says:

          BLAKE
          According to Russell, then I too think free …. My beliefs in God are based on my faith…

          SAV
          Then you’re not a freethinker. Freethinkers avoid faith, because faith is belief despite the absence of evidence (and sometimes, despite the evidence). You’re a perfect example of evidentially-ignorant non-freethinker. After all, how many times has Darrel told you that a freethinker derives conclusions independently of faith?

          BLAKE
          and the sheer improbability of everything coming together as it has, by accident.

          SAV
          Please look up the anthropic principle. Then again, I don’t imagine that you’ll understand how it properly applies.

          ***********************************
          Another bumper, this to cut off accusations of abuse (bolding added):

          ig·no·rant
          1 a: destitute of knowledge or education [an ignorant society] ; also : lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified [parents ignorant of modern mathematics] b: resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence [ignorant errors]
          2: unaware, uninformed

        • Blake says:

          Sv- I am glad you know a word and its definition- perhaps there is hope for you yet.
          The fact that you know that word possibly means you had to look it up when someone applied it to you- that’s Okay- just remember-
          You’re good enough
          you’re smart enough,
          and darn it, somebody’s bound to like you.

        • Savonarola says:

          BLAKE
          Sv [sic]- I am glad you know a word and its definition

          SAV
          I notice that you have nothing substantive left to say and have instead reverted entirely to insults. Do you know the definitions of deflection and projection?

        • Darrel says:

          BLK: “the sheer improbability of everything coming together as it has, by accident.>>

          DAR
          Getting order/design out of chaos/disorder isn’t the same as “accident.” Snowflakes come in an infinite variety of “designs” but we don’t look at one and say: “oh, look what happened by accident.” There are natural mechanisms and processes that create such things and there is no need to give any credit to any God’s.

          As to the “improbability” you can’t calculate that with regard to universes because we don’t know how many there are, or how many attempts they have been. We have only one.

          But aside from that, in response to this question do we throw up our hands and just say “a supernatural being did it by magic?” Or do we say “we don’t know” while searching for actual explanations? I say this because, saying a God did it, by magic, is no explanation at all. In fact, it just adds another mystery and an even bigger one! Because this “God” is certainly more complex and mysterious than his supposed creation.

          Appealing to “faith” and “Gods” are always an intellectual cop-out. Faith is believing something without good reasons, and saying you have faith a God “did it” just creates adds to the mystery, without providing any good reasons.

          D.
          ——————-
          “He is perfectly certain that there can be no design without a designer, and he is, equally certain that there can be a designer who was not designed. The absurdity becomes so great that it takes the place of a demonstration. He takes it for granted that matter was created and that its creator was not.” –Ingersoll, Why I Am An Agnostic

  5. Blake says:

    For centuries, people have thought that certain things were mystical, when, at the proper time, it was revealed to have an explanation that we could understand.
    Faith is just, for me at least, is in knowing that at this time we have no explanation for God- at the right time, we will, and boy, won’t you look ridiculous then.
    But you go right on with your certainty- it makes you look, well, Godless- but that’s ok- in the end, one of us will be right.

    • Darrel says:

      Blk: “But you go right on with your certainty”>>

      DAR
      When did I say I was certain? There is nothing wrong with saying you don’t know. In fact, it is more honest than saying you do know, when you can’t know.

      D.
      —————-
      “If I have an empty bucket, and it “doesn’t have anything” in it, that’s not equivalent to saying it “doesn’t have water” in it. Furthermore, if you claim to have a bucket of water, but offer me no proof, I don’t have a “belief” that your bucket is empty. It could have milk in it, or syrup, or corn, or cow patties. I don’t have any “belief” in any of those possibilities, but since I have no evidence of them either, I’m not going to
      claim I know whether your bucket is empty or full, nor knowledge of its content IF there are any. I’m just waiting for you to back up your claim, and the more you argue that I should take it on “faith,” the more outlandish your claim as to the contents, the more suspicious I am of your claim. If you’re a person who has never had more than $10 in your pocket at a given time, and
      you tell me your bucket contains ten billion in cash, I’m going to be REAL skeptical.
      Religion claims it has infinite cash in its bucket, but it refuses to show me
      a dime. In fact, it usually asks to borrow MY dime, and says I’ll get paid back after I’m dead! Yeah, right! –Brent Yaciw

      • Blake says:

        You equate religion with Organized religion- not the same-one just requires faith, the other seems to need money, and that’s where I have a problem. Greed inevitably enters the equation.
        I do not know this Brent guy- but I feel that he makes my point, even though he doesn’t affect my faith.

        • Savonarola says:

          BLAKE
          I feel that [Brent Yaciw] makes my point, even though he doesn’t affect my faith.

          SAV
          His point is that faith is ridiculous (organized or not). How ridiculous is it? You can read his ridicule of faith, claim he makes your point, and then affirm that your faith is unaffected. That’s ridiculous.
          You also conveniently sidestepped Darrel’s point about certainty, but that’s not nearly as interesting as the fact that you can’t read the Yaciw quote for comprehension. It says nothing about a religion needing or asking for money. He uses “cash” as a metaphor for having something of value to offer.

          • Big Dog says:

            There is nothing wrong with people who have faith. I don’t ridicule you guys for not having it, that is your choice. It does no good to assume each side is stupid because of faith or a lack of it serves no useful purpose.

            There is no concrete proof which is why it is called faith. There is no proof to the contrary though I admit you cannot prove a negative. However, we should all be able to discuss things without assuming that the other side is somehow deficient because of beliefs or a lack thereof.

            I respect your decisions and opinions on the subject and wish all of us could do the same.

            • Savonarola says:

              DOG
              There is nothing wrong with people who have faith.

              SAV
              I’m not sure anyone is arguing that there’s anything inherently wrong with people who have faith; rather, I find faith inherently illogical and its consequences often disproportionately dangerous. Faith — acceptance of positions unsupported by evidence — opens the door to abandoning logic and reality.

              You want everyone to respect others’ opinions, but sometimes opinions simply aren’t respectable. I don’t respect the opinion that red-haired people are inherently less human than others, for example, and nobody should; I’ll attack it unabashedly. Could you, if you tried, really attack the position of not accepting positions unsupported by evidence?

            • Blake says:

              One might think you could at least have the manners of a human, but that is beyond your ego, unfortunately, so you berate others who do not share your “enlightened” opinion. Your students must be SOOOOO privileged to have you as a taskmaster. I pity them.

            • Savonarola says:

              BLAKE
              you berate others who do not share your “enlightened” opinion

              SAV
              I berate stupid, indefensible opinions. I notice that you’ve elected to berate me instead of to defend your opinion. That’s not a coincidence.

              BLAKE
              Your students must be SOOOOO privileged to have you as a taskmaster.

              SAV
              They are! Enrollment in my classes has risen significantly since my arrival. I have more students in my mid-level course and more students continuing into my upper-level course.

            • Blake says:

              Poor students. I wish them better fortune than to have you as their instructor.

            • Savonarola says:

              The classes I teach aren’t default classes. Students have to ask to take them. My enrollment is up, so it seems that they disagree with you, and of the people who take my class and the people who don’t, who is in a better position to pass judgement?

              And you guys go nuts when I “draw conclusions” about you when I don’t actually know you? Priceless.

            • Blake says:

              I guess we go as nuts as you do. So where’s the difference?

            • Blake says:

              I would guess that none of your students know your on- line name, or its history. Must be your feeble attempt at a joke.
              Girolamo Savonarola allegedly never lost faith- while you apparently never had it.
              He might have been a “reformer”, but he believed in God- he just believed he was the arbiter of God’s word- he faked “prophecies”, forbid all “frivolity”- this led to what is now known as the “Bonfires of the Vanities”.
              And you choose to use this nom de online?
              How telling.

            • Savonarola says:

              BLAKE
              And you choose to use this nom de online?

              SAV
              He became a real thorn in the church’s side… so they killed him. Seems to me you should understand: You find me thorn-like enough to want to kill me.

              BLAKE
              You see, I interpret [Yaciw’] statement differently,

              SAV
              Yes, that was my point.

              BLAKE
              You are correct?

              SAV
              Yes, that was my point. You can call it arrogance, but that doesn’t actually support your argument that my interpretation is incorrect. Maybe you can find a 11th grader to interpret it for you?

            • Blake says:

              He was a nutjob- I guess that would fit- he was a heretic, yeah, that’s right- and the church treated him in a proper fashion at the time, so I guess we will allow you to keep the name- its you.

        • Blake says:

          You see, I interpret his statement differently, but you are theone who claims I don’t read for comprehension,just because I come to a different conclusion than you? You are correct?
          How Arrogant, how ignorant, how intolerant you are.
          You are far less intelligent than I suspected, and certainly far less enlightened.