Obamacare Poll II

Since I took a bit of flack over the original poll, I thought that I would try to attempt some clarity.

What I am asking here is, irrespective of which side of the argument you are on, I would kindly ask you to tell me whether you are absolutely certain that the opinion that you have formulated is absolutely right. Or that, although you believe in the opinion you have formulated, you also acknowledge that you could be wrong.

Come on guys. Answer truthfully. Do you absolutely believe that your view is the correct one? It doesn't matter which side it is.

It really doesn't matter what you believe. Pontius Pilate said it all 2000 years ago; "What is truth?"

I think people are pretty passionate on their beliefs here. ObamaCare is extremely flawed, but I believe in what the Right call "socialist health care" and I'm a strong believer in that.

Now that begs a question.......SHOULD you be passionate if your opinion may be the wrong one?

Quote: boymimbo

I think people are pretty passionate on their beliefs here. ObamaCare is extremely flawed, but I believe in what the Right call "socialist health care" and I'm a strong believer in that.

To re-phrase......SHOULDN'T you be passionate only if you're near 100% sure of your opinion, and not just passionate because you've developed an opinion. After all most people have opinions on everything.....

I think there's about 2000 years of history of people who are passionate towards their beliefs because they believe in one thing.

I'm certain that the sky is blue, but I'm not passionate about it.

Okay, but do you think that someone should be passionate even though they don't have all of the facts. Isn't it okay to have an opinion without being insane about it? Isn't it people's myopic passion that is the root of a good many of the world's problems?

Okay, but do you think that someone should be passionate even though they don't have all of the facts. Isn't it okay to have an opinion without being insane about it? Isn't it people's myopic passion that is the root of a good many of the world's problems?

Wealth redistribution sucks. I'm passionate about that. Capitalism built this country, socialism will destroy it.

Quote: boymimbo

I think there's about 2000 years of history of people who are passionate towards their beliefs because they believe in one thing.

That's discounting at least a couple of thousand years for such belief systems.

Quote: DeMango

Wealth redistribution sucks. I'm passionate about that. Capitalism built this country, socialism will destroy it.

"

Not "will destroy it" but rather might already have done so. Look at how many people think "profit" is some kind of dirty word and in fact should not even be earned for things people "need." We are heading down the wrong road for sure.

Already 47% of the population is on some sort of handout.

Quote: AZDuffman

"

Not "will destroy it" but rather might already have done so. Look at how many people think "profit" is some kind of dirty word and in fact should not even be earned for things people "need." We are heading down the wrong road for sure.

Already 47% of the population is on some sort of handout.

Why do we keep repeating the 47% distortion? This is harmful to the conservative cause because it is "sort of" true but is also a distortion of the issues. Not earning enough to pay income tax is not "getting a government handout"--it is having an income so low that our current tax code says that no tax is due. What about all the other taxes those people pay? Sales tax, sin taxes, government fees (not labeled as taxes but...), etc.?

I even heard my military retirement referred to as a government handout. I am going to personally insult (in advance, even!!) anyone who would say that--you are f&^%(ng idiot!! No, it is a pension. It is at a higher rate than some other pensions (and we can talk about that) but not every other profession has the risks during a 20 year career (some do...police, firefighters, etc.) that the military faces.

Handouts are what people get for doing nothing. That rate is not 47%.

I'm not saying that conservatives shouldn't oppose liberals. We should. We also shouldn't repeat talking points that are distorted.

I would love to be wrong about Obamacare. I could be. I doubt it.

Things done in the dark don't tend to look so good in the light. Obamacare was a 2 at 10 and a 10 at 2...and now we are waking up in the morning with it next to us...

Quote: RonC

Why do we keep repeating the 47% distortion? This is harmful to the conservative cause because it is "sort of" true but is also a distortion of the issues. Not earning enough to pay income tax is not "getting a government handout"--it is having an income so low that our current tax code says that no tax is due. What about all the other taxes those people pay? Sales tax, sin taxes, government fees (not labeled as taxes but...), etc.?

I even heard my military retirement referred to as a government handout. I am going to personally insult (in advance, even!!) anyone who would say that--you are f&^%(ng idiot!! No, it is a pension. It is at a higher rate than some other pensions (and we can talk about that) but not every other profession has the risks during a 20 year career (some do...police, firefighters, etc.) that the military faces.

Totally agree. Your military retirement is most definitely NOT a government handout. But I must say that sales taxes, payroll taxes, etc. are not relevant because the federal government doesn't get to 'spend' that money.

Quote: steeldco

Now that begs a question.......SHOULD you be passionate if your opinion may be the wrong one?

I chose 'may be wrong' but to the minuscule degree for which that possibility exists for the entire program, I think that I can be passionate. At this point, any perceived wrongness in my opinion will be minor and also expected. Something will be a surprise that I wasn't expecting like the web site but that doesn't torpedo my opinion of the entire program which is by-and-large okay. It would be much better and easier if it was a single payer system.

Quote: Beethoven9th

Totally agree. Your military retirement is most definitely NOT a government handout.

Thank you.

Quote: Beethoven9th

But I must say that sales taxes, payroll taxes, etc. are not relevant because the federal government doesn't get to 'spend' that money.

I understand...some however do get spent by the feds...

Federal withholding of payroll taxes are relevant if the earner does not get a full refund--they have then paid some income tax.

Gasoline taxes at the federal level are spent by the feds.

The phone tax (oops, fee) imposed during the Clinton era and on your monthly phone bill is not in the federal budget but is spent by a "non-government agency" to support phone, internet, etc. for schools, libraries, people, rural health...you have to pay it and it does redistribute your wealth to others...

Government fees in excess of the cost of the transaction are also "taxes" of a sort...

Quote: RonC

I understand...some however do get spent by the feds...

Federal withholding of payroll taxes are relevant if the earner does not get a full refund--they have then paid some income tax.

Gasoline taxes at the federal level are spent by the feds.

The phone tax (oops, fee) imposed during the Clinton era and on your monthly phone bill is not in the federal budget but is spent by a "non-government agency" to support phone, internet, etc. for schools, libraries, people, rural health...you have to pay it and it does redistribute your wealth to others...

Government fees in excess of the cost of the transaction are also "taxes" of a sort...

Very true. I think AZ's overall point though—and I know that AZ is quite capable of speaking for himself, so I apologize in advance—is that the money collected specifically from federal income tax should not be used for pandering to people who pay no federal income tax at all. Kinda like if I have a gym membership with Gold's Gym, I shouldn't expect any services or freebies at all from 24 Hour Fitness.

Quote: Beethoven9th

Very true. I think AZ's overall point though—and I know that AZ is quite capable of speaking for himself, so I apologize in advance—is that the money collected specifically from federal income tax should not be used for pandering to people who pay no federal income tax at all. Kinda like if I have a gym membership with Gold's Gym, I shouldn't expect any services or freebies at all from 24 Hour Fitness.

Social Security's aim is to act as a safety net for those who have no other means of income, for a period of time. Unemployed, sick, etc. The size of the safety net and length can be debated, but to suddenly cut people off if they aren't paying into it seems perverse. The amount of long term benefit claimants is escalating (disability payments are going to many who aren't disabled, but who have no access to to work they can do... which is a very different thing). I may of course be misunderstanding how the system and who pays for what in the US works, so never mind if I am.

I also agree. The 47% line doesn't help the Cons course. Its used arrogantly and sounds elitist. The fact that you believe there's too many people getting net income from the Feds is known. It will never be 0%... dismissing 47% of the voters will catch some of them who might otherwise vote Republican. I'd be curious which actual sector of that 47% the Cons talk about is the ones they would eliminate if they could.

As for Obamacare? Meh.

Quote: thecesspit

Social Security's aim is to act as a safety net for those who have no other means of income, for a period of time. Unemployed, sick, etc. The size of the safety net and length can be debated, but to suddenly cut people off if they aren't paying into it seems perverse. The amount of long term benefit claimants is escalating (disability payments are going to many who aren't disabled, but who have no access to to work they can do... which is a very different thing). I may of course be misunderstanding how the system and who pays for what in the US works, so never mind if I am.

You're thinking of payroll taxes, which are separate & distinct from the federal income tax.

Quote: RonC

Why do we keep repeating the 47% distortion? This is harmful to the conservative cause because it is "sort of" true but is also a distortion of the issues. Not earning enough to pay income tax is not "getting a government handout"--it is having an income so low that our current tax code says that no tax is due. What about all the other taxes those people pay? Sales tax, sin taxes, government fees (not labeled as taxes but...), etc.?

Actually it is totally true. 47% of Americans are paying no income tax and yet they elect a guy who says "the rich need to pay their fair share!" More people are going on disability than are going out to work.

Quote:

I'm not saying that conservatives shouldn't oppose liberals. We should. We also shouldn't repeat talking points that are distorted.

Actually what we need to do is go on offense and explain what all of this means. The comment is only harmful if we ignore it and let liberals run with it. We need to have a feeling of, "well, conservatism is not for everybody. It requires you to believe in yourself and do for yourself. If you don't think you can do that, vote Democrat."

Because that is really what has happened. Obamaclaus ran in 2012. Free this, free that, special treatment here. We need a candidate and leaders who will inspire, much like the good teacher or sports coach did when you were younger.

I keep repeating it because it is indeed true, and I want it to be shown that conservatism is for winners who believe in their own ability, while liberalism is for people who think they can't make it without special help. If we keep showing that, conservatism will triumph as people generally do not like to think of themselves as losers.

Quote: Beethoven9th

You're thinking of payroll taxes, which are separate & distinct from the federal income tax.

Are payroll taxes spent by the state, and go towards unemployment benefits? Just curious, I'm not sure I understand the distinction here more than anything else.

Quote: AZDuffman

I keep repeating it because it is indeed true, and I want it to be shown that conservatism is for winners who believe in their own ability, while liberalism is for people who think they can't make it without special help. If we keep showing that, conservatism will triumph as people generally do not like to think of themselves as losers.

It's a fine concept that will appeal to the low information voter. But where is the part about paying workers as little as possible? Breaking strikes? Opposing minimum wages? Ignoring and opposing environmental and labor safety restrictions? Hiding taxable income in foreign accounts? Paying CEO millions even when companies fail?

And I'm probably forgetting a few other things.

Quote: rxwine

But where is the part about paying workers as little as possible?

Who doesn't try to pay workers as little as possible? Workers try to get as much as possible, employers try to pay as little as possible. It is called economics.

Quote:

Breaking strikes?

If workers do not want to work maybe somebody else will.

Quote:

Opposing minimum wages?

Who opposes a minimum wage? It should be set at state and not federal level, however. That would be more fair to everyone.

Quote:

Ignoring and opposing environmental and labor safety restrictions? Hiding taxable income in foreign accounts? Paying CEO millions even when companies fail?

And I'm probably forgetting a few other things.

Still not sure what you are talking about or what your problem is. We have plenty of environmental restrictions as it is, same as labor safety. We do not need to make more for the sake of making more, which is often the case. The way to tax the most income is to not loot 40% of that income, even the Russians learned this. As to CEOS, that is between the shareholders and the CEOS. Nobody else's business.

I never expect you to agree. And you don't.

Actually, I don't worry too much if obamacare puts republicans in charge. Forced to be in charge of cutting entitlements without anyone else to blame will be a hoot.

Quote: rxwine

Actually, I don't worry too much if obamacare puts republicans in charge. Forced to be in charge of cutting entitlements without anyone else to blame will be a hoot.

Almost as big of a hoot as watching Obama with no GOP, no Bush, nobody else to blame for the Obamacare disaster.

Heck, I'm surprised he has not blamed his web site failure on Gore for inventing the internet in the first place.

Quote: AZDuffman

Already 47% of the population is on some sort of handout.

Quote: RonC

Why do we keep repeating the 47% distortion? This is harmful to the conservative cause because it is "sort of" true but is also a distortion of the issues. Not earning enough to pay income tax is not "getting a government handout"--it is having an income so low that our current tax code says that no tax is due. What about all the other taxes those people pay? Sales tax, sin taxes, government fees (not labeled as taxes but...), etc.?

Quote: AZDuffman

Actually it is totally true. 47% of Americans are paying no income tax and yet they elect a guy who says "the rich need to pay their fair share!" More people are going on disability than are going out to work.

Careful there, sir. In one comment, you said that 47% is on some sort of handout. In your reply to my comment, you say 47% are paying no income tax. There is a difference and the difference is what allows the other side to call it a distortion and misleading.

A "handout" is something for free...not paying taxes is a much broader thing. Sure, there are too many people relying on handouts but there is also a portion of that 47% that want nothing more than to pay taxes because that would mean they were earning enough to need to pay taxes. They are working, they are contributing to society, but they don't make enough to owe taxes based on our tax tables.

These loose uses of the facts don't help us reach more voters. They are easily refuted as "partial truths" or worse by the other side.

Yes, we do need to tell the truth and try to educate. The truth we tell needs to be something that can be torn apart as easily as this particular number can be.

Quote: AZDuffman

Heck, I'm surprised he has not blamed his web site failure on Gore for inventing the internet in the first place.

That website failure is just a story of how government procurement and IT is one long screw up. Hastened and abetted here by a desperation to get it up on time.

Among the sorry stories I've read already... 2 weeks of integration testing, and load testing of only 400 people at once. I develop web applications for some pretty specific tasks... with a couple of back end database links to third parties. We spent 4 weeks integration testing our first major release of the application. I've load tested it with 200 users working flat out, despite most of the time it being 5 users at a time, not really hammering the system.

The questions in the house about the development are also kinda of interesting to see how it is viewed by the political types of all hues... but suffice to say, while the mandate came from the Democrats and the Timetable from Obama, this kinda of terrible mess is due to endemic failures on how the Federal government is running major IT projects.

Quote: thecesspit

That website failure is just a story of how government procurement and IT is one long screw up. Hastened and abetted here by a desperation to get it up on time.

It just shows how government never thinks of the end user on anything.

I remember I had to fly right after the shoe-bomber and they were making us all take our shoes off. I politely asked if they had any shoe-horns available.

"NO!" was the very rude reply. I muttered something about if you were going to have people take their shoes off they should have some shoe-horns. But clearly it never crossed their mind to have some on-hand.

The Obamacare website has been rolled out at a web-skill level of what you saw in 1996. Back then lots of roll-outs crashed because the various providers underestimated bandwith need, etc. Now you rarely see that kind of crash. If this had happened in the real world many people would be fired and the vendor would be providing free service to get it working.

Quote: AZDuffman

Who doesn't try to pay workers as little as possible?

Costco

Quote: AZDuffman

If workers do not want to work maybe somebody else will.

What I said is strikes.

What's interesting, is the part about people working and earning a living and not taking handouts has nothing to do with the what you're endorsing here. Strikes protesting wages and contracts may or may not be feasible to support with a company's profit margins, but that's something that can be negotiated.

If people should defend what they see is their best interest (which seems to fit your greed philosophy) then uprooting, changing jobs, perhaps moving their family, may not be in their best interests. Conservatives should defend strikers not oppose them if they support greed policy.

Or rather stop pretending you support hard working people, because you don't. You defend the top percent only with this thinking if you don't support people defending their interest who are striking at the lower end.

Quote: rxwine

What I said is strikes.

I know what you said. For the low-information voters out there I will explain.

Collectively bargained contract nears an end and negotiations start. Sometimes the workers will have a demand of wages or other benefits in excess of what the company wants to pay. The company offers $15 an hour but the workers demand $!7. So they call a strike.

THUS THE WORKERS DO NOT WANT TO WORK FOR WHAT IS OFFERED!

Depending on the skill level of the jobs, other workers may show up, glad to get the $15 offered. So the company will hire them.

Sorry, Mr. Striker, you decided not to show for work, business goes on.

Quote:

If people should defend what they see is their best interest (which seems to fit your greed philosophy) then uprooting, changing jobs, perhaps moving their family, may not be in their best interests. Conservatives should defend strikers not oppose them if they support greed policy.

No, conservatives support both sides being able to pursue their interests unmolested by government involvement. If you want to strike, fine with me. Just do not expect me to automatically honor your picket line.

I didn't want to post early on figuring it would end something like it will.

What I see again is people get caught up in the left/right paradigm. People willing to accept that there are only two choices. The last election is the first one since 73 that I haven't voted in. If my fellow citizens can accept that those were the only choices, we are absolutely doomed until after the reset.

RonC, before I go any further, I want to thank you for your service to our country. But minimally I have to disagree with your statement that police or firefighters risked there lives as much as the vets that I'm familiar with. Not even close.

As far as fireman, I've lived in several community's that had volunteer firefighter, and it worked very well. I can see where that might not be as effective in a larger city.

The ACA in my opinion is not about health care so much as it is about campaign donations. It was written by pharmaceutical and health care lobbyists and not read by even a handful of those that voted on it. [Pelosi, we have to pass it to see what's in it]

Sure complain about the minutia of what's in it all you want, after all it's a free country. Just don't question the system at all that voted it in. If your a person of significant authority to cause them any harm that might just get you two to the back of the head.

As far as my belief about the faux choice of this or that? Look who wrote it, look who voted on it, they will all make very large sums of money from this no matter which way it goes and their health insurance [which we pay for] never comes into question. Early an, the politico's were exempted. They all retire with health care for life for them and their extended families. The msm talking heads don't seem to bring that up much?

I think the family practitioner is a local hero. They knowingly treat the common people day after day accepting a lot less than their peers for a near equal education. To me they are healer's. Locally I'm aware of two that have decided to quit, there may be more, but I know two. Hardly any of them make enough money to have a private practice without co-oping. A couple have told me they wished they had went into dentistry.

One way I look at it is we are all part of a hive. At the top we have the queens, pick your own choice of metaphor. Next we have the drones, [to me AZ.D these are the ceo's. Some give value, but it's funny how when any of them are asked under oath about what or why the money is gone, none of them seem to be able to remember. That's a poor choice for a ceo of a multi-billion dollar outfit to me.

This ACA and the publicity to me is just another distraction from the criminality going on at the top. The tragic scandals are coming out so fast and close together that the what should be informed populace is suffering from data overload and can't comprehend how everything is so convoluted. More and more people trying to grab anything that will float when they are drowning.

Good luck everybody, we are going to need it. In the end the survivability rate for everyone drops to zero, [zh]

Quote: AZDuffman

The Obamacare website has been rolled out at a web-skill level of what you saw in 1996. Back then lots of roll-outs crashed because the various providers underestimated bandwith need, etc. Now you rarely see that kind of crash. If this had happened in the real world many people would be fired and the vendor would be providing free service to get it working.

It's not a 1996 issue. It's a 2013 issue. The level of web skill involved is much more complex than integrations I was looking at as case studies in 1996. What people have assumed is that big web roll outs are easy so the deadlines can be moved. They can't, and most big web roll outs have grown organically, and not go to zero to boom in a short amount of time.

If you want to keep the same features and the same timelines, quality is always at stake. In this case and at this stage, I'm not convince they had a competent quality manager for the project. Or even if they had one at all.

I'm available for 250k/pa, though :D

Quote: AZDuffman

No, conservatives support both sides being able to pursue their interests unmolested by government involvement. If you want to strike, fine with me. Just do not expect me to automatically honor your picket line.

But you want the government to make sure that you don't have to by having picketing workers arrested for the slightest violation. Funny how conservatives love them some big government when it's in their interests.

Quote: s2dbaker

But you want the government to make sure that you don't have to by having picketing workers arrested for the slightest violation. Funny how conservatives love them some big government when it's in their interests.

Not quite sure what you are getting at, perhaps you might cite an example?

My guess is that you somehow think picketing workers are allowed to disrupt the business of the business being struck? Allowed to block entrances? Harass customers? Intimidate replacement workers? Those kinds of slight violations?

Quote: petroglyph

RonC, before I go any further, I want to thank you for your service to our country. But minimally I have to disagree with your statement that police or firefighters risked there lives as much as the vets that I'm familiar with. Not even close.

My point was not which one was in the "most" danger; more that professions with higher risk levels tend to have early retirement ages (20 years of service or so). There were not as many shots fired in anger during my 21 1/2 years as there have been in the 12 since I retired.

Quote: AZDuffman

No, conservatives support both sides being able to pursue their interests unmolested by government involvement.

The last time I heard a conservative politician say something positive about collective bargaining in the public square, is about never.

Quote: rxwine

The last time I heard a conservative politician say something positive about collective bargaining in the public square, is about never.

When you aren't owned by unions you don't need to do so.

Quote: AZDuffman

Not quite sure what you are getting at, perhaps you might cite an example?

My guess is that you somehow think picketing workers are allowed to disrupt the business of the business being struck? Allowed to block entrances? Harass customers? Intimidate replacement workers? Those kinds of slight violations?

Those that you sited are not slight violations. You obviously don't know what you're talking about. I feel sorry for you.

Quote: s2dbaker

Those that you sited are not slight violations. You obviously don't know what you're talking about. I feel sorry for you.

I asked for an example of a "slight violation" and received none so I gave some examples.

Don't feel sorry for me, feel sorry for the workers who Obama wishes to disenfranchise by taking away rights to union elections.

Quote: AZDuffman

I asked for an example of a "slight violation" and received none so I gave some examples.

Don't feel sorry for me, feel sorry for the workers who Obama wishes to disenfranchise by taking away rights to union elections.

No, I feel sorry for you.

Quote: s2dbaker

No, I feel sorry for you.

So I take it that you do *not* have examples of workers being arrested for a "slight violation" as you charged?

Your viewpoints seem pretty harsh AZDuffman for a guy that's in a Union.

Quote: petroglyph

Your viewpoints seem pretty harsh AZDuffman for a guy that's in a Union.

Haven't been in a union since 1990.

Quote: AZDuffman

So I take it that you do *not* have examples of workers being arrested for a "slight violation" as you charged?

No, you should take that as feeling sorry for you.

Quote: s2dbaker

No, you should take that as feeling sorry for you.

I have no need for you to feel sorry for me, so please either give an example of union pickets being arrested for "slight violations" and for a bonus show where a GOP politician backed it up. Or you can man up and explain that you misspoke.

Quote: AZDuffman

Haven't been in a union since 1990.

It's a matter of semantics. I've tried to tell union guys they would get better reception if they just re-label themselves as an association or a group or some other noun without so much stigma attached to it. Such as the AMA, or a farmer's co-op, those titles don't raise people's ire so much.

The preamble, " In order to form a more perfect.....what?

The POTUS most well known speeches [all presidents] is when they deliver the State of the......what?

The reason the original colonies banded together is there is strength in numbers. Another name for our Allies, could usually be termed "union"

Or a marriage contract, lots of those use the term "union". So I think to be totally anti-union is also un-American.

It's that only left/right thing that keeps popping up.

Above where you asked for an example, I'll throw out the "Ludlow Massacre", Or the dangers of coal mining, or asbestos workers' the list and example's is long.

I get your point on the ACA as well, you shouldn't have to pay for someone else's s....t. I get that. But looking at it from another angle. I don't want to pay for the last TSA frisk you had at the airport. I share the cost of your fire dept., police, are you on a sewer or water. Same thing I don't want to pay for a lot of stuff I have no choice in. For you to show up at a hospital where there are doctor's and nurse's and facility, someone else paid so that stuff would be there when I need it. Same with the ambulance and the street they drive on and the 911 operator.

What about the cdc? Those people working to avoid plagues. I'm glad there are flu shot's for those that want them. But you and I paid for that also.

The insurance company's will reap billions of this aca that they wrote. It will probably make medical care worse, and harder to come buy for those of us that have coverage now.

Quote: petroglyph

It's a matter of semantics. I've tried to tell union guys they would get better reception if they just re-label themselves as an association or a group or some other noun without so much stigma attached to it. Such as the AMA, or a farmer's co-op, those titles don't raise people's ire so much.

I doubt it would matter, the NEA is one of the largest unions in the USA but does not use the word "union" in their name. As to the homonyms you mentioned, I don't see what it matters. Educated people know what words mean.

Quote:

I get your point on the ACA as well, you shouldn't have to pay for someone else's s....t. I get that. But looking at it from another angle. I don't want to pay for the last TSA frisk you had at the airport. I share the cost of your fire dept., police, are you on a sewer or water. Same thing I don't want to pay for a lot of stuff I have no choice in. For you to show up at a hospital where there are doctor's and nurse's and facility, someone else paid so that stuff would be there when I need it. Same with the ambulance and the street they drive on and the 911 operator.

What about the cdc? Those people working to avoid plagues. I'm glad there are flu shot's for those that want them. But you and I paid for that also.

Not valid comparisons to health insurance. There is a difference between the fire department and socialism of a private product.

Quote: AZDuffman

When you aren't owned by unions you don't need to do so.

Yeah, conservatives can't serve two masters either. You're the ace in the hole for the 1%.

Deregulation, environmental protection, worker's rights, equal rights are completely unnecessary to a platform of hard work and rewards which you really could sell as a positive attribute TO EVERYONE. But whatever. It's a wonder you get as many votes as you do.

EDIT - you should be able to sell your premise but you put things in opposing the common good