Liberals

[valkyrie]

Originally posted by ktsnake
As for dying of certain diseases, I'd say it completely depends on what the disease is. Sometimes, I feel that people should have to suffer the consequences of their own stupidity -- it's called natural selection.

Well, then it's a good thing that stickus assus disease isn't fatal!

Seriously, are you saying that if someone gets, say, pneumonia and doesn't have health insurance because she's unemployed, she should just sit quietly at home and die because that's what she deserves for being unemployed?

[Rudey]

Originally posted by valkyrie
Well, then it's a good thing that stickus assus disease isn't fatal!

Seriously, are you saying that if someone gets, say, pneumonia and doesn't have health insurance because she's unemployed, she should just sit quietly at home and die because that's what she deserves for being unemployed?

What if she chose to be unemployed?

What if she chose to not pursue options available to her?

What if even though she didn't have insurance she chose to not leave and go to a hospital?

Nobody said someone should die, but there are choices I don't want to have to pay for. Here's a better one. A woman chooses to smoke/do drugs/have rampant sex...whatever...and gets sick and puts it on the tax payers. I have to pay for this jizzbag?

-Rudey

[Kevin]

Originally posted by valkyrie
Well, then it's a good thing that stickus assus disease isn't fatal!

Seriously, are you saying that if someone gets, say, pneumonia and doesn't have health insurance because she's unemployed, she should just sit quietly at home and die because that's what she deserves for being unemployed?

Why is she unemployed?

How did she get sick?

Why is there no one that wants to help take care of her?

Sounds like she probably lacks personal responsibility and should be accountable for her decisions.

ktsnake,

I am not saying start handing out cash just like it's nothing. Taxes are a necessity for educational purposes (ex. teachers, school equipment, etc), city utilities (ex. trash pickup), etc. It's not just for welfare recipients. If that's all taxes went to, then, yes I'd have a problem too. Taxes fund a lot of the things you expect out of the government. If you want to start taking your own trash to the land fill, then, by all means, do so. If you don't have governmental trash pickup, you usually pay a private company to come pick up your trash. Start sending your kids to private school and see how expensive that is. Stop attending museums financially supported by tax payers. Stop driving on roads maintained by state, city, and county . . . see how far that gets you. Now, you better stop going to the library as well. Your kids won't be able to do the research paper because mom and dad don't like paying for the library through taxation. OH! and don't go to a state supported college because, again, taxes go towards that too. Go to a private school (Furman University in Greenville, SC is between $25,000 and $30,000 a year . . . compare that to your state colleges/universities).

I am just saying the better off you are, the more is expected of you. Yes, that does mean higher taxes so the burden won't be left up to those who can afford it the least. Higher taxes on the poor and middle class won't offer an incentive to make more. It will eventually cut out the middle class (which is the largest class in America . . . if we cut them out, this country would be overwhelmed by more welfare recipients). The poor will just get farther in the hole. The rich will keep exploiting others to get richer.

Furthermore, I never called you a dumb idiot. I was just making a comparison. I simply stated that college graduates are expected to be smart individuals and not act like dumb idiots over anything. Yes, we may slip up but that's human nature.

Also, I want to ask you a question. I am not trying to offend anyone or flame anyone by this question. If you make a lot of money, does that give you the right to slack off just because you feel like it and you earned a high position/a lot of money on the totem pole? Should you just leave someone hungry or die of a disease because they didn't work as hard as you?

[Kevin]

Originally posted by ztawinthropgirl

Also, I want to ask you a question. I am not trying to offend anyone or flame anyone by this question. If you make a lot of money, does that give you the right to slack off just because you feel like it and you earned a high position/a lot of money on the totem pole? Should you just leave someone hungry or die of a disease because they didn't work as hard as you?

It should be my personal choice. If I want to give to a charity for poor folks, then that should be my own choice. The system as it is = nothing more than redistribution of the wealth. Classic socialist ideology is becoming very pervasive in our society.

I didn't say that ALL taxes were bad. I'm willing to pay taxes where I can derive some sort of benefit. You are saying that I'm arguing against things that I never mentioned. Yes, the government can do certain things that we as individuals cannot do for ourselves. I know about Furman actually, my youngest brother's fiancee was a Chi-O there .

To sum up my position: I'm not against necessary government services. What I am against is redistribution of the wealth and rewarding laziness and irresponsibility.

[RACooper]

Originally posted by ktsnake
To sum up my position: I'm not against necessary government services. What I am against is redistribution of the wealth and rewarding laziness and irresponsibility.

Not very Christian of you However classifying all people that are in finacial straits as lazy or irresponsible is also is very Christian either. Of couse coming from a "socialist" or "communist" society (as some US conservatives have labeled us) I guess I'm biased myself.

I have always ascribed to the belief that the role of government was to advance the betterment of society, while protecting the weak.

[Kevin]

Originally posted by RACooper
Not very Christian of you However classifying all people that are in finacial straits as lazy or irresponsible is also is very Christian either. Of couse coming from a "socialist" or "communist" society (as some US conservatives have labeled us) I guess I'm biased myself.

I have always ascribed to the belief that the role of government was to advance the betterment of society, while protecting the weak.

How about instead of finding the verse in the Bible:

"Ask and you shall receive.", try looking up "Seek and you shall find."

The Bible has quite a bit to say about personal responisbility and accepting the consequences of your sins against God and against other men. As always with Christianity and the Bible, it's all about how you interpret it and what parts you decide to read and remember.

[RACooper]

Originally posted by ktsnake
How about instead of finding the verse in the Bible:

"Ask and you shall receive.", try looking up "Seek and you shall find."

The Bible has quite a bit to say about personal responisbility and accepting the consequences of your sins against God and against other men. As always with Christianity and the Bible, it's all about how you interpret it and what parts you decide to read and remember.

Exactly it's all in how you interpret it

For example I could read "Ask and you shall recieve" or "Seek and you shall find" as both imperatives for society or the government to provide aid... as in asking for aid and recieving it, or seek aid and recieving it.

[valkyrie]

Originally posted by RACooper
I have always ascribed to the belief that the role of government was to advance the betterment of society, while protecting the weak.

I agree.

[Kevin]

Originally posted by valkyrie
I agree.

I don't.

[Eclipse]

Originally posted by ktsnake
What I am against is redistribution of the wealth and rewarding laziness and irresponsibility.

Who decides what is classified as "lazy and irresponsible"?
Someone spoke earlier of a person who was unemployed with no health insurance who got sick. You asked why she was unemployed. Let's look at some possibilities:

What if the person just graduated from college and although they have been applying for positions they have not found one with benefits yet? This person is working a temp job to pay the bills, but most temp jobs do not provide benefits?

What if the person quit a job to take care of an ailing relative, like say a grandmother because the grandmother did not have the funds to pay for a nursing home (and in your world, there would probably be no medicare or medicaid)?

What if the person is out of work because after 15 - 20 years on their job their company decided that it would be cheaper for her job to be done in India, so they moved them offshore?

What if she dropped out of high school, had a baby. What if she previously worked the morning shift at McDonalds (making $6.00--which is more than minimum wage), but because of unreliable, unaffordable day care (she tries to get relatives to keep the baby for free but they have jobs/things to do and she can't afford the $75 a week for day care) and unreliable transportation (she can't afford a car, so she has to take 2 buses and the subway/train to get to her job), she got fired and is now unemployed.


What if she was an "off the books" baby sitter" for working people in her neighborhood, so she did not get benefits?

What if she watched soaps all day, ate bon-bons (what the heck are bon-bons anyway?) and had not intentions of working or looking for a job?

Which one of these ladies would not be deemed lazy and irresponsible? Which one(s) would be deserving of help if she got sick?

[Kevin]

Originally posted by Eclipse
Who decides what is classified as "lazy and irresponsible"?
Someone spoke earlier of a person who was unemployed with no health insurance who got sick. You asked why she was unemployed. Let's look at some possibilities:

What if the person just graduated from college and although they have been applying for positions they have not found one with benefits yet? This person is working a temp job to pay the bills, but most temp jobs do not provide benefits?

What if the person quit a job to take care of an ailing relative, like say a grandmother because the grandmother did not have the funds to pay for a nursing home (and in your world, there would probably be no medicare or medicaid)?

What if the person is out of work because after 15 - 20 years on their job their company decided that it would be cheaper for her job to be done in India, so they moved them offshore?

What if she dropped out of high school, had a baby. What if she previously worked the morning shift at McDonalds (making $6.00--which is more than minimum wage), but because of unreliable, unaffordable day care (she tries to get relatives to keep the baby for free but they have jobs/things to do and she can't afford the $75 a week for day care) and unreliable transportation (she can't afford a car, so she has to take 2 buses and the subway/train to get to her job), she got fired and is now unemployed.


What if she was an "off the books" baby sitter" for working people in her neighborhood, so she did not get benefits?

What if she watched soaps all day, ate bon-bons (what the heck are bon-bons anyway?) and had not intentions of working or looking for a job?

Which one of these ladies would not be deemed lazy and irresponsible? Which one(s) would be deserving of help if she got sick?

I'm not going to respond to each "what if" you have listed there. Rest assured I can come up with equal "what if's" where lazy people just take advantage of the system.

Did I say that I was against ALL government programs? Nope. I recall expressly stating that I was all for some of them. And the text that you quoted "What I am against is redistribution of the wealth and rewarding laziness and irresponsibility. " Doesn't have a damned thing to do with your what-if's. You're reading between the lines too much and putting words into my mouth/ascribing beliefs to me that I simply did not mention.

Bon-bons = french for candy.

My employer currently doesn't provide healthcare. I pay for my own at around $110/month through Blue Cross Blue Shield. Your all-cash babysitter (who probably doesn't pay taxes) is going to get what she deserves for not paying into the system in my opinion.

And yes, dropping out of HS to work at McDonalds to support a child is idiotic. People are able to make it through college and even get professional degrees in the same circumstances. It's all about personal initiative. And yes, it does have something to do with raw material. Why should I be penalized if someone lacks either of those things?

[Rudey]

What if she wasn't the majority?

-Rudey

Originally posted by Eclipse
Who decides what is classified as "lazy and irresponsible"?
Someone spoke earlier of a person who was unemployed with no health insurance who got sick. You asked why she was unemployed. Let's look at some possibilities:

What if the person just graduated from college and although they have been applying for positions they have not found one with benefits yet? This person is working a temp job to pay the bills, but most temp jobs do not provide benefits?

What if the person quit a job to take care of an ailing relative, like say a grandmother because the grandmother did not have the funds to pay for a nursing home (and in your world, there would probably be no medicare or medicaid)?

What if the person is out of work because after 15 - 20 years on their job their company decided that it would be cheaper for her job to be done in India, so they moved them offshore?

What if she dropped out of high school, had a baby. What if she previously worked the morning shift at McDonalds (making $6.00--which is more than minimum wage), but because of unreliable, unaffordable day care (she tries to get relatives to keep the baby for free but they have jobs/things to do and she can't afford the $75 a week for day care) and unreliable transportation (she can't afford a car, so she has to take 2 buses and the subway/train to get to her job), she got fired and is now unemployed.


What if she was an "off the books" baby sitter" for working people in her neighborhood, so she did not get benefits?

What if she watched soaps all day, ate bon-bons (what the heck are bon-bons anyway?) and had not intentions of working or looking for a job?

Which one of these ladies would not be deemed lazy and irresponsible? Which one(s) would be deserving of help if she got sick?

[Eclipse]

Originally posted by ktsnake
I'm not going to respond to each "what if" you have listed there. Rest assured I can come up with equal "what if's" where lazy people just take advantage of the system.

Did I say that I was against ALL government programs? Nope. I recall expressly stating that I was all for some of them. And the text that you quoted "What I am against is redistribution of the wealth and rewarding laziness and irresponsibility. " Doesn't have a damned thing to do with your what-if's. You're reading between the lines too much and putting words into my mouth/ascribing beliefs to me that I simply did not mention.

Bon-bons = french for candy.

My employer currently doesn't provide healthcare. I pay for my own at around $110/month through Blue Cross Blue Shield. Your all-cash babysitter (who probably doesn't pay taxes) is going to get what she deserves for not paying into the system in my opinion.

And yes, dropping out of HS to work at McDonalds to support a child is idiotic. People are able to make it through college and even get professional degrees in the same circumstances. It's all about personal initiative. And yes, it does have something to do with raw material. Why should I be penalized if someone lacks either of those things?

You brought up the question in your previous posts. You asked:

Why is she unemployed?

How did she get sick?

Why is there no one that wants to help take care of her?

Sounds like she probably lacks personal responsibility and should be accountable for her decisions.

My bad, I didn't know you did not truly want possible answers to these questions.

My point was, who decides what is lazy and irresponsible? I had 3 job offers with I graduated from college. I might think that the recent college graduate was lazy and irresponsible because she did not have a job before she graduated. I might think it was irresponsible to quit a job, even if it was to take care of a sick relative (I did this by the way, when I was in my mid 20s. Many people told me it was irresponsible.)

Again, who decides what is lazy and irresponsible (and yes, I'd like an answer to that question)? There are already safeguards in the system to keep people from abusing the system by making up kids, having additional kids to get additional money, staying on the system for many many years without a "legitimate" excuse. Is it perfect, no, but name one instituation with humans involved that is.

I've never had a fire at my house that required calling the fire department. Neither have, to my knowledge, have my parents, my sister, my inlaws, my husband's 5 siblings or my grandparents. Regardless of this, my taxes still pay for fire services, whether I want it or not, whether I agree with it or not. It's for our greater good.

[Kevin]

Originally posted by Eclipse
You brought up the question in your previous posts. You asked:

My point was, who decides what is lazy and irresponsible?

Lazy = not trying to get a job. Choosing the easy path without thinking about the future ie. dropping out of HS to take care of your child while working part time at McDonalds and then applying for Food stamps and government assistance.

Actually, the government has a decent method of defining who is "lazy" and who is not. If only the rules were followed...

Irresponsible:
We need to eliminate all programs that compensate people for not taking necessary precautions. For example, a homeowner loses a $300,000 house in a hurricane and is uninsured. Do they deserve federal assistance? Heck no. If you have an investment like that, you need to protect it.

If you are able to have enough money to budget out approximately $110/month, you can afford healthcare. Most people who have educations and even DECENT fulltime jobs can adjust their lifestyles accordingly to have that money. Being uninsured is lazy and irresponsible in my opinion.

I've never had a fire at my house that required calling the fire department. Neither have, to my knowledge, have my parents, my sister, my inlaws, my husband's 5 siblings or my grandparents. Regardless of this, my taxes still pay for fire services, whether I want it or not, whether I agree with it or not. It's for our greater good.

Again, where from anything I've written could you even infer that I'm against the fire department?