• The Republican Debate
    144 replies, posted
[QUOTE=thisispain;32514987]except you wouldn't earn any money if there wasn't a social contract for a variety of reasons. if you drive to work other people paying the taxes for the road maintenance allowed you to go to work. if you use public transportation you used other people's money to use it. a job you worked at is likely there due to incentives or contracts given from other people's money that you benefited from.[/QUOTE] I am aware that there is a huge amount of social things like roads, and public transportation. I am not arguing against things like that, what I am arguing against, is that people who did nothing for it, get my money. Why should people achieve success, by taking from the success of others, all of this while doing nothing to earn it?
[QUOTE='[sluggo];32515115']I am aware that there is a huge amount of social things like roads, and public transportation. I am not arguing against things like that, what I am arguing against, is that people who did nothing for it, get my money. Why should people achieve success, by taking from the success of others, all of this while doing nothing to earn it?[/QUOTE] Because some people have basic empathy for those people and don't wish to see them fall through the cracks of society? And no, charities have not and will not support the poor to an extent that allows them to live in a real way.
[QUOTE='[sluggo];32515115']Why should people achieve success, by taking from the success of others, all of this while doing nothing to earn it?[/QUOTE] You heard it here folks sluggo is ok with the disabled to starve to death. But really a world where the poor and disabled can't get there needs would be bad on everyone. The poor would have to steal to survive and crime would raise to extremes.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;32515106]You really think charities will be able to get enough money to feed and house all those who can't get a job? You're dreaming, they can barely feed the homeless let alone the millions they are going to have to house and clothe. You really don't think you owe society a few dollars to keep people from having to hunt for survival. I'm sorry but a government without taxes is impossible.[/QUOTE] I want a program where the unemployed work. I want the unemployed to work the maintain roads, to build bridges, even to serve in the military. I then want anyone with the will to work to be able to have these jobs. I want the unemployed to earn money, not just take it.
[QUOTE='[sluggo];32515170']I want a program where the unemployed work.[/QUOTE] You understand they are on welfare because they can't work right?
[QUOTE='[sluggo];32515170']I want a program where the unemployed work. I want the unemployed to work the maintain roads, to build bridges, even to serve in the military. I then want anyone with the will to work to be able to have these jobs. I want the unemployed to earn money, not just take it.[/QUOTE] When the government employs the unemployed, that's called a public works program. You might remember this fellow FDR doing something like that.
[QUOTE='[sluggo];32515115']Why should people achieve success, by taking from the success of others, all of this while doing nothing to earn it?[/QUOTE] well first of all no-one's achieving success when they get welfare. second of all generally a society that gives out welfare is better for everyone because the bullshit assumption is that people will go to work without welfare. that's not true. welfare doesn't last forever, it's a temporary crutch and what it does is it prevents society from falling into a deeper level of poverty which has huge strains for everyone. basically if other people's lives get fucked over because they have no money and can't get welfare, it'll reflect upon society itself and ruin your life as well. it's not even really your money considering you weren't 100% responsible for earning it but it's for the better common good if you A. keep some of the money you earned for yourself so you can re-invest and do whatever you wish to do with it and B. give some back to the society that allowed you to earn it. this line of thinking is all over the founding fathers' writings and manifesto's, some of them even suggesting what is essentially known as communism today with each family receiving land to work on and having all wealth reverted and distributed amongst small communities.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;32515185]You understand they are on welfare because they can't work right?[/QUOTE] Offer them a chance to work, and if they don't accept it, they just want to be freeloaders. I want an entirely optional, but entirely available program.
[QUOTE='[sluggo];32515232']Offer them a chance to work, and if they don't accept it, they just want to be freeloaders.[/QUOTE] with the US's measly welfare program you have to have a job to even survive on welfare benefits
[QUOTE='[sluggo];32515232']they just want to be freeloaders.[/QUOTE] Yep the brain damaged are free loaders.
[QUOTE='[sluggo];32515232']Offer them a chance to work, and if they don't accept it, they just want to be freeloaders. I want an entirely optional, but entirely available program.[/QUOTE] You don't understand the system at all, do you? It seems almost as if you think the poor just ask the government for a free check and there's no oversight, or job searching, or anything.
Ok, let me finally address the disabled. People who are completely unable to work, would recieve there basic needs. But not wanting to work, and not being able are two different things. [editline]27th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Megafanx13;32515279]You don't understand the system at all, do you? It seems almost as if you think the poor just ask the government for a free check and there's no oversight, or job searching, or anything.[/QUOTE] Essentialy, yes. Tell me what you have to do I recieve welfare money?
[QUOTE='[sluggo];32515304']Ok, let me finally address the disabled. People who are completely unable to work, would recieve there basic needs[/QUOTE] You mean like most people on welfare? The reason people are on welfare is because they can't work. They are either mothers taking care of disabled kids or are disabled themselves or something else that makes work impossible. Welfare isn't where you go in and the government gives you money. Really welfare money is practically nothing and anyone who has the option to work does because even with a bad job your going to be making more then the average person with government support.
[QUOTE='[sluggo];32515304']Ok, let me finally address the disabled. People who are completely unable to work, would recieve there basic needs. But not wanting to work, and not being able are two different things.[/QUOTE] You are aware that welfare is for the working poor and disabled, and unemployment insurance is for the unemployed, right? I've already showed you the statistics about the low fraud rate in UI, so what is your objection?
[QUOTE='[sluggo];32515304'] Tell me what you have to do I recieve welfare money?[/QUOTE] hey no way mr. "recieve" if you wanna talk shit about welfare make sure you actually know something about it before spouting off. if you think you just go behind the state department office, give head, and fill out a form to receive benefits you're completely oblivious to reality.
[QUOTE=thisispain;32515358]hey no way mr. "recieve" if you wanna talk shit about welfare make sure you actually know something about it before spouting off. if you think you just go behind the state department office, give head, and fill out a form to receive benefits you're completely oblivious to reality.[/QUOTE] He's right, that doesn't get you welfare. That's how you get a job in state government.
[QUOTE='[sluggo];32515304']Essentialy, yes. Tell me what you have to do I recieve welfare money?[/QUOTE] Hahaha, oh wow. Again I'll tell you, welfare is for the working poor and disability is for the disabled. If you're working poor, you can't afford to take on another job to "pay off the welfare". If you're on unemployment insurance, that's finite and you have to submit job search reports to supervisors while on UI. I should know, my father was on it for quite some time. [editline]27th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;32515420]He's right, that doesn't get you welfare. That's how you get a job in state government.[/QUOTE] Don't be an idiot.
[QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;32515420]He's right, that doesn't get you welfare. That's how you get a job in state government.[/QUOTE] well your mom must have excellent job security then. no really though don't post if you can't add anything to the conversation.
Okay, I'll add to the conversation. I believe all welfare recipients should be subjected to random drug screening (including marijuana), and welfare money should not be used to buy alcohol.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32515062]Even though they didn't in the past when regulation and taxes were far lower? You have no basis for this argument.[/QUOTE] Well, during the 80s when Reagan drastically cut welfare spending, private charity donations had gone up 55% than it had grown over the previous 25 years. And if you still have doubts, in 2009 net total of all money donated by the private sector to charitable causes added up to roughly $303.75 Billion. I would like to emphasize that I DO NOT hold high regard for Ronald Reagan. What I also find interesting is how people always want to relegate their responsibility to help the poor to the government. I worked at a soup kitchen in inner-city Cleveland for 2 months, what have YOU done to help the poor?
[QUOTE=Derubermensch;32515581]what have YOU done to help the poor?[/QUOTE] Pay taxes. But I did volunteer once or twice.
[QUOTE=Derubermensch;32515581]Well, during the 80s when Reagan drastically cut welfare spending, private charity donations had gone up 55% than it had grown over the previous 25 years. And if you still have doubts, in 2009 net total of all money donated by the private sector to charitable causes added up to roughly $303.75 Billion. I would like to emphasize that I DO NOT hold high regard for Ronald Reagan.[/QUOTE] And so what? What did those charities cover? Healthcare? Food? Housing? How many did they cover? Did they even make up the difference in those welfare cuts? A simply "charity donations went up 55%" means jack shit if the charities aren't providing essential services or have private interests of their own.
Paying taxes is not you paying your dues. I'm fine with decentralized, pro-actively administrated local public charities, but it is irresponsible to think that you have payed your responsibilities to the poor through a federal income tax that would have been forcibly subjected to you either way. (Directed at imasillypiggy) And Megafanx, I find that infinitely ironic because I could make the same argument against welfare payments.
[QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;32515566]I believe all welfare recipients should be subjected to random drug screening (including marijuana), and welfare money should not be used to buy alcohol.[/QUOTE] which would solve what exactly?
[QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;32515566]Okay, I'll add to the conversation. I believe all welfare recipients should be subjected to random drug screening (including marijuana), and welfare money should not be used to buy alcohol.[/QUOTE] I personally think it should be given away only towards only necessities. I know a guy who was on welfare that ended up using some of the money to buy a flatscreen TV, and my uncle used welfare money to buy heroin.
[QUOTE=Derubermensch;32515581] What I also find interesting is how people always want to relegate their responsibility to help the poor to the government. I worked at a soup kitchen in inner-city Cleveland for 2 months, what have YOU done to help the poor?[/QUOTE] working at a fucking soup-kitchen for 2 months isn't going to solve the problem of people lacking healthcare. a state-run healthcare system does.
[QUOTE=Derubermensch;32515671]And Megafanx, I find that infinitely ironic because I could make the same argument against welfare payments.[/QUOTE] At least government is supposed to be accountable to the citizenry. Private charities are not.
[QUOTE=Soviet Bread;32500067]You must have been living under a rock for the 8 years under bush. not even those in particular. The whole 'you're with us or against us' attitude. When you had shit like this daily: [img]http://agitprop.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/oreilly_shutup.jpg[/img] (And his whole rant against Hollywood) Plus if you recall entire protests with poorly spelled signs declaring liberals to be traitors. It was very, very prevalent. I don't see how you get that conclusion but no, I hate 4chan and everything it represents.[/QUOTE] Whoa whoa whoa haha are you serious? There is a MASSIVE difference between supporting Bush and supporting the military. That "proof" from a TV program is about supporting the military. I see everyone that doesn't support the military as unpatriotic and i'm not ashamed to admit it. You don't have to like where they've been sent or why they've been sent there, but that's not under their control. The military, aka the people that put their lives up for our country, should be unabashedly supported through everything. I'm not talking about being proud of the inevitable douches in the military that commit random acts of violence and give the military a bad name, but the military as a whole. There is NO reason to not support the men and women of the military. They do what they're told in service of the country. If you're going to not support something, look at the politicians. If you'd read what I said earlier you'd see even I don't support the current wars in Iraq/Afghanistan and yet i'm still a conservative. But I will always support the military 100%. And yeah, there are people that go around saying liberals are "traitors" but they're a minority. How is that any worse than people like you running around yelling how ALL conservatives are racist, bigoted idiots?
[QUOTE=Derubermensch;32515671]Paying taxes is not you paying your dues. I'm fine with decentralized, pro-actively administrated local public charities, but it is irresponsible to think that you have payed your responsibilities to the poor through a federal income tax that would have been forcibly subjected to you either way. (Directed at imasillypiggy)[/QUOTE] I actually am poor. I probably got way more in charity/government help then I will ever give. So yea i'm definitely not saying people shouldn't give to charity. But I know its not going to cover what the disabled/poor need like charity and government combined.
Or we could actually solve the problems behind our healthcare market instead of masking it by spreading the payment for it. Get the government out of the doctor-patient relationship, grind down on so called "intellectual rights", and allow for nationwide competition among healthcare providers. Even so, churches and charity treatments have always been there for the poor. directed at Thisisspain, fast moving thread this evening.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.