Pelosi tells artists to quit their jobs 'cuz they got healthcare now

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Kylesa, May 21, 2010.

  1. I hate to post a FOX video, but goddamn, this is staggering how hardcore she is either (a) pandering or (b) deluded.

    [ame=]YouTube - Nancy Pelosi - "leave your work" WTF?[/ame]
  2. nazi pelosi is complete blithering idiot.. i cannot believe she actually came out and said these things.. she is proving once more that she, and the obama administration are far left whacko socialists.. i hope america wakes up, and wakes up fast!!
  3. Well she is from SF. Maybe she's trying to bring back the Haight-Ashbury days.
  4. you mean back when they perpetuated unfounded wars and jailed American citizens for speaking out against government?

  5. I'm not referring to the gubment or law enforcement. I was opining that she is suggesting people quit their jobs, become "artists", and live in small disorganized communes like the hippies of Haight-Ashbury since she's from San Fran. Man I'd love to of lived during them days.
  6. I was being facetious.

    And although it would be cool to live like that, the ridiculous cost of living prohibits anything of the sort, at least for me.
  7. look ma, another crazy

    I'd like to see the full video in context, please. What I'm getting is that she's speaking to people who want to pursue artistic (read: difficult to make money with at first) careers but can't because of the financial necessities of life (read: healthcare costs are really high). She's not suggesting people get a pawn shop guitar and live on a couch, she's suggesting people invest in their talents so that they could then get a job using those talents.
  8. She clearly says that you can leave your work to work on your aspirations. How much more clear cut can you get?
  9. It is ironic what is people call "far-left" in the US is considered moderate in most of the civilized world. Healthcare should be a basic right, I really don't get how people just can't accept that. It is scary how far corporate hegemonic influence can go
  10. I fail to see how what she said is bad in any way. People should focus more on fun than work. I don't know about everyone else here but I don't want to work my life away and then die without ever doing anything I like to do.
  11. #11 Gandhi'sWarrior, May 22, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: May 22, 2010

    This notion of working until you die goes to the very core of what is wrong with our economic system. Those who work their asses off are heroes, those who choose alternative lifestyles are bums. Complete and utter bullshit. This myth that one must work for the rest of their life can be directly correlated back the Calvinist notion that unemployment is a sin. It is just an attempt to force people to be "productive" and by productive I mean participated in a system that has used and exploited them, yet they don't even seem to know it. See regulation theory

    a working class hero is something to fear, rest in peace john
  12. It all stems back to capitalism. People are treated as nothing more that dollar signs. Their only purpose is to work and die and they can't even get decent benefits if they do. Capitalism is bullshit. It amazes me how many people on here can support this system with a straight face. I think this whole "conservative revolution" just give people a reason to feel like they are superior to others because they are more conservative than everybody else. I'm not sure if that makes any sense because its kinda hard to explain my position.

  13. i got you, the commdification of labor
  14. Exactly. What also pisses me off is the fact that everyone is defending the rich all of a sudden. From the "hug a rich person day" to the Tea Party Movement and all that. People seem to forget that these rich people they see as super noble and flawless, don't give a shit about them. They make more money in a day than most people make in their entire lives. I went to New York a few years ago and went to Trump Tower. That place must have cost millions and down the next alley there was a group of homeless people being harassed by the security. I gave each of them $10 even though I was starting to run low on money. While Donald Trump probably never even sees them, and even if he did he wouldn't give them anything.
  15. Stealing a service from someone else simply because the government deemed such thievery mandatory doesn't make it a basic right.

    There is no such thing as a basic right which reaps the benefits of another man's labor. That isn't how it works. You are entitled to the fruit of your own labor and not to your neighbors. You have to work to pay for health care yourself if you want it.

    That is beside the fact that the reason health care is so outrageously expensive is because of government intervention. Things like "regulations" really only allow the government to pick and choose which corporations can steal your money. Big companies lobby the legislators to write legislature that favors big companies. If you think this health care bill was made to benefit Americans you are sadly mistaken.

    But more important than that is my original statement on rights. Health care is not a right. It is a service which comes from the hands of another man, something which you can never be entitled to (Unless both parties came to a mutual agreement. Usually such agreements include the exchange of money for goods or services. Most people call this trading, or voluntary interactions between two people, not two people and the government).
  16. And you and Fox are running with that to imply that Pelosi wants people to grow a beard and draw stick figures, or something, as if there are no job opportunities for creative folks. My point is that's silly.
  17. And when people are recieving more from the system than tax paying workers are putting in?

    What do we do then?
  18. #18 Gandhi'sWarrior, May 22, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: May 22, 2010
    For starters, i hate this healthcare bill. If i had my way, i'd put the insurance companies out of business entirely, period. Secondly, you say there is no such thing as a basic right that extracts another man's labor. Well, that is precisely the process of capitalism, the profiting off another man's work, the exploitation of another man's work (however that's a different debate). My point is, do the police not protect us? (or take away our weed) Does the fire department not put out our fires? Both services which we as citizens don't really directly pay for per se, (besides through taxes). Is saving one's life, or ensuring one doesn't get sick, not on the same level as police protection and fire safety?

    According to Jeremy Bentham, a man who was a founder of classical economics, a man that many conservatives suggest "had it right about government," that is, the gov's only role is maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain. I ask you is ensuring that one stays healthy and does not die because of a curable illness not a process of minimizing pain?
  19. I never said or implied such thing. I'm just astounded that Pelosi is basically telling people that it's O.K. to not be responsible for themselves because we passed a health care bill, and now 'they don't have to worry about health care'. Not only is that intellectually laughable, it's not even realistic. If you're a 'starving' artist (Most likely mid-20's to 30's) your biggest concern is most likely not health care. That fact that she suggests having health care relieves such a huge burden off their shoulders, is just proof that she's pandering. Health care costs maybe $200/month. That's not that much, considering where I live, rent for a 2br apartment is $1,400/month. Stomaching $200/month in health care bills is nothing.

    So, in the end, I guess I answered my own question. Pelosi is both. She's delusional AND she's pandering hardcore. Shit, but maybe she only comes across as delusional because of how hardcore she panders? Damn, what a paradox.
  20. Fucking seriously? Are you delusional?

    You're conflating corporatism and capitalism. Capitalism isn't even an accurate term, since there's many forms of capitalism (just as there are various forms of socialism and communism).

    I'm sorry, but I'm well-learned in economics, and Bentham ranks really low on the 'importance scale'. I've heard his name brought up a couple times, and by no means is he as important to 'capitalism' as you purport. I'm interested in knowing where you learned this, because it's clear by reading your posts that you're just regurgitating something you read elsewhere, and you clearly don't understand economics as much as you purport. In fact, it's kind of laughable how you described capitalism, because it couldn't be further from the truth. You started off your entire rant against capitalism with a huge non-sequitur. You attempted to obfuscate the truth by using America's form of 'capitalism' as the true form of capitalism, when it couldn't be farther from the truth. Our economy is 'corporatist'. It's welfare for corporations.

    In a true free market, corporations wouldn't even exist. LLC's wouldn't exist. Guess what? Governments make corporations possible. In an anarcho-capitalist economy, there would still be businesses (large and small), but they would be fully responsible for their own liabilities.

    Another thing (which you see as a feature of capitalism) are monopolies. Monopolies are, just like corporations, endorsed and promoted by the State. In a true free market, monopolies would be extremely rare, but if there were an actual monopoly, it would be BENEFICIAL to consumers. Today's monopolies (Microsoft, Verizon, AT&T, etc.) are BAD for consumers, because they can get away with what they want. They use the power of corporatism (Economic fascism/welfarism) to get what they want. They're insulated from competition by laws they influence. That's not the free market, that's corporatism. A good example of a natural monopoly, is Standard Oil. Leftists, such as yourself, love to rally against Standard Oil, but the simple fact is, they were extremely efficient, to the point where no raw material was wasted. They invented entirely new processes to refine and extract oil. They revolutionized their entire industry, and by the time their monopoly was 'done', oil had decreased in price DRAMATICALLY, making oil more affordable to the common man and woman. Because of Standard Oil, more people could afford more oil, and light their homes--a luxury that was previously available to only the rich and well-to-do. In a free market, to maintain a monopoly, you'd have to constantly innovate (nearly impossible). In a corporatist economy, all you need to do, is to pay off bureaucrats to make laws favorable to your company.

    I guess whatever leftist brainwashing site you read conveniently left out that fact?

    The market in a true free market is the most efficient means to allocate resources, because you have self-interested actors who seek their ends through the most efficient means possible. Order in a market is emergent. It may seem like chaos trying to organize it all, but just like in nature, order arises not out of someone telling everyone what to do, rather, order arises from individuals acting in their own self-interest. In central economic planning, this order is disrupted by the Government trying to force rational actors in a market to behave a certain way. It's like a traffic officer trying to direct the flow of traffic. It doesn't work well. It's called self-organization.

    Here's a good example. This is a video of traffic in Hanoi. There are no signs, no traffic lights. Sounds chaotic? Sound dangerous? It's surprisingly safe.

    [ame=]YouTube - self-organization in hanoi traffic[/ame]

    [ame=]YouTube - Spontaneous Order[/ame]

    This is the basis for 'capitalism'. Individuals who seek their own self-interest (Rational self-interest), and in the process, they self-organize themselves. The goal of capitalism is not to 'exploit' one-another, that's detrimental to the process, because true capitalism is not a zero-sum game.

    The abuses from the system that you see as capitalism, are actually endorsed and only made possible because of a State. In another thread recently, someone said the 'free market' tanked his Roth IRA, but his public retirement fund actually made money. Is this a product of the free market? Well, if you've ever read anything about the ABCT (Austrian-Business Cycle Theory), you'd have realize the overwhelming evidence that Central Banks and Governments distort market forces and create 'bubbles'. Bubbles are the reason for our current economic hardship, and as theorized by such intellectuals as Ludvig Von Mises, Murray Rothbard, etc., these bubbles would not exist, or would be far less damaging, in a true free market.

    For every problem that people see with the 'free market', there is readily a counter-argument proposed by the Austrian school of economics, that prove these claims are baseless. But please, stop spreading such falsehoods around as if they were verifiable fact. It's intellectually dishonest.

    I could go on, and on, just let me know if there's any other areas you need to be educated in.

Share This Page