-
Comment -
I had no question to answer. And they don't get paid minimum because, get this.....they're illegal. Would you rather pay an American more money to do the same job? Doesn't make sense.Comment -
I do believe that immigrants should be actively working their way to legal status thoughComment -
Ever heard of utilitarianism?Yep, taking money from productive in the society and giving to the less/un-productive is not good economic policy. Sometimes, I do believe it is necessary, but in the case of Health Care, no.Comment -
Will there be another VP debate?Comment -
what is health care? if you want to start giving away health care then you need to define it.
i have health insurance. and i pay for it. just like food. i have food at my house and guess what? i payed for it. last time i checked mickey-d's wasn't giving away free big macs and the kroger makes you put all your groceries in a buggy and they charge you for every single item. every single item!!! OUTRAGE! I need food! I have a right to food!!
thats how foolish you people sound that say everyone "deserves" health care.
i have no problem being charitable or helping those that are truly in need, but where you are endorsing is that government gives everyone health care. guess what health care isn't free. and the government's revenue is taxes.
a hospital isn't going to turn away someone bc they dont have the money. but they still owe the hospital. but with government health care everything falls on the tax payer to pay the bill. 45% of people don't even pay taxes, but now the other 55% have to pay for health care for the others? how is that fair?
going back to the food analogy, if government GAVE food away. what would happen? people would abuse it, those they were truly needy would suffer more. and food would have to be rationed. not to mention, you, the individual, are completely dependent on government for your survival. same thing would happen with health care.
socialism at its best.Comment -
You need to understand that no man is an island. The reason you're able to do whatever it is, is because of other people doing something. We live in a society and government is part of that society. Decisions made in government directly affect who will benefit and who wont.
I'm perfectly happy with no central government. But I don't think you realize what that entails.
American Libertarians are laughable. You want no government, except when it comes to roads,police, armies to establish and protect your wealth. Its just another lame ass way to rationalize self worth, greed, and petty hatreds of others.bird bird da bird's da wordComment -
wow no response to health care, instead we get a diatribe against individualism. but ill save that argument for another day.
afraid to defend your position on health care?
still waiting on a definition on what health care people "deserve"
while youre at it, please tell me what "greed" is too.Comment -
Health care is the prevention, treatment, and management of illness and the preservation of mental health through the services offered by the medical, nursing, and allied health professions.
What is your solution to feeding the hungry? Let them starve? Let them resort to crime to feed themselves? The pure form of "free market" disregards the human condition completely. Human beings aren't pawns or machines that can be swept away into the dumpster when they are no longer useful to a free market system.
I do agree that any potential government program must be properly managed and efficient. We can't just throw a blank check at the problem. That's costly and irresponsible.Last edited by slacker00; 10-08-08, 07:19 PM.Comment -
so how much of wiki's definition of health care do people "deserve"? what is the minimum amount of health care the government can give you and still call it health care? because that is what will happen. government will ration your health care. and the quality of health care will go to shit.Health care is the prevention, treatment, and management of illness and the preservation of mental health through the services offered by the medical, nursing, and allied health professions.
What is your solution to feeding the hungry? Let them starve? Let them resort to crime to feed themselves? The pure form of "free market" disregards the human condition completely. Human beings aren't pawns or machines that can be swept away into the dumpster when they are no longer useful to a free market system.
I do agree that any potential government program must be properly managed and efficient. We can't just throw a blank check at the problem. That's costly and irresponsible.
after reading my previous post about what if government GAVE food away, wait a minute... they already do.
go to your local social services building the first of the month and see how many people are lined up to get their food stamps, well now days it gets automatically added to their debit card so i guess they don't have to get a ride to social services.
for solutions, how about first off, audit all that shit. 90% of the people living off government can work and choose not to. those 10% that are truly in need leave em be. the other 90% will go through a transition, where they can make a decision to stay a government dependent or get on their feet on their own.
the government can turn the majority of social services into a temp work force place. and can contract employment to whatever company needs temp help. the new workers can prove themselves to the company and get hired without the go between with the government. those that stay as government temps still earn their money and the government will get payment from the employer also and that can go towards supplemental necessities for the dependents and semi dependents. some of the semi dependents could go to community college, the government could have daycares for the dependents with the semi-dependents working there.
this isn't that hard. if you want a handout, you need to work for it.Comment -
You've lost your marbles. That's how the current system is supposed to be working. Most food stamps goes to feed children or people that are completely dehabilitated. I worked at a grocery store as a clerk for several years in high school when they still had those coupon books where you had to tear out the tickets. Those people were pretty bad off. I'm not sure what kind of jobs they could do under your plan. Most of them didn't even really understand how much they had in food stamps, they would just hand me their book and trust me to help them get some food. I'm not sure where you are getting your information about food stamps.Comment -
I worked at a regular grocery store. I've never been to the ghetto of which you speak. What are you doing to help the situation in your community?
Why is the government always the one that has to help everyone? You sound like a bleeding heart socialist pig.Comment -
Your solution said "government will fix it". That's the socialist answer. I was half-joking, because the rest of your rhetoric is clearly anti-socialist. I'm not sure why you came around full circle to the opposite side.
I'm not in favor of pure socialism. I'm not in favor of pure capitalism. All pure systems are doomed because they are inflexible. A mixed solution is best because it can capture the strongest parts of all solutions and use them to their best capacity. The USA has always been a mixed system, regardless of what various propagandists will tell you.Comment -
Marbles:
You have bought into the popular American fairytale of lazy crack heads draining the resources of the good productive citizens. Soon or later you will figure out that its just that: a fairytale.
The government distributes the public money and resources to business, Wall Street,--to the rich. There is an awful lot to go around. But there isn't enough for basic services to the public. Why? Because the people that run the govt are those that run business. How much health care could we get for 700 billion?
Who deserves health care? Everyone.
If you want to deny somebody you'd better have a damn good reason. And people are denied all the time. Many will not see a doctor until the last possible minute, because they're afraid of the cost involved, especially if you're diagnosed with something and don't have ins.bird bird da bird's da wordComment -
I'm not really sure where some of these viewpoints come from. I think I've lived a fairly sheltered life. I've never been to NYC or out of the USA, so my world view is limited. I've lived here in the backwoods of Wisconsin most of my life. I've tried moving to the "big city" to do a corporate job, I tried several jobs actually. But my whole mindset isn't that of a guy that can sit behind a desk 40 hours, 60 hours, 80 hours a week or whatever. I love the peace of the woods where I grew up. Beyond that, I've never known anyone that makes 250k/year. I suppose some of those big wigs in the offices where I worked got up there, but I didn't have much if any interaction with them. It was all very foreign to me anyway. Even growing up, the kids that I considered "rich snobs" were actually lower middle class at best. My community was fairly stunted during the Reagan years, with many of the parents on unemployment with jobs being cut, not to mention farming going down the shitter. People losing their farms, homes, etc. Most of my friends in school were trailer park kids anyway. Amazingly drugs weren't a major problem. We didn't have any crack houses that I knew about in the backwoods of Wisconsin. I guess there were meth labs around in the late '90's, but I never knew about it. Either we've got some decent law enforcement around here, or the druggies can't stand the cold up here.
In any case, if these big city slickers want to come to my town and help get some industry going and put the welfare moms to work, I'd go along with that. Granted, most don't have much training of any kind. You can maybe get some of the elderly working there too, maybe even some high school kids. Thing is, there just aren't any decent jobs in these small towns. The people tend to be uneducated, poor, etc. When someone says "put them to work", I'm just not sure exactly what they have in mind.Comment -
Thats a great post man.
You don't have to be a world traveler to understand basic things that some choose to ignore. Alot of poverty in this country. Its inexcusable that such a rich country cares so little for vast segments of its population. And than has the audacity to blame same people for being unproductive.
I wish the US leadership was less productive. There would be many people still alive who are now dead.bird bird da bird's da wordComment -
you know whats inexcusable is that youve been raised in a nanny culture and conditioned to think that its the fvckin governments responsibility to take care of you.
if thats what you want thats your friggin prerogative. but start your own country, then sign over everything you own or produce, your wages, your earnings and give it to the government and let the government decide how much you DESERVE. but when youre stuck in your third world mindset and your country can't export bc it can't produce bc everyone wants to be "less productive" and you can't import bc you don't have a friggin income, you let me know and my country will show mercy and send aid to yours.
your whole mindset is boggling, how do you think the US became the Free World?? are you still in high school? you seem to be living inside a shell and have no awareness of history or even basic economics. Do you understand why the US is/was the forefront of every technological advancement, health advancement, industrial advancement??? let me give you a clue, it isnt due to lazy people or the ones that make excuses for them. it wasn't by chance that WE were the leader of the industrial revolution and not Zimbabwe.
everyone deserves health care??? how the fvck do these third world countries provide health care to their citizens. oh yeah they can't.
nobody is denied in america for life threatening illnesses. get a friggin clue.
and lastly who the fvck gave the government the authority to "distribute" money to anyone?? evil rich corporations or the poverty, its not a role of government. so if youre against giving to the "evil rich" then you need to be advocating cutting off the impoverished as well. but no instead you rather make excuses for the "less fortunate" and condemn the more fortunate, bc after all your success in life is based solely on chance. its a crapshoot and its not fair
for those that arent rich.
what a fvckin joke, and good day.
Comment -
Through democracy. Through citizen rights. Life, libery, pursuit of happiness. Citizens having a voice.your whole mindset is boggling, how do you think the US became the Free World?
How can we preserve the integrity of our citizens if they don't have basic life necessities like food, clothing and shelter? The government tries to keep people at least hanging onto the bottom rung of the ladder so they may have a chance to climb upwards. Sounds like you'd like to instead step on their fingers or kick them down so they can find their own fate which is of no concern to you.
Marbles, why don't you go to your local soup kitchen and tell these people exactly why you think they don't deserve any assistance. Bring your video camera and post it on UTube. I wonder what kind of person can really be so inhuman. You sound like Ebenezer Scrooge before his revelation. lmaoComment -
you know whats inexcusable is that youve been raised in a nanny culture and conditioned to think that its the fvckin governments responsibility to take care of you.
if thats what you want thats your friggin prerogative. but start your own country, then sign over everything you own or produce, your wages, your earnings and give it to the government and let the government decide how much you DESERVE. but when youre stuck in your third world mindset and your country can't export bc it can't produce bc everyone wants to be "less productive" and you can't import bc you don't have a friggin income, you let me know and my country will show mercy and send aid to yours.
your whole mindset is boggling, how do you think the US became the Free World?? are you still in high school? you seem to be living inside a shell and have no awareness of history or even basic economics. Do you understand why the US is/was the forefront of every technological advancement, health advancement, industrial advancement??? let me give you a clue, it isnt due to lazy people or the ones that make excuses for them. it wasn't by chance that WE were the leader of the industrial revolution and not Zimbabwe.
everyone deserves health care??? how the fvck do these third world countries provide health care to their citizens. oh yeah they can't. nobody is denied in america for life threatening illnesses. get a friggin clue.
and lastly who the fvck gave the government the authority to "distribute" money to anyone?? evil rich corporations or the poverty, its not a role of government. so if youre against giving to the "evil rich" then you need to be advocating cutting off the impoverished as well. but no instead you rather make excuses for the "less fortunate" and condemn the more fortunate, bc after all your success in life is based solely on chance. its a crapshoot and its not fair for those that arent rich.
what a fvckin joke, and good day.
you are spitting out talking points
the govt spends a tiny percentage of its money on welfare, much more on defense and bombs we dont need
you are buying into garbage that time and time again is proven wrong, like trickle down economics. its made up dude, its garbage designed to keep the rich rich and the poor poorComment -
If not the government, then who?its not a role of government.Comment -
@ryan
what are talking points? wait a minute, don't tell me, i dont care
youre a fool if you think welfare is a tiny percentage, and i wasnt strictly talking about welfare, i was talking about any wealth redistribution, which hurts everyone even those that it supposly helps.
@slacker
stealing one person's property to give to another should NOT be a function of government. have you ever heard of charitable organizations like the red cross and the salvation army??
we live in a overly charitable country. and if the government wasnt stealing from us to start with, im sure more of us would be more charitable.
i remember back after katrina a few years ago, we had radio stations and local grocery stores coordinating efforts for people to contribute or donate, we had thousands of people buy supplies, had tons of people to donate their time, and filled 11 tractor trailers full of supplies and groceries for katrina victims, trailers were donated, drivers were volunteers. and that was just a local effort, thats nothing compared to all the money donated to the red cross and salvation army. But the government authorized 62 billion to the relief effort. 62 BILLION that was flushed down the katrina toilet. please dont make me dig up all the cases of abuse, and misuse of government funds from this. Government is incompetent, so even if your justification is somehow morally justified, it doesnt matter because government is going to fck it up.
the central function of government is to protect it's citizen's liberty and property.
ever heard of John Locke? (and not the one from the tv show Lost)
here is some of his quotes:
All mankind... being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions.All wealth is the product of labor.Every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has a right to, but himself.maybe you should give Locke's Two Treatises of Government a read, or hell maybe even the United States Declaration of Independence, from where you took your quote from. but don't expect to find "democracy" mentioned.Government has no other end, but the preservation of property.Comment -
A talking point is a neologism for an idea which may or may not be factual, usually compiled in a short list with summaries of a speaker's agenda for public or private engagements. Public relations professionals, for example, sometimes prepare "talking points memos" for their clients to help them more effectively conform public presentations with this advice.
A political think tank will strategize the most effective informational attack on a target topic and launch talking points from media personalities to saturate discourse in order to frame a debate in their favor, standardizing the responses of sympathizers to their unique cause while simultaneously co-opting the language used by those discussing the specific subject. When used politically in this way, the typical purpose of a talking point is to propagandize, specifically using the technique of argumentum ad nauseam, i.e. continuous repetition within media outlets until accepted as fact.
As for the Red Cross & Salvation Army, those organizations cannot guarantee a basic degree of assistance to all people across all areas of the country. They certainly are appreciated and do provide a valuable service. They can certainly be part of an overall plan to guarantee a basic level of living for the general population.Comment -
how about rhetorical question? can you fetch the definition for that one?
my internet connection can only access sbr and republican propaganda websites.
Comment -
Lost, do you get paid for posting on here?Comment
