Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And who has to pay for it you LWNJ the American taxpayer nothing is free that money doesn't grow on trees you know...
Would have paid for it anyway. Who do you think has covered the costs for all of the uninsured since President Reagan made it illegal for hospitals that take federal funds to turn away the indigent?
Ridiculously nonsensical. I outlined the remedy that the President outlined. If your state is too greed-centric to do as they're supposed to, that's on them. Stop trying to rationalize the craven self-centeredness of the RWNJs running red states. Those who live by greed have to suffer the consequences of being greedy, including the righteous condemnation when their greed harms good people.
I do not look at people that work hard to get ahead as greedy. I look at those that would like to make their livelihoods by not working and living off the tax money of others as greedy. It is not greedy to want more in life that you are working for. Those people are spending their time to earn it.
I also have nothing against a hand up. A lifetime of hand outs are unacceptable. Hand outs are for charity not government.
I do not look at people that work hard to get ahead as greedy. I look at those that would like to make their livelihoods by not working and living off the tax money of others as greedy. It is not greedy to want more in life that you are working for. Those people are spending their time to earn it.
I also have nothing against a hand up. A lifetime of hand outs are unacceptable. Hand outs are for charity not government.
Using the OP as an example then, I suppose that providing subsidized health care for someone who is currently unemployed could be regarded as a "hand up," yes?
Seems to me that reducing the anxiety, stress and fear that accompanies the loss of employer-sponsored health care when someone loses his/her job would go a very long way towards keeping someone healthy enough to find a new job.
Using the OP as an example then, I suppose that providing subsidized health care for someone who is currently unemployed could be regarded as a "hand up," yes?
Seems to me that reducing the anxiety, stress and fear that accompanies the loss of employer-sponsored health care when someone loses his/her job would go a very long way towards keeping someone healthy enough to find a new job.
But, hey, that's just me.
Bingo. That would be a hand up. Someone that has just lost their job is not in the same lines as someone that has never had one and makes their livelihood on hand outs. They have worked and are looking to work again. I have nothing against unemployment or any other temporary help. Key word being temporary.
O.K. I have, but remember, I only answered for what you responded to me, not the rest...but since you are unable to see that, I answered all the questions.
We'll have to agree to disagree about that. I hope you're ready, willing and able to do that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee
No, what you provided is a left wing talking point, nothing more, nothing less.
Wrong. I provided moral arguments that you simply don't like. I can live with you not liking them. Can you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee
The CBO is now a ridiculus projection?
No: Your reckless aspersion was a ridiculous projection. That's the second time you've failed to comprehend what you replied to. I'm beginning to suspect that you're deliberately not reading or not caring to read for content some messages you're replying to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee
WOW...talk about head in sand...use the CBO when it's good for yuo, buit whe nit goes directly against you it's wrong...head in sand, that is you...
How embarrassing for you to post this nonsense in regard to an incident where you simply failed to comprehend what you were replying to. You should focus more on the reading and less on the personal attacks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee
Sorry, but those are obamas EXACT WORDS....why will you not logically accept them for what they are and what he EXACTLY SAID....
Your exact word was "those". Taking that word by itself, outside the context of the rest of the sentence and the rest of the thread it is meaningless. I know that you know what point I'm making. I also respect your right to refuse to admit that you understand, since it would decimate the inane nonsense that you're posting here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee
WHen you are able to use a sentence with out saying RWNJ or some other left wing insult...then maybe, unless your just a hypocrite
I never refer to another poster as a RWNJ. There's a difference between an attack on a public leader who espouses an ideology and an attack on another poster. I'm sorry you're unwilling or unable to realize the difference. We're suppose to be discussing what leaders are doing and their ideologies. By contrast, posters earn infractions and get banned for attacking other posters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dumbdowndemocrats
buu drunk on your kool-aid again or was it lead paint chips as a child?
Case in point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerseyt719
I do not look at people that work hard to get ahead as greedy.
Neither do I. The fact that someone is hard-working, whether they're hard-working and poor or hard-working and not poor, doesn't make them greedy or not greedy. Greedy is when someone places their own comfort and luxury over the basic needs of those less fortunate. So it doesn't have anything to do with working - it has to do with whether someone exhibits a moral or immoral perspective on contributing to society.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerseyt719
I look at those that would like to make their livelihoods by not working and living off the tax money of others as greedy.
Then you're making up your own language, because that's not greed. It's sloth. Regardless, we're not talking about caring for slothful people. We're talking about caring for poor people. People who would love nothing more than to get a great job that pays them enough to pay the bills plus just a bit extra so they can eventually climb out of poverty. People like Glenda Bell. That's who we're talking about. Explain what she did wrong. Defend your implicit attack on Glenda Bell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerseyt719
It is not greedy to want more in life that you are working for.
Correct. Greed is, again, about the attitudes related to prioritizing your own comfort and luxury over the basic needs of others. Nothing more, nothing less.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerseyt719
Key word being temporary.
I agree and that's why part of the contribution we who are doing fine need to make involves the structural changes that ensure that everyone who can work has a job they can get that pays them enough to not need public assistance, a job that covers all their basic needs plus a little bit more so that they can get out of poverty. It's a matter of basic human decency.
Why will you not respond to my charges and claims against the ridiculously avaricious perspectives you support?
First answer the charges I made in my message, which came before what you posted. You respond to what I want you to respond to first, and then I'll consider placating your wishes to dictate that I respond to the nonsense you post. The reality is that you're not god, so you don't get to present your personal opinion as premises of inquisition. If you have a sincere question, then present it as such. If you're just posturing to promote your political perspective, expect to be called-out on it.
I already told you why. Stop burying your head in the sand blinding yourself to the answers you don't want to see.
That's ridiculous projection, given that I told you about the RWNJs running red states even before you asked the question. Just because you don't like them doesn't make them not facts.
I think trying to explain this logically to people who want the opposite to be true is a useless gesture, but I admire your effort in that regard.
Quit with the puerile vulgarity. It smells of desperation.
So have I. Ask yourself why people can find it in the hearts to expand Medicaid in my state but not in the red states led by members of the aforementioned death panel? We all work hard for what we have. Some states are simply led by greedy, egoistic people who exhibit an antisocial, callous disregard for those less fortunate. It's that simple.
I didn't say you didn't. Stop trying to build Straw Men. You're not very good at it.
Actually, my mastery of the English language and of presenting cogent, moral arguments, which despoil attempts to defend right-wing greed, is showing. I'm sorry if that upsets you.
Why do I try? Mostly it's because it's funny to see them try to form an argument.
The same people that pay when someone uninsured goes to a hospital & ducks out on their bill?
This is actually not precisely true. The legislation that President Reagan signed into law actually shifts the burden of those costs onto other people who are currently suffering their own health problems: Essentially those costs are passed along as overhead on every other bill for hospital services, basically kicking people when they're down. The legislation that President Obama signed into law, by contrast, works to prevent that injustice, by spreading that cost more broadly so no one is burdened more than they can withstand, and no one is deliberately kicked while they're down
We'll have to agree to disagree about that. I hope you're ready, willing and able to do that.
Wrong. I provided moral arguments that you simply don't like. I can live with you not liking them. Can you?
No: Your reckless aspersion was a ridiculous projection. That's the second time you've failed to comprehend what you replied to. I'm beginning to suspect that you're deliberately not reading or not caring to read for content some messages you're replying to.
How embarrassing for you to post this nonsense in regard to an incident where you simply failed to comprehend what you were replying to. You should focus more on the reading and less on the personal attacks.
Your exact word was "those". Taking by itself, outside the context of the rest of the sentence and the rest of the thread it is meaningless. I know that you know what point I'm making. I also respect your right to refuse to admit that you understand, since it would decimate the inane nonsense that you're posting here.
I never refer to another poster as a RWNJ. There's a difference between an attack on a idea and an attack on another poster. I'm sorry you're unable to realize the difference. We're suppose to be discussing ideas. You earn infractions and get banned for attacking other posters.
Case in point.
Neither do I. The fact that someone is hard-working, whether they're hard-working and poor or hard-working and not poor, doesn't make them greedy or not greedy. Greedy is when someone places their own comfort and luxury over the basic needs of those less fortunate. So it doesn't have anything to do with working - it has to do with whether someone exhibits a moral or immoral perspective on contributing to society.
Then you're making up your own language, because that's not greed. It's sloth. Regardless, we're not talking about caring for slothful people. We're talking about caring for poor people. People who would love nothing more than to get a great job that pays them enough to pay the bills plus just a bit extra so they can eventually climb out of poverty. People like Glenda Bell. That's who we're talking about. Explain what she did wrong. Defend your implicit attack on Glenda Bell.
Correct. Greed is, again, about the attitudes related to prioritizing your own comfort and luxury over the basic needs of others. Nothing more, nothing less.
I agree and that's why part of the contribution we who are doing fine need to make involves the structural changes that ensure that everyone who can work has a job they can get that pays them enough to not need public assistance, a job that covers all their basic needs plus a little bit more so that they can get out of poverty. It's a matter of basic human decency.
I have no idea who Glenda Bell is. I tried to click on her name and only got a picture. Page wouldn't load. I will look her up though.
I do not feel that people should be forced to take care of others. My choices have led me to where I am. Am I comfortable? No. Am I keeping my head above water while taking care of my family? Yes. That is my job and my responsibility. I choose what to donate to, when I can.
I've personally seen too many abuses of the handout systems we have in place. I don't think punishing those that make this country run (taxpayers) helps anyone.
I like the system in place in Bermuda. You have to work at something to get help. It doesn't include the disabled.
I am tired of working a couple of jobs to earn enough to raise my family while others do not work and my money pays them to raise theirs. If I can do it, they can too.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
