Reply With Quote
In your myopic view it sounds like he "doesn't give a about people." Others look at it as an unwillingness to subsidize lazy and irresponsible behavior.
And speaking of dehumanization, only WH got the irony of speaking of the poor's dignity while describing them like an untapped natural resource.
In your myopic view it sounds like he "doesn't give a about people." Others look at it as an unwillingness to subsidize lazy and irresponsible behavior.
Shut the up, RG trashed you.
Eloquently put
Is murdering a person a poor life decision? Are you ok with subsidizing the due process of a suspected murderer and the subsequent punishment of a convicted murderer? Absolutely an untenable position.
Getting fired from a job because the business slacks off is "lazy and irresponsible"?
It is irresponsible to fall off a boat? Is that reason to not have life preservers?
Is it irresponsible to be injured or sick and lose a job because you are physically unable to go?
It is an over simplification that all people on assistance are there because they are lazy? How do you identify those people from the ones who need help?
I assume you don't mind helping hardworking people who simply have lost an ability to earn income temporarily.
We get it. You idolize Maynard and Manson And like to pretend you're ruthless when hiding behind the anonymity of the internet. Cute. Are you in your early 20's?
I don't entirely disagree. If you really can't support kids, you should not be having them.
That said, how do you deal with the kids that will inevitably result from some people's poor decision making?
Kill them?
You sure as ain't gonna stop people from ing, and birth control is not exactly perfect.
I would prefer to deal with the kids that result in a human, moral, reasonable manner.
Here is a question for you:
Tax on X is 25%
Tax on Y is 15%
Which is "punished" and which is encouraged?
I'm all for helping the temporarily disabled or involuntary layoffs--but I'm also not naive enough to assume they represent the majority of those receiving FS.
RG, do you think poor people who can't support themselves or provide a certain quality of life for others have children? I want your personal opinion, preferably a succinct yes or no.
It might, it might not. Depends on the cir stances. What's this got to do with anything?
Huh?
Please don't put me on your ignore list
Obviously the tax code encourages unearned income over earned income which is ridiculous. You don't need to convince me of the economic argument for investment in human capital and the need for a social safety net. I'm just dumbfounded by the fact that you actually have people who still deny hyper inequality is a problem.
Are you not being forced to subsidize someone else's poor life decisions when you pay for a person to be publicly defended, incarcerated or put to death?
So you don't want to subsidize other peoples poor life decisions? Who does? You present no policy solutions, just bull tripe - let the filth starve to death. Maynard would be so impressed, I'm sure.
I wouldnt. I've seen you add value in threads. This just doesn't happen to be one of them.
1) I'd love to hear why you think the state-to-state public defender system is analogous to federally subsidized welfare programs; particularly where the funding scheme for public defenders differ from state to state, with some states not paying lawyers appointed as public defenders (I think)
2) I'd also love to hear how/why my federal taxes are used for a public defender system administered by the states
3) Also, I'd love to hear how the amount of my federal taxes that are used for TANF, SNAP, etc... compare with the amount of my federal tax dollars used to pay for a public defender
That being said, technically, my federal tax dollars which ostensibly go to pay a public defender (which still remains to be proved) aren't subsidizing someone's decision to murder. The reason why this analogy is ing re ed is because no one murders, thinking "hey, VY is footing my attorney's fees." It's not a subsidy for murder; its a subsidy for a federal cons utional right to representation in a criminal case. The same cannot be said about welfare. And frankly, this sixth amendment subsidy isn't something I agree with either.
Stomping on the ground saying "you haven't given an alternative" is about as stupid as your mention of Maynard.
That's not the point. The point is that only an attention would a) make piss poor nazi analogies and then b) publicize his ignore list. That's not having a discussion. That's being an attention who can't carry on an adult conversation.
To complete the analogy, those tax dollars I pay that go to support an impoverished family go to pay for the material sustenance of said family. It goes to pay for the food, clothing, etc... of children who should not have been born. It subsidizes a due process right to a life that was irresponsibly hatched.
In the case of the sixth amendment, the right invoked ostensibly protects the innocent wrongfully accused of murder. In those cases the accused did not murder and my tax dollars aren't going to subsidize any act they've committed. The same cannot be said in the welfare case.
You're right. It was a poor analogy. I was simply addressing what you said was your position - you don't like subsidizing other peoples poor decisions, while not taking into account the context of the OP. But that's irrelevant quite frankly, because the point still stands, who the does?
And you did give an alternative, it was to let the filth starve to death which is simply hyperbolic attention whoring and you damn well know it.
It's not. It's what I believe, and if I had my druthers, what I'd choose to do. You thinking it harsh does not make me an attention .
The problem I have with your point is that it assumes the inevitability of a problem; you're right, no one likes holding the bag for other people's ups. The fact that other people will inevitably up doesn't make the situation one where "we have to deal with it one way or another." We don't.
I think it's bad economic policy to simply not address the problem. There is evidence that nearly 50% of Americans will experience poverty or near poverty at some point in their life. I think it's good economic policy to provide a social safety net for these people as to prevent them from never recovering from poverty and joining and expanding a permanent underclass.
Pretty much. It is more than a little dumb to think that one never will need a social safety net, or a lifeboat, or a defibrillator... until you do, then you are awfully glad we have collectively decided to help people who need it.
It is just as dumb to assume, before looking into it, that everybody on welfare has been there for their entire life, or will be. They aren't and that is what the data says.
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/spdp07.pdf
FWIW:
State public defender program spending $2.3bn in 2007.
We pay the costs of this, because we have decided it is in our public interest to do so. Even so, the poor get ed here too, bail bondsmen et al.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
