I should stay away from here for my own sanity... Andrew R, I already outlined why taxation isn't theft. You are contributing nothing but spite by constantly throwing around that same poisonous excuse for an argument.
Denmark:
Maximum income tax around 60%
Free (read: tax-funded) healthcare for all citizens
Free (tax-funded) education with very few exceptions
American Dreamliness
Happiest country in the world
Several
Times
OverWe call it welfare. Because people fare well.
Why do you hate happiness?
Thymus my friend. You've typed the answer to your own question. You call if FREE HEALTHCARE. It's not free. Right above it you typed that you pay income taxes of upwards of 60 FRIGGIN PERCENT! That is what is paying for your healthcare. Can you not see that?!?!?!? SIXTY PERCENT INCOME TAX RATES! Good God man. And one of the reasons that your country has money to pay for their national healthcare, is that you literally pay almost Nothing for national defense. That's because the USA literally pays to defend and safeguard Europe, leaving your country to bilk you for 60% to pay for everyone's healthcare.
As for Denmark being the happiest place in the world to live, that is debatable, but having an abundance of beautiful blond women with big (certain anatomical features) probably is a good portion of that. Your government is not why people are happy.
All the research I've seen is that pot is comparable to alcohol in terms of effect. My drinking certainly doesn't interfere with my responsibilities, so I could see the argument that one can be a pot smoker and still be a productive member of society.True so they cannot even ride the "poor me blame addiction" excuse as they demand free stuff from the pockets of others
You're a Trooper Andrew.
Amazing how many negative outcomes people can avoid if they make the right choices. Amazing how much many are willing to spend to bail out those who make bad choices, and deem the rest of us clueless and heartless for telling them not to make the unpleasant choices in the first place.
deem the rest of us clueless and heartless for telling them not to make the unpleasant choices in the first place.
Because that's what you're being.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Amazing how many negative outcomes people can avoid if they make the right choices.
No argument there.
Amazing how much many are willing to spend to bail out those who make bad choices, and deem the rest of us clueless and heartless for telling them not to make the unpleasant choices in the first place.
When you have an efficient, effective way to tell who consistently makes bad choices, as opposed to those who got a raw deal, feel free to share it.
Here's a hint: People far smarter than either of us have tried...and failed.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I should stay away from here for my own sanity... Andrew R, I already outlined why taxation isn't theft. You are contributing nothing but spite by constantly throwing around that same poisonous excuse for an argument.
Denmark:
Maximum income tax around 60%
Free (read: tax-funded) healthcare for all citizens
Free (tax-funded) education with very few exceptions
American Dreamliness
Happiest country in the world
Several
Times
OverWe call it welfare. Because people fare well.
Why do you hate happiness?
Thymus my friend. You've typed the answer to your own question. You call if FREE HEALTHCARE. It's not free. Right above it you typed that you pay income taxes of upwards of 60 FRIGGIN PERCENT! That is what is paying for your healthcare. Can you not see that?!?!?!? SIXTY PERCENT INCOME TAX RATES! Good God man. And one of the reasons that your country has money to pay for their national healthcare, is that you literally pay almost Nothing for national defense. That's because the USA literally pays to defend and safeguard Europe, leaving your country to bilk you for 60% to pay for everyone's healthcare.
As for Denmark being the happiest place in the world to live, that is debatable, but having an abundance of beautiful blond women with big (certain anatomical features) probably is a good portion of that. Your government is not why people are happy.
Really man? You're going to sit there and tell the guy from Denmark how his country works? Really? Instead of saying "Oh wow they pay 60% in taxes and like it. Maybe I should reevaluate my perceptions." You're going to disagree with the guy who actually lives there? That's why people in Denmark hate Americans (probably).
Also, how long should people pay for a bad choice? Five years? Ten? For the rest of their lives?
Smugly consigning people to the margins may appeal to one's sense of vengeance, but it's not actually good for anyone.
Really man? You're going to sit there and tell the guy from Denmark how his country works? Really? Instead of saying "Oh wow they pay 60% in taxes and like it. Maybe I should reevaluate my perceptions." You're going to disagree with the guy who actually lives there? That's why people in Denmark hate Americans (probably).
Apparently. But you forgot the part about breasts.
Talk about playing right into the worst stereotypes of Americans... :(
|
And yet stealing your pants is perfectly acceptable.All the research I've seen is that pot is comparable to alcohol in terms of effect. My drinking certainly doesn't interfere with my responsibilities, so I could see the argument that one can be a pot smoker and still be a productive member of society.True so they cannot even ride the "poor me blame addiction" excuse as they demand free stuff from the pockets of others
?
|
|
Well this thread went sideways fast.
Look, I'm all for treating drug abuse like a disease like a crime, because most abuse can be ameliorated and users can be rehabilitated. Not all, but most.
My problem is this, Andrew: What about alcohol? That's a drug. In most meaningful ways it's far more dangerous than most recreational drugs other than heroin, cocaine, crack, meth, and PCP.
I'm staunchly pro-drug, even if I don't partake often. Full disclosure, it's been about 4 1/2 years since I've smoked marijuana (not my favorite drug) and almost 14 since I dropped acid (my favorite drug). My girlfriend's whole family is potheads and it borderline makes me uncomfortable when we can't go to dinner there without them busting out the pipes, cuz I don't smoke.
My gf's dad smokes basically every day. He also works 50-60 hours a work as a maintenance technician, and never works high. Where you might have a couple brews, he has a couple of tokes. He provides for his wife and family, and is otherwise a law-abiding, tax-paying average joe. Marijuana is becoming just another working class escape, and I don't think users should be locked up because Andre R hates hippies.
I have no problem with the old hippies smoking one after a hard day of work, aside from the legality. I DO have a problem with being high outranking holding a job and forcing others to pay for them. It is not the substance of choice, it is that laziness and government assisted theft being treated as a legit lifestyle
|
|
deem the rest of us clueless and heartless for telling them not to make the unpleasant choices in the first place.Because that's what you're being.
heartless for not wanting to be robbed? For not wanting to see the nation fall under the weight of takers? are you so heartless as to have more than you need to live? how much do you give to charity? I mean how many could you feed instead of buying a computer and internet?
SIXTY PERCENT INCOME TAX RATES! Good God man. And one of the reasons that your country has money to pay for their national healthcare, is that you literally pay almost Nothing for national defense. That's because the USA literally pays to defend and safeguard Europe, leaving your country to bilk you for 60% to pay for everyone's healthcare.
Ummm, you do know that during some of the most prosperous years of the United States history our highest income tax rate was over 90%... And somehow the world didn't end? Even after Regan's first term the top rate was 50%. And during all that time, the rich even managed to get richer!
http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/docs/fed_individual_ rate_history_nominal.pdf
So yeah, the golden years of the United States had a max income tax rate of well more then Denmark.
PS Saying, "USA literally pays to defend and safeguard Europe" isn't really that accurate, but that is a thread of it's own.
Denmark:
Maximum income tax around 60%Thymus my friend. You've typed the answer to your own question. You call if FREE HEALTHCARE. It's not free. Right above it you typed that you pay income taxes of upwards of 60 FRIGGIN PERCENT! That is what is paying for your healthcare. Can you not see that?!?!?!? SIXTY PERCENT INCOME TAX RATES! Good God man. And one of the reasons that your country has money to pay for their national healthcare, is that you literally pay almost Nothing for national defense. That's because the USA literally pays to defend and safeguard Europe, leaving your country to bilk you for 60% to pay for everyone's healthcare.
As for Denmark being the happiest place in the world to live, that is debatable, but having an abundance of beautiful blond women with big (certain anatomical features) probably is a good portion of that. Your government is not why people are happy.
Um, he said maximum income tax. I doubt the majority are paying anything near that, it'll only be the people like the CEOs and bankers awarding themselves gigantic pay rises each year that'll be hitting that bracket.
In the UK, the basic rate is 20%, it rises up to 45% but only once you're hitting the equivalent of around $250K a year, and only then on the money earned over that amount. The first $15K or so a year isn't taxed at all for anyone.
heartless for not wanting to be robbed?
There it is again...taxes = theft. If you sincerely want a conversation, you can start by putting that canard out to pasture. But I'm not holding my breath.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
heartless for not wanting to be robbed? For not wanting to see the nation fall under the weight of takers? are you so heartless as to have more than you need to live? how much do you give to charity? I mean how many could you feed instead of buying a computer and internet?deem the rest of us clueless and heartless for telling them not to make the unpleasant choices in the first place.Because that's what you're being.
I'm not going to address why it's not being robbed again. If you think you're being robbed, why do you continue to sit there and let people rob you? If you don't wanna pay taxes, move to Haiti. Or wherever. I don't care. Just quit complaining and leave. You will never escape taxes in America. If you do, you'll be breaking the law or you'll be in a country that is no longer America.
But it's heartless because you CONTINUE to say there are all these takers out there. "Them." but the real evidence, not your anecdotal ranting, doesn't bear that out. And if there are takers, it still makes you heartless if you value sticking it to them more than you value helping those who need it. So YES. HEARTLESS.
You're wrong according to the facts. If you want to keep arguing about made up stuff, well we're on the boards for a PnP RPG, go to the rules forum.
And I don't appreciate your ad hominem.
[rant]
You wanna talk about personal responsibility? Let's talk about the Mantle of Responsibility. I consider it my responsibility to help those I can. We have colluded to form a society where we acknowledge "We are in this together." I share a kinship with every living thing on this planet, but none so much as my fellow man. When I see people suffer, I don't just feel compelled to help, I feel RESPONSIBLE for helping. Why would I not help those I can? If instead of buying a 50" tv I buy and 40" tv and help someone get medical care, what have I lost? I don't feel guilty for caring about myself, but I would feel guilty if I failed to care about others.
In advertising there is a saying, "You're throwing away half your money, but you don't know which half." I don't know who the takers are and who the needy are, but I sure as hell know the needy are there. If it's more cost effective to pay 2 takers to help 1 needy than it is to avoid getting cheated, or if it overly increases the risk that the needy will do without, THEN I WILL PAY A TAKER. And part of that is because I have found no reason to believe there are more takers than needy, or even anywhere near it for that matter. None of that means that if everyone becomes a taker we should just keep funneling money to them. I'm not stupid. But the evidence just doesn't support that being the current paradigm. There are merely those who want you to think that because it benefits them. (Irony, I know) And we can look at the evidence for that!
So if you don't want to be "robbed" then I don't want you robbing me either. So get off my roads. Stay out of my schools. Get away from my hospitals. Get off my lawn. And most importantly: DO NOT VOTE IN MY ELECTIONS.
[/rant]
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
heartless for not wanting to be robbed? For not wanting to see the nation fall under the weight of takers? are you so heartless as to have more than you need to live? how much do you give to charity? I mean how many could you feed instead of buying a computer and internet?deem the rest of us clueless and heartless for telling them not to make the unpleasant choices in the first place.Because that's what you're being.
Here's all I'm saying. There will never be a perfect system, but statistically the people you're talking about are a tiny, tiny fraction of the population. Like less than 1%. Maybe you have a job where you run into that type of people a lot. I live ghetto-adjacent and I ride the bus and I know the kind of person you're talking about, and I can sympathise with the anger.
I just console myself with the knowledge they'll never go anywhere in life, and I think that if you lived their life for a while you'd know it's not all roses either. It may seem like it, because they're getting something for not working for it, but they're not getting much of anything. Really they're not.
Most of the specific points you've railed against are things that are already addressed. Like buying cigs with foodstamps, which you can't do anyway.
I'm just imagining that you're faced with these people every day, as opposed to the much more heinous theft that's happening on Wall Street day in and day out which I don't see you really raising a huff about.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
heartless for not wanting to be robbed? For not wanting to see the nation fall under the weight of takers? are you so heartless as to have more than you need to live? how much do you give to charity? I mean how many could you feed instead of buying a computer and internet?deem the rest of us clueless and heartless for telling them not to make the unpleasant choices in the first place.Because that's what you're being.
The real takers are the corporations, espeically big oil, big ag, and big pharma, and the Wall Street machine in general.
Compared to what they rake in, thanks to bought votes and congressional seats (thanks SCOTUS!) welfare fraud and social programs are a mere pittance!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thymus my friend. You've typed the answer to your own question. You call if FREE HEALTHCARE. It's not free. Right above it you typed that you pay income taxes of upwards of 60 FRIGGIN PERCENT! That is what is paying for your healthcare. Can you not see that?!?!?!? SIXTY PERCENT INCOME TAX RATES! Good God man. And one of the reasons that your country has money to pay for their national healthcare, is that you literally pay almost Nothing for national defense. That's because the USA literally pays to defend and safeguard Europe, leaving your country to bilk you for 60% to pay for everyone's healthcare.
As for Denmark being the happiest place in the world to live, that is debatable, but having an abundance of beautiful blond women with big (certain anatomical features) probably is a good portion of that. Your government is not why people are happy.
To get the blonde thing out of the way: When so much of the population consists of blondes, it's not special any more.
You know what those taxes are also paying for?
Nearly all education in the country. I can think of one place (an animation school) where the education isn't paid for by the state. We also pay our high school and university students so they can focus on their studies rather than a thousand part time jobs to keep them afloat so we can get them out of the educational system and out on the job market faster. And if they do earn over a certain amount from jobs any way, they get to pay back their state support.
Pensions.
Support to people who can't work.
Support to unemployed people searching for jobs (you MUST be actively searching to receive this, and also can't own more than a certain amount of money)
And of course they cover all the standard stuff that you also pay for over there (maybe more? I'm generally not politically inclined, so my knowledge is admittedly lacking), but we don't feel the need to spend all our money on our military. Meanwhile, your military spends more money than NASA's entire budget airconditioning tents that they should just be insulating instead.
Speaking of which, we are currently supporting you guys down in the middle east. Someone attacked you, you attacked the middle east, and we came to your assistance. We haven't been attacked, so just who are you protecting us from again?
USA's minimum wage is a joke. Google tells me that in 19 states the minimum wage is $7.25, and that doesn't even apply to people like waiters and waitresses who are expected to live off of tips. You know what it is over here? Around $10... for minors between 15 and 18.
Sure we complain about our taxes. Everyone does. But most of us would rather not be without what those taxes get us. It doesn't matter what your parents own and earn. If you want to be a doctor or a lawyer, the education is there for free, and you get monetary support (which, by the way, varies with your parents' income and whether or not you live at home) so that you can actually keep up that study and rise above the circumstances you were born into.
That is the relative mobility that the graph indicates if you follow the "American Dreamliness"-link (which I notice nobody has commented on so far), and I think that—along with not having to worry about being covered when you go to the hospital—should be taken into account of why we're consistently high ranking in the surveys on happiness.
EDIT: Just for the record now that personal pronouns are showing up, I'm a she.
EDIT: Just for the record now that personal pronouns are showing up, I'm a she.
Oops, as one who made that mistake, I apologize.
EDIT: Just for the record now that personal pronouns are showing up, I'm a she.
My apologies madam.
No apologies needed. The only thing that alludes to my gender or sex is the fact that my cricket has breasts, and we all know we can't trust stuff like that ;)
No apologies needed. The only thing that alludes to my gender or sex is the fact that my cricket has breasts, and we all know we can't trust stuff like that ;)
...You'll have to forgive me again as I thought it was an ant.
No apologies needed. The only thing that alludes to my gender or sex is the fact that my cricket has breasts, and we all know we can't trust stuff like that ;)...You'll have to forgive me again as I thought it was an ant.
So did I, but the avatar selector has it named as Anthropomorphized Cricket.
I find the idea of a cricket with breasts profoundly disturbing.
You know what I say? F##& poor people. They should have known better than to be born poor.
Beautiful blondes are no more special than beautiful brunettes, beautiful black-haired people or beautiful redheads when over half the population is blond.
Beautiful redheads.
Mmmmm....
|
|
heartless for not wanting to be robbed? For not wanting to see the nation fall under the weight of takers? are you so heartless as to have more than you need to live? how much do you give to charity? I mean how many could you feed instead of buying a computer and internet?deem the rest of us clueless and heartless for telling them not to make the unpleasant choices in the first place.Because that's what you're being.The real takers are the corporations, espeically big oil, big ag, and big pharma, and the Wall Street machine in general.
Compared to what they rake in, thanks to bought votes and congressional seats (thanks SCOTUS!) welfare fraud and social programs are a mere pittance!
I agree they are a problem too but another issue entirely.
|
|
heartless for not wanting to be robbed? For not wanting to see the nation fall under the weight of takers? are you so heartless as to have more than you need to live? how much do you give to charity? I mean how many could you feed instead of buying a computer and internet?deem the rest of us clueless and heartless for telling them not to make the unpleasant choices in the first place.Because that's what you're being.I'm not going to address why it's not being robbed again. If you think you're being robbed, why do you continue to sit there and let people rob you? If you don't wanna pay taxes, move to Haiti. Or wherever. I don't care. Just quit complaining and leave. You will never escape taxes in America. If you do, you'll be breaking the law or you'll be in a country that is no longer America.
But it's heartless because you CONTINUE to say there are all these takers out there. "Them." but the real evidence, not your anecdotal ranting, doesn't bear that out. And if there are takers, it still makes you heartless if you value sticking it to them more than you value helping those who need it. So YES. HEARTLESS.
You're wrong according to the facts. If you want to keep arguing about made up stuff, well we're on the boards for a PnP RPG, go to the rules forum.
And I don't appreciate your ad hominem.
[rant]
You wanna talk about personal responsibility? Let's talk about the Mantle of Responsibility. I consider it my responsibility to help those I can. We have colluded to form a society where we acknowledge "We are in this together." I share a kinship with every living thing on this planet, but none so much as my fellow man. When I see people suffer, I don't just feel compelled to help, I feel RESPONSIBLE for helping. Why would I not help those I can? If instead of buying a 50" tv I buy and 40" tv and help someone get medical care, what have I lost? I don't feel guilty for caring about myself, but I would feel...
I do not mind paying for schools and roads, i do care about paying for a free ride for thieving scum. Despite being poor i donate to charity and firmly believe in it. birth to death care for those that refuse to do for themselves is NOT charity it is being taken advantage of.
[rant]
You wanna talk about personal responsibility? Let's talk about the Mantle of Responsibility. I consider it my responsibility to help those I can. We have colluded to form a society where we acknowledge "We are in this together." I share a kinship with every living thing on this planet, but none so much as my fellow man. When I see people suffer, I don't just feel compelled to help, I feel RESPONSIBLE for helping. Why would I not help those I can? If instead of buying a 50" tv I buy and 40" tv and help someone get medical care, what have I lost? I don't feel guilty for caring about myself, but I would feel guilty if I failed to care about others.
Do you feel guilty if I fail to help others in the manner you direct?
If you feel compelled to help, then help. But you are also compelling me to help. And since it's pretty apparent to me that your "help" enables rather than helps, no, I would rather not.
You are free to help those you wish to help, and in a manner you wish to do so. You are free to stand up on a soapbox, gather others to your cause, spend whatever of your own resources on the needful as you wish.
But compelling me to do the same is morally repugnant.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do not mind paying for schools and roads, i do care about paying for a free ride for thieving scum. Despite being poor i donate to charity and firmly believe in it. birth to death care for those that refuse to do for themselves is NOT charity it is being taken advantage of.
You're doing it again. It's like you can't help yourself. You know there are those who abuse charity right? Depending on the charity, the abuse rate may be higher than that of welfare.
Funny thing about taxes, you don't know which dollar goes where. You don't get to pay for schools and not pay for food stamps. It's an all or nothing. It doesn't bother you when those same moochers drive on the roads? Why not? Is that not still a taker abusing the system? Or is it because that happens to be a part you explicitly benefit from? You're fine paying for the things you use, but people using programs you don't need? Why they're "SCUM"! Just admit that you just don't want to pay for things you don't use. And you keep yourself from feeling guilty by vilifying those that do. That you refuse to acknowledge the fact that there are so few takers proves it. Not to mention, SNAP has been shown to put $2 into the economy for every $1 it spends. So you actually DO benefit from it.
I agree they are a problem too but another issue entirely.heartless for not wanting to be robbed? For not wanting to see the nation fall under the weight of takers? are you so heartless as to have more than you need to live? how much do you give to charity? I mean how many could you feed instead of buying a computer and internet?deem the rest of us clueless and heartless for telling them not to make the unpleasant choices in the first place.Because that's what you're being.The real takers are the corporations, espeically big oil, big ag, and big pharma, and the Wall Street machine in general.
Compared to what they rake in, thanks to bought votes and congressional seats (thanks SCOTUS!) welfare fraud and social programs are a mere pittance!
They most certainly are not another issue entirely. But they're glad you think that.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
[rant]
You wanna talk about personal responsibility? Let's talk about the Mantle of Responsibility. I consider it my responsibility to help those I can. We have colluded to form a society where we acknowledge "We are in this together." I share a kinship with every living thing on this planet, but none so much as my fellow man. When I see people suffer, I don't just feel compelled to help, I feel RESPONSIBLE for helping. Why would I not help those I can? If instead of buying a 50" tv I buy and 40" tv and help someone get medical care, what have I lost? I don't feel guilty for caring about myself, but I would feel guilty if I failed to care about others.Do you feel guilty if I fail to help others in the manner you direct?
If you feel compelled to help, then help. But you are also compelling me to help. And since it's pretty apparent to me that your "help" enables rather than helps, no, I would rather not.
You are free to help those you wish to help, and in a manner you wish to do so. You are free to stand up on a soapbox, gather others to your cause, spend whatever of your own resources on the needful as you wish.
But compelling me to do the same is morally repugnant.
What is apparent to you is in no way what is actually true. I am compelling you to help because you are receiving the same help the rest of us do. If you don't want to sign the social contract of the United States of America, if you don't care to use its services at the cost of helping to provide those services, don't. Pack your bags and get out. Secular morality promotes caring for the welfare of all members of society, so asking those members to do their part is in no way morally repugnant. What is immoral is vilifying your fellow man while special pleading for your own situations and thinking yourself above the law, on moral grounds no less. The nature of taxes is that you will spend money on things you don't want to. I sure do. I spend way more footing the bill for corporations (and churches, but that's another matter) than I do on welfare. You may find paying for welfare politically repugnant, as I do paying for corporations, but it is most certainly not morally so. You do not get to define morality as things you like and immorality as things you don't.
So, going back a few pages and ignoring most of the bullshiznit between the liberals and the laissez-faire right:
Comrade Pravda, you asserted that a higher capital gains rate WOULDN'T cause the rich to stop investing because they wouldn't get rich as quickly.
I thought that was what was already happening with low capital gains rates? And that that is why the plutocrats are sitting on trillions of dollars in off-shore accounts?
I thought that the failure of the American capitalists to realize the high rate of profits that they need for their system to "be healthy" was why they turned en masse to the field of derivatives and whatnot in the first place?
Just curious. I still haven't taught myself economics.
And one for the laissez-faire right:
How was the United States of America built on self-reliance? Even if you pointed at the homesteaders and pioneers, didn't they rely on the American government to kill and/or drive off all the aborigines? Nevermind the high-level of business/government collusion that created the railroads.
Just curious.
And one for Citizen R.:
Well, I'm not going to ask him a question because it's pointless, but here's what I envision happening if he got his wish all of the welfare leeches were suddenly unable to suck off the gov't teat:
Let's assume some, the particularly stupid and drug-addicted, just die. The rest biznitch and moan and eventually flood the job market which, by the law of supply and demand, would drive down the wages of graveyard shift working convenience store clerks. Especially those who cater to welfare leeches who, according to this fantasy, no longer exist.
Not that I am defending this rotten system of some working three jobs and others subsisting on government handouts, but I just thought it was something to consider.
And, getting back to health care, my father was hospitalized last night (he appears to be fine, thank you, Type II diabetes and other complications) and will be in the hospital for the next 48 hours. When I asked my mother how much she thought it was going to cost, she said "Insurance should cover all of it."
Because she's got a motherf#~+ing Cadillac-plan.
U-nion! U-nion! U-nion!
Down with Obamacare!
For free, quality health care for all!
|
For how long should benefits be withheld? If they end up in prison, are the benefits withheld after release? What about while awaiting trial?Faster cheaper and smarter is to just take benifits from anyone getting a drug arrest.Past a certain point, it becomes more expensive to make sure no one's cheating the system than it is to just let some cheaters get away with it.
The recent experiments with drug testing welfare recipients in a couple states spent more on the testing than they saved in not giving benefits to drug users.
They already do this. No welfare, no food stamps, no public housing, no federally guaranteed student loans if you'd had them before your arrest, no federal education grants, no quite a few things except V.A. and Social Security disability if you qualify. And it is pretty much for life.
That sure helps people getting out of prison get back into normal life.
Yeah, but criminals deserve what they get, right?
Labeling people is the first step toward dehumanizing them. :(
That sure helps people getting out of prison get back into normal life.They already do this. No welfare, no food stamps, no public housing, no federally guaranteed student loans if you'd had them before your arrest, no federal education grants, no quite a few things except V.A. and Social Security disability if you qualify. And it is pretty much for life.For how long should benefits be withheld? If they end up in prison, are the benefits withheld after release? What about while awaiting trial?Faster cheaper and smarter is to just take benifits from anyone getting a drug arrest.Past a certain point, it becomes more expensive to make sure no one's cheating the system than it is to just let some cheaters get away with it.
The recent experiments with drug testing welfare recipients in a couple states spent more on the testing than they saved in not giving benefits to drug users.
Better not let them vote either. Cause you just know those dirty criminals will vote to legalize crime. That way they feel really disconnected from their community and helpless. Serves em right for doing all the same things politicians do. I mean, getting caught doing those things.
What is apparent to you is in no way what is actually true. I am compelling you to help because you are receiving the same help the rest of us do. If you don't want to sign the social contract of the United States of America, if you don't care to use its services at the cost of helping to provide those services, don't. Pack your bags and get out. Secular morality promotes caring for the welfare of all members of society, so asking those members to do their part is in no way morally repugnant. What is immoral is vilifying your fellow man while special pleading for your own situations and thinking yourself above the law, on moral grounds no less. The nature of taxes is that you will spend money on things you don't want to. I sure do. I spend way more footing the...
I am not receiving the same "help" you are. I need to pay for my own health care and insurance costs, not have them subsidized by my neighbors against their will.
The "social contract" of the United States doesn't say anything you getting to force your moral beliefs upon me. In fact, the First Amendment helps enshrine that by preventing the establishment of a state religion.
You demand that I accept your secular beliefs to force others to buy a product they don't want, can't use, and may not be able to afford. When I refuse to submit to your demands, you tell me to leave the country and otherwise go all Fred Phelps on me.
No, I will not leave. You have no moral authority over me and my decisions. You currently have legal authority, but that can change. You wish to use the blunt force of law to accept your rather dubious claims that forcing people into an inefficient and costly system will "help" them. No.
And at the end, what do you have to force me to accept your view? Nothing but the point of a gun. You have lost the moral argument.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What is apparent to you is in no way what is actually true. I am compelling you to help because you are receiving the same help the rest of us do. If you don't want to sign the social contract of the United States of America, if you don't care to use its services at the cost of helping to provide those services, don't. Pack your bags and get out. Secular morality promotes caring for the welfare of all members of society, so asking those members to do their part is in no way morally repugnant. What is immoral is vilifying your fellow man while special pleading for your own situations and thinking yourself above the law, on moral grounds no less. The nature of taxes is that you will spend money on things you don't want to. I sure do. I spend way more footing the...I am not receiving the same "help" you are. I need to pay for my own health care and insurance costs, not have them subsidized by my neighbors against their will.
The "social contract" of the United States doesn't say anything you getting to force your moral beliefs upon me. In fact, the First Amendment helps enshrine that by preventing the establishment of a state religion.
You demand that I accept your secular beliefs to force others to buy a product they don't want, can't use, and may not be able to afford. When I refuse to submit to your demands, you tell me to leave the country and otherwise go all Fred Phelps on me.
No, I will not leave. You have no moral authority over me and my decisions. You currently have legal authority, but that can change. You wish to use the blunt force of law to accept your rather dubious claims that forcing people into an inefficient and costly system will "help" them. No.
And at the end, what do you have to force me to accept your view? Nothing but the point of a gun. You have lost the moral argument.
You are receiving the same help, whether you care to admit it or not. Not everyone necessarily uses every part of the system at the same time or at all. When is the last time government subsidized small business loans directly benefitted you or I? I've never had one, yet part of my taxes go towards it.
There is a vast difference in state religion and state morality. Any case against being able to force moral beliefs would justify anything. Anything you would deny another can be denied from you. It is easy to say how unnecessary things are when you yourself are not using them. But morality itself is the idea that it is in your best interest to help others when they need it because you would want help if you needed it. Whether or not you ever actually need help is beyond that. It is self defeating to say there is a moral argument for not helping someone. You can debate what would help them most, but if you say do not help at all, you're not even making a moral argument.
I am forced to pay for roads I don't want can't use and may not be able to afford. The ACA on the other hand is good for everyone because we are all biological organisms who require care. And if you can't afford it, you get exempted. But you're right we should just go to single payer. That would also solve a lot of inefficiency and cost problems.
You don't have to leave. But if you stay, accept the terms. America has decided that we as human beings care about other human beings, and we take care of our own. No one person has moral authority over any other person. But America is a republic and our society has moral authority over individuals in addition to legal authority, even if it does not have moral absolutism.
I don't have to force you to accept anything. But if you find the entire concept of government so abhorrent why do you continue live under one? Taxes are the idea that we can do together what we cannot alone. If you don't agree with that, then why are you here? That will never change. It seems to be that you are working in your self interest. You want all the good things it provides for you, and you care not what it provides for others. Fortunately more compassionate people have said that it is our duty to help our fellow citizens. This can be justified morally, economically, and socially. No gun necessary. But if anyone thinks they'll threaten the well-being of their fellow man in the name of morally perverted selfishness, then I will fight to stop them.
You are receiving the same help, whether you care to admit it or not. Not everyone necessarily uses every part of the system...
No, I will not leave. You're welcome to try and use that "point of the gun" thing to enforce your desire, though.
I'm not against taxes, and never said I was. But thanks for "strawmanning" for me.
The ACA is not good for everyone. It punishes some to subsidize others. It forces me to pay for a product I don't need nor want, which makes it an inefficient use of scarce resources.
And no, America doesn't have "moral" authority over any of its citizens.
I do have compassion for those who are downtrodden, but I don't force you to perform the same charitable acts I do. I don't have such an aggrandized view of my own moral superiority that I feel the need to impose my will upon others.
It forces me to pay for a product I don't need nor want
I could poke holes in everything you said, but I think I know enough about how informed your opinions are based on this one sentence. I can make no rational argument to convince you of the importance of rationality, and based on this, you are woefully unaware of it.
Adios
You are receiving the same help, whether you care to admit it or not. Not everyone necessarily uses every part of the system...No, I will not leave. You're welcome to try and use that "point of the gun" thing to enforce your desire, though.
I'm not against taxes, and never said I was. But thanks for "strawmanning" for me.
The ACA is not good for everyone. It punishes some to subsidize others. It forces me to pay for a product I don't need nor want, which makes it an inefficient use of scarce resources.
And no, America doesn't have "moral" authority over any of its citizens.
I do have compassion for those who are downtrodden, but I don't force you to perform the same charitable acts I do. I don't have such an aggrandized view of my own moral superiority that I feel the need to impose my will upon others.
Roads punish some to help others.
Law enforcement punishes some to help others.Environmental protections punish some to help others.
Education punishes some to help others.
Nothing the government does hurts no-one. Not everyone benefits from everything.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I just think the ACA is bad law. But, since I have zero interest in buying in, I'll pay the $95 penalty, get on my gf's insurance in September (open enrollment isn't until then) and go on my merry way.
The ACA is just a handjob for the insurance industry. They should have grew a pair and pushed single payer. I'd rather pay a little more in tax and just cover the people that need it (and let people with insurance keep that if that's their thing, and allow companies to offer it as a benefit if that's their thing) than force everyone to pay a private for-profit entity for coverage. Sticking poor people with plans that have deductibles and co-pays they still cannot afford, even with subsidies and the like, is basically giving them nothing and making them pay for it. 85% of people had coverage before this. It would have made more sense to just cover the portion of the 15% left over not getting Medicare or other assistance as a stopgap until we could grow up and just implement single payer.
]Roads punish some to help others.
Law enforcement punishes some to help others.
Environmental protections punish some to help others.
Education punishes some to help others.Nothing the government does hurts no-one. Not everyone benefits from everything.
Except that we all do benefit from roads, because goods are shipped throughout the country on roads.
Law enforcement punishes those who would ignore our rights to life/liberty/property, and so everyone benefits (see arguments for/against drug legalization for debate on certains aspects).Environmental laws prevent loss of life/liberty/property (and yet see the debates surrounding threatened/endangered species or wetlands regulations)
State-run education is a whole other debate, but I would argue that you're wrong.
Not everyone benefits from everything, sure. But to force me to purchase a product I don't need, at a higher price in order to subsidize my neighbor against my will, is immoral.
Why don't we just force everyone to buy free-range organic chicken? After all, we all need food. Far more than we need health care, actually.
But some will argue they're vegetarians. Too bad, my moral views trump your moral views.
But I raise my own chickens, I don't need to buy any. Too bad, my moral views trum your moral views.
But I don't like chicken. Can't I buy pork instead? No, because free range organic chicken. Settled law. Shut up.
But "organic" is a marketing fad that pushes the price up artifically. Too bad. Shut up. Move out of the country if you don't like it.