Reply With Quote
it don't necessarily. you asked if posing questions leads us to truth. I pointed out it can certainly lead us away, with fingers pointing to this thread.
I apologize for the petulant capper. It relates more to me, maybe.
Fixed.
Yes he is, isn't he.
Of course I know you were making light of my remarks, after all, I replied after you asked of there was a doctor in the house. No harm, no foul, hence my joke about the troll.
it don't necessarily. you asked if posing questions leads us to truth. I pointed out it can certainly lead us away, with fingers pointing to this thread.
I apologize for the petulant capper. It relates more to me, maybe.
how's the pay?
Well, he claims to have a nice Mercedes.
Clambake...
How much did you say your oil changes cost?
Mother hen pay? I disbelieve it.
I have a hard time believing he makes that type of money too. But...
my car has been rushed to the OR.....
lights the burner with $100 bills?
I think CC was being sarcastic. Clambake however...
I can't see someone who doesn't know how to use a cap key, and has the demeanor here that he has, as being someone who can succeed that well.
I wonder if he's the oil lube guy who services those cars, and fantasizes about having one.
overrated
True.
Probably my bias and dislike for the asshole.
playing the ing card.
since it's in the thread, no need to link, righty-o?
don't think for a minute that because you waved off the previous no one remembers
I don't follow what you are trying to get at.
you have extreme views. they're here in the thread for everyone to read.
I guess we disagree on what is extreme and what isn't.
wird
So I asked you where the line is between "responsible" and "irresponsible", but you never answered. Where is this imaginary line? You must know what it is, seeing you're proposing the threat this people differently. You didn't specify that in the original thread, thus the reason I'm asking.
Why not just deny the aid, period?
Why would anybody do that? You would just tell them that they don't qualify for the aid, and then they would need to find a different source of money (charity, a job or what have you)
It seems that's very clear cut to you when somebody can or cannot afford it. It's not as clear cut to me. That's why I was asking you for more details above.
Advocating and requiring a crippling surgery are two very different things. Plus I'm certainly against government regulating morality. It's a slippery slope that seemingly has no end. Once you're on that train, what other moral choices does the government gets to dictate? Where does it end?
Well, first of all, you would need to back up the contention that there's "millions of people who live on tax payer subsidies from their own irresponsibility". Do you have any figures that back up that claim?
Second of all, you have to show me that the savings from those cases outweigh the long term benefits for society from having that extra person.
After all, you're not after temporary economic gain, but a more overall "beneficial to society".
I don't see where that is so difficult, except there will be some shades of gray. Few things are black and white. Would you agree a couple, where neither is working, maybe both living with their parents, would be irresponsible to conceive a child? How about a couple that works, but has very little money after paying rent, utilities, etc. It comes down to finances. It comes down to if government assistance is asked for or not. If it's asked for, then what has changed since the conception would be used to show if they qualify or not for the aid without the strings attached.
Don't ask me to try to come up with the thousands of possible qualifiers.
Why are you pushing to the extreme? Isn't my answer good enough that I believe in the safety net system? Is someone being irresponsible if they were an anaquate provider, then suddenly gets laid off of work?
And if they can't find a job, or charity resources are running low? If you are advocating cutting them off 100% without an option, I could call you the extreme one, you know. I want to promote using charitable resources first. However, if there is nothing else to be found, why do you advocate no help at all from the government? My intent is to dramatically downsize the social spending. Not eliminate it. When we find better solutions in the future, maybe that can become a worthy goal.
Why isn't it clear? Can't you do basic financial math, projecting future costs of a lifestyle change?
So you support pedophiles, polygamy, incest, etc?
Most people will disagree with where a law should start and end. However, I'm not talking about regulating morality. I'm talking about holding people accountable for their level of responsibility. I am only advocating this because of the tax burden it places on tax payers. This is the only time a libertarian has the right to desire some kind of government intervention. When it affects the responsible people. Libertarianism only works when you maintain a society where people are accountable for their actions.
How many people live in poverty, as a cycle? I think it's crazy to ask for such a thing. You can look up food stamp statistics, WIC program statistics, Earned Income Credit statistics, etc. as easily as anyone. We probably have between 40% to 48% of our population being subsidized by the rest. I make that claim because it is 48% if income tax filers that either pay no federal income tax, or get money from others in tax credits.
Isn't it logical that a simple operation is cheaper than the statistical amount paid?
This is more about economics. Since the welfare system started in the 60's it has become larger than military spending. A cycle of dependency has developed. Children growing up under these systems don't see parents working as role models, so yes, it is about society too. With single unwed mothers, children see their mothers collecting food stamps, sometimes receiving child support, often the mother isn't working, and it's what they see as a lifestyle.
We need to turn the wheels back to the 50's way of thinking when it comes to responsibility. Our society as a whole has so little responsibility, it's ridiculous. If we want to see a better future for our kids, we need to try to change what is wrong.
I'm going to go out on a limb, and guess by your last three posts, you had a wee bit too much to drink?
If it's not so difficult, then why there's "thousands of possible qualifiers"?
Just tell me what the criteria is. I doubt government will ins ute a program where there's "thousands of possible qualifiers". There's probably some guidelines, unless you're saying it should be entirely arbitrary.
I definitely do not agree with the examples you provided as examples of "irresponsible". If anything, I want to hear why they don't have jobs, and I much rather the government aids them getting a job than requiring them to undergo surgery, which won't make them any more productive to society.
But wouldn't that person fit in your exception criteria? The temporary dire straits part? So that person doesn't have a problem. We're obviously talking about those that would qualify within your "irresponsible" definition.
If you feel they're just abusing the system, why do you think they should be rewarded with aid?
Heck, let's do a middle-ground solution and only give them half. When there's not enough money in your house, you adjust to the reality of the situation, right? Why don't just do the same in this case? If there's so many irresponsible out there, this would be huge savings, right?
If they can't find anything, you provide the aid while you help them find something so they can be productive again. You still haven't explained how requiring them to have a surgery "dramatically downsize the social spending". It doesn't force them to go out there and get a job.
If everybody could predict their financial future, then nobody would have financial problems, thus this whole re ed idea wouldn't exist in the first place. There's no certainties when it comes to the future. And going through a pregnancy and raising a child is a matter of years, not weeks or just months.
do you think the only reason those things are outlawed are just moral?
There's both medical and contractual reasons why those things are outlawed.
How does a surgery requirement holds people accountable? How does it incentive people to get a job, out of welfare and being productive members of society? Doesn't it actually works the other way around? It would deny society of potentially productive members.
Sounds like that's a problem with the tax code. Or you're seriously advocating that 40% to 48% people undergo crippling surgery?
Isn't that going to hurt the country more in the long term?
BTW, about 40 million people received foodstamps assistance in 2010, and that's largely due to the recession. That's about 13% of the population, and includes everyone, those that require temporarily and those that might not. Perhaps the problem isn't as bad or widespread as you think it is.
Ultimately what's going to to reduce social spending is when the people that can work get back to work and off welfare. Surgery is not making them work.
No it's not. Because it isn't just a simple operation. You're also not adding the potential contributions from one or more future workers and taxpayers. Those unborn kids are definitely not going to be working, paying their taxes, and benefiting society.
Can you back that up? Programs like WIC only last as long as the kids are 5 years old and only as long as your income is below a certain level. There's been laws since at least 1996 that prevent women from staying indefinitely on welfare.
Do you realize that Reagan's "Welfare Queen" tale was fictional, right?
It's a completely different world. Back then we had a manufacturing nation. After the war the economy was fairly stable and growing. The federal government was not in charge of welfare at all, it was the states that took care of that. The US population was half of what it is today.
I'm not against reducing some costs, trimming bureaucracy and going after those that abuse the system. I don't think mass vasectomies will solve that problem. As a matter of fact, mass vasectomies will likely ensure that the better future will only see less kids.
But that's exactly what makes you extreme...everyone else agrees on it except for you. And and and, if you weren't so extreme - you'd see it! See?
Forced sterilization is your compromise?
If you understood the posts it is just possible I was not drunk enough yet.
I see...
Because 90% of the population says the world is flat, but I say it's round... I am wrong.
OK... Got it.
Please show me where I advocate forced sterilization.Forced sterilization is your compromise?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions