Don't other people also deserve health care, an education, housing, and to be treated with respect?
Don't other people also deserve health care, an education, housing, and respect?
- Thread starter arnisador
- Start date
CuongNhuka
Senior Master
Communist.
Deserve Health Care.
They can get ER care as needed. Should I also have to hand out free asprins too to any lazy bum on the street? I think not.
Deserve An Education.
Hey, Up through 8th grade is free, just show up. In most of the US, you can even get 4 more years for free, just show up. It'll more than qualify you to you know, get a job and earn your way in this world.
Deserve Housing?
Like, a 3 bedroom 2 bath house on the lake, or would you accept a cot in a room with 60 other cots, a shared bathroom and a shared kitchen area that they are required to assist in maintaining? Or, do you mean free room and board no strings attached and no effort required?
Deserve Respect?
Respect is earned, not given for nothing. Respect is lost for ones actions and non-action.
So if the question is, does the lazy bum living on the street who turned down 12 years of free education, lost his last job because he decided attendance was optional, and who can't be bothered to visit the local soup kitchen because "they don't have steak there" deserve my respect, a free house and my wallet open for their health care, I say Darwin.
Bob, I am too tired now to respond to that post intelligently, so emotionally will have to do.
All I can say is the amount of anti-union, anti-collective-social-responsibility posts I have read on this forum over the past couple of years make me doubt that the posters know a great deal about history.
Of course, history depends on the country you're in so to get a thumbnail idea of why I hold the views that I do, I would ask that people either view or read the excellent BBC series The Making of Modern Britain.
If you still want to do away with any semblance of the welfare state and 'socialist' medicine, then you deserve whatever you (individually and collectively) get.
P.S. The roots of the Welfare State in Britain exist as a result of the reaction of the political and economic elite to the fact that we were only weeks away from a full blown revolution in the early 20th Century. You can only squeeze the poor so much and for so long before the snake gets up off it's belly.
All I can say is the amount of anti-union, anti-collective-social-responsibility posts I have read on this forum over the past couple of years make me doubt that the posters know a great deal about history.
Of course, history depends on the country you're in so to get a thumbnail idea of why I hold the views that I do, I would ask that people either view or read the excellent BBC series The Making of Modern Britain.
If you still want to do away with any semblance of the welfare state and 'socialist' medicine, then you deserve whatever you (individually and collectively) get.
P.S. The roots of the Welfare State in Britain exist as a result of the reaction of the political and economic elite to the fact that we were only weeks away from a full blown revolution in the early 20th Century. You can only squeeze the poor so much and for so long before the snake gets up off it's belly.
Steve
Mostly Harmless
Bob. I mean this as a serious question. Have you spent any meaningful amount of time around people who are really, truly homeless? I mean, the guys who are actually living on the streets, taking refuge when they can in shelters and eating in souplines? Because I have and my experience and impression of people who are homeless is very, very different from yours.
Steve, no I have not. I did in College hang out with several people who did though, and base much of my opinions on what they told me. I also spent plenty of time in Toronto where I'd have to carefully pass by "bum houses" which were little cardboard homes in store doorways. I don't doubt there are many wonderful people forced by circumstances beyond their control out there, but there seem to be a good number of "bum by choice" as well. I live in a city that has several places where the homeless can safely sleep, get a decent meal, clean up, and register with agencies that will aid them at no charge in getting back on their feet. There is medical care available through several county clinics that isn't bad (I've used their services myself). Each year I see complaints from law enforcement that they (the homeless) just won't use what is available. Often it's because they are drug users afraid of running into cops. There are a few crazies in the mix as well.
I'm all for helping those less fortunate than me. On my terms. I don't like being forced to do so at the end of a gun.
In NY a hard working person who carefully watches their expenses, gets to pay for the welfare cheat who rolls up to the convenience store in their Cadillac Escalade, wearing their furs and gold, and gets to buy beer and lotto on food stamps my taxes paid for. I on the other hand have to live within my means, and have neither a Caddi, furs or gold. I have a problem with that, and given that the government's OWN statistics say there's a 60+% fraud rate, I have a bigger problem with them taking even more from me, to pay for these lazy bastards.
I have issues with unions because of my own dealings with them. They were little more than a cash grab by lazy do nothings. I have issues with being forced to give away my hard earned income. Should be my choice who and when to give, not some greedy politician.
People deserve shelter. Ok, a cardboard box IS shelter. So is a 400 room mansion. My question to Arni was simply what do you want to pay for. I also think that if you are giving something to someone, they have a responsibility to give back as well. Is requiring them to shower daily, to put in an hour a week keeping the place clean, cooking dinner and maintaining the property too much to ask for? Some say it is, that such hard requirements violate their rights. I say, if I'm providing the funds I get a say in the matter.
America was built by hard workers not slothful leeches.
I'm all for helping those less fortunate than me. On my terms. I don't like being forced to do so at the end of a gun.
In NY a hard working person who carefully watches their expenses, gets to pay for the welfare cheat who rolls up to the convenience store in their Cadillac Escalade, wearing their furs and gold, and gets to buy beer and lotto on food stamps my taxes paid for. I on the other hand have to live within my means, and have neither a Caddi, furs or gold. I have a problem with that, and given that the government's OWN statistics say there's a 60+% fraud rate, I have a bigger problem with them taking even more from me, to pay for these lazy bastards.
I have issues with unions because of my own dealings with them. They were little more than a cash grab by lazy do nothings. I have issues with being forced to give away my hard earned income. Should be my choice who and when to give, not some greedy politician.
People deserve shelter. Ok, a cardboard box IS shelter. So is a 400 room mansion. My question to Arni was simply what do you want to pay for. I also think that if you are giving something to someone, they have a responsibility to give back as well. Is requiring them to shower daily, to put in an hour a week keeping the place clean, cooking dinner and maintaining the property too much to ask for? Some say it is, that such hard requirements violate their rights. I say, if I'm providing the funds I get a say in the matter.
America was built by hard workers not slothful leeches.
I highly doubt Bob's dealings with the union were way back when the unions first came about. You may want to check the history of the union and compare that to Bob's age.
I'm sorry Jeff, I guess your are right here. I am absolutely clueless on what that Union I was paying weekly dues to was doing for me. I'm sure there was something other than taking 3 hrs of my weekly wages going on there, but for the life of me I am at a loss as to what that was. Oh wait, now I remember. I got a guaranteed 14 hr work week.
As to my- low standards for historical accuracy, **** you very much. Everything I've claimed I have cited, backed up and so on. I dare you to step out of your sheltered ivory tower and debunk it with facts Jeff. Or is that too hard?
Guess it is since you continue to resort to taking personal shots at me.
(Rest removed as I refuse to sink to your level here.)
As to my- low standards for historical accuracy, **** you very much. Everything I've claimed I have cited, backed up and so on. I dare you to step out of your sheltered ivory tower and debunk it with facts Jeff. Or is that too hard?
Guess it is since you continue to resort to taking personal shots at me.
(Rest removed as I refuse to sink to your level here.)
Labor Union Myths By Bob Hubbard
Pick up the Union argument there Jeff.
US Civil War Myths and Facts
The Civil War threads are there. Feel free to disprove anything I posted with some facts.
This thread was intended to indicate I wanted better for our Veterans, not a decent into the homeless, Jeff's inability to realize everything he knows is wrong, or why 42 isn't the answer.
I believe a person is responsible for themselves, and it's not the job of government, any government to take care of them. Not feed em, not shelter them, not clothe them and not ensure they have a retirement fund. It's theirs, and if they fail to take care of themselves, then it's their problem. If they try to do it at my cost, then it's at their peril.
If private citizens don't step forward to help the less fortunate, then that's pretty telling on how selfish they are. Charity isn't charity if it's forced at the end of a gun, it's theft. Pretty it up however you like, it's still theft.
Returning to my original point, I believe that the people who sacrifice deserve thanks, and deserve to be taken care of. Those who do nothing, deserve nothing.
Heartless? Guess I am. Don't worry. There's enough Democrats in the US government to ensure that responsibility doesn't happen and that irresponsibility will continue to be supported to ensure enough votes for their continued elite positioning.
Pick up the Union argument there Jeff.
US Civil War Myths and Facts
The Civil War threads are there. Feel free to disprove anything I posted with some facts.
This thread was intended to indicate I wanted better for our Veterans, not a decent into the homeless, Jeff's inability to realize everything he knows is wrong, or why 42 isn't the answer.
I believe a person is responsible for themselves, and it's not the job of government, any government to take care of them. Not feed em, not shelter them, not clothe them and not ensure they have a retirement fund. It's theirs, and if they fail to take care of themselves, then it's their problem. If they try to do it at my cost, then it's at their peril.
If private citizens don't step forward to help the less fortunate, then that's pretty telling on how selfish they are. Charity isn't charity if it's forced at the end of a gun, it's theft. Pretty it up however you like, it's still theft.
Returning to my original point, I believe that the people who sacrifice deserve thanks, and deserve to be taken care of. Those who do nothing, deserve nothing.
Heartless? Guess I am. Don't worry. There's enough Democrats in the US government to ensure that responsibility doesn't happen and that irresponsibility will continue to be supported to ensure enough votes for their continued elite positioning.
Steve
Mostly Harmless
Hey guys. I'm going to recuse myself from this conversation. I think I've made my points as clear as I can. If you guys disagree, I think that's fine.
That's how many drinks one needs to deal with this stuff sometimes.....which is why the only rum subsidy I support is the one where it's delivered weekly to my door at no charge to me.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #14
It's a volunteer force. The services do what any other employer does--determine what salary and benefits they need to offer to attract people. That's why bonuses and such rise and fall as needed.
I'm all for respecting those who risk their lives to protect the country in which I live. But giving them lifetime exemption from taxes etc. while not providing for the rest of the citizenry is out-of-balance. Why not provide health care and educational benefits (meaning college in this context) for all? Many European countries do.
Your govt. and a majority of its citizenry disagrees. There's a reason why no politician in the U.S. has come out against Social Security--it's a popular program the majority wants. including many of those not receiving it and who know they'll get less out of it than they put in. You may not want a govt. to do those things--but I do, and I'm in the majority, and it's perfectly legal as implemented by Congress.
If you're so against taxation, perhaps you can point to another model currently in use somewhere in the world.
You're making the fallacy of the false alternative. Not everyone who isn't a veteran is a welfare cheat.
They must not be offering enough. See "Stop Loss".
Because it's expensive, not Constitutional, and in many cases a waste of money.
The majority of the populace doesn't vote.
The question of the legality of Social Security has -never- been tested.
You want a nanny state. Ok.
You want high taxes to cover that. Not ok.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_the_British_Virgin_Islands
I never said they were. You continue to read more into what I said than I did say.
HuH? In 2008 we had among the highest voter turnout in the nation and our state senate became the first democratic body in the U.S. (and perhaps the world) to hold a female majority.
Now that's change you can believe in.
And in 2009 it went poof again. There's more that the Presidential election. I think WNY was around 30%.
I'm still waiting for Arni to correct my "low standards for historical accuracy." by debunking my comments on the matters he disagrees with, beyond saying "well it kinda implies that it's ok".
OP
- Thread Starter
- #19
It's clearly OK, because we do have social programs. If a successful case could be mounted against these it surely would have happened by now. Democracy doesn't mean that you personally get the government you (claim to) want.
Eh...they're British. People in the U.K. pay taxes; people in some parts pay less than people in others. As to the B.V.I., they're not paying for their own defense and foreign relations, for example. Also, according to that link, "photocopies of all of the tax laws of the British Virgin Islands would together amount to about 200 pages of paper". That doesn't sound tax-free. There's a payroll tax that replaced a previous income tax; there are real estate taxes. There's an EU tax.
Did you even read the linked article?
Incidentally, the recent financial news has been covering the pressure being placed on the British Caribbean territories to raise taxes:
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20091029-715209.html
http://www.stabroeknews.com/2009/bu...an-territories-under-pressure-to-raise-taxes/
I cannot help but note that there is a considerable undercurrent here that is dragging the thread away from it's original intent.
As I often say in such matters, the points under discussion are of interest in and of themselves (even tho' you are so wrong it's not true, Cap'n) but it would better serve all topics touched upon if they were discussed in their own threads.
This one is about theoretical better benefits and treatment for those who have served in a military capacity.
As I often say in such matters, the points under discussion are of interest in and of themselves (even tho' you are so wrong it's not true, Cap'n
) but it would better serve all topics touched upon if they were discussed in their own threads.This one is about theoretical better benefits and treatment for those who have served in a military capacity.
Last edited: