usa is bankkrupt because the people get elected are rich spoiled brats who have tons of money to buy them into office
they love to spend money
they do not know how to budget
they spend more money then they make
they give millons away to other countries even though it cost the usa trillions to give them millions
has nothing to do with the financial sector
quite blaming other sectors
blame the goverment for being bankrupt
yes I know you want the gov to be bigger but they can not do any thing right why make them bigger
you know what
back when this country was founded older kids worked and worked the farm they could not afford to send their older kids to school
guess what
that kepted those kids out of trouble and they learned more then alot of kids learn in school now
file for Bankruptcy
then make a law congress can not spend more money then what comes in
The US should "file for bankruptcy?"
I... have no words...
The next Crush-Magic-Negro's-Little-Balls-Yet-Again moment for the Repugs will be the battle over the debt ceiling, in the Repugs' nihilistic gut or shut govt campaign.
If the Repugs force a govt default on debt interest and bonds, it's gonna be fun.
No i didn't take this as you being a . i was thinking the same thing while I was typing it. Generally anything benefiting everybody, not personally but as a whole. For instance I am not saying not funding libraries and museums. The paying for lunch though is a stretch for me. I don't think it is the government's role in making sure kids eat. Parents should be held responsible for this kind of thing. I do see the reasoning behind children who are fed probably make better grades which make more educated citizens which make lower probability of criminals and/or create higher income which makes higher taxes brought in.
Parents should be held responsible, but many parents are far from being such.
Either we deal with that reality, or face the consequences of not doing so, which you point out.
I have seen, first-hand, the consequences of malnutrition on children in my own community. Setting aside the ethical/moral dimensions of that, the economic loss of what those children, someday to be adults, might have achieved but for consistant meals when they were young, erk.
Setting aside the economic dimensions, I think we have a moral duty to do so.
Face the consequence that we are requiring our government, non living and breathing, to raise them right now. Yeah parents should be held responsible. A moral duty for what? To make sure these kids are always fed or fed for school? If they can't come up with something for the kid to eat for lunch? Come on. I doubt you have been in a welfare line. I can assure you these people are smart and will take the "assistance" because they can. However if it is taken away then they will provide for their children.
Link?
That is a pretty definite assertion. If it reflects reality, then you should be able to provide an economic study to back it up.
As soon as I can see an economic study to back up the benefits of welfare.
you say we are morally responsible to these kids because their parents aren't. Then you say you have to see an economic study for another POV?
"you say we are morally responsible to these kids because their parents aren't"
The "Christian" supremacists and the Repugs say the US govt is morally and legally responsible for protecting human embryos, but they seem to be less concerned with those embryos' "equal" chances after birth for healthy nutrition, esp if those chances are paid for by govt funds.
Just this week some Repug , probably wealthy, at Repug conference was fomenting for shutting down federally financed school meals, saying the parents are guilty of child abuse if they can't rustle up a bowl of cereal and a banana for brekky.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 12-09-2010 at 01:25 PM.
A challenge? I accept.
As soon as I can see an economic study to back up the benefits of welfare.
I could start by noting that countries with better social safety nets have better social mobility. In the US, if your parents are poor, you will be much more likely to remain that way, than in big bad socialist countries.
(hitz da google)
I'll be back.
I would note however, you made the assertion. It is your burden of proof to prove your statement, not mine to prove the opposite.
As soon as I can see an economic study to back up the benefits of welfare.
If you cannot, or will not, then one can only logically reject it.
It has been a while since I have read up on the topic, and the new studies done since welfare reform should prove interesting reading.
you have no idea what you're talking about which is par for the course..
sounds like they're getting alot done by hosting the UN summit in Cancun, of all places
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
