Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin
But if you keep expanding the definition of who is not responsible for their own problems to include folks that are out of work for 6+ months, 8+ months, 12+ months, etc., then you have to admit that a lot of commonalities are going to emerge between these cases which are somehow different. Do you think there should be no cutoff? That there should be a guaranteed minimum income which should continue indefinitely?
|
Then you say this (the bolded). What commonalities are you suggesting are going to emerge? That
these people have degrees, were working before, and were laid off or the business went under? What are the commonalities that YOU are suggesting? That these were law abiding, minding their own business, paying their own bills, and living their own lives
kinda people? What is it that you are suggesting.
AGAIN have you ever been out of work 6mo, 8mo, 12mo, 18mo, etc? HAVE YOU EVER BEEN THERE? IF NOT, SHUT TO THE UP!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin
Maybe it is simplistic. But this nation is running on credit. Expanding expenditures in these currently proposed manners without expanding income is going to impact a lot of us down the line. When your nation's number one export is debt, maybe simplistic thinking is what is needed if this less simplistic thinking of yours has led to the current situation.
|
Yes, it is a simplistic look to a huge problem. It's a very popularized look at a problem that has been here for some time. Then look at who is in control of the nation and begin to make some changes within your own communities to those who either understand you or feel that they can improve the current state of affairs. It's also a downgrading look at those who are in a situation that they are trying to change but with the state of the current economy, they cannot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin
With my health insurance, I get to choose my risk pool and pay for the coverage voluntarily. If I don't pay my taxes because I don't want to be a part of that particular risk pool, I go to jail. I see that you're trying to correlate those two things, but private insurance and public entitlements aren't as comparable as you suggest.
|
You say with your health insurance, you get to choose your risk pool, well, good for you! I'm not able to do that, so sorry. I didn't ask for my set of genes, but I just got to deal with what I have been given. I don't have health insurance and the last company that I worked for they didn't have health insurance for us employees either. I didn't get to choose anything, but when I had health insurance I used it to keep myself as healthy as I could. I WANT to be able to have the choice to pay for my health insurance, but alas, I don't even have that option. Being on unemployment, I cannot afford the premiums that I would need to be able to afford that. But you need to be grateful to God that you are in a position to do so. Think about those who cannot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin
Clearly, simplistically, you think society's role should be bigger, I think it should be a lot smaller. My way we can afford. Your way sinks us into a deeper and deeper hole.
|
O.K., to clear things up for you, this is how things were done before, if you cannot remember history, it was called Reganomics. Yes, alas, the trickle down theory. And if I do remember then, the cutbacks that were made, everything from education to drug rehab programs to mental health institiutions, left such a bad taste upon the American people that we are STILL paying for this lapse in reality now.
When those cutbacks were made and programs were slashed to the bare bones of a structure, the cost deference that emerged the government found was greater because of the need for more of the same services because what the government found was that people cannot always take care of their own because they are barely making it for themselves.
Look back on what Reganomics left for a legacy and then get real.