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.
No... We do care... We still do... we wouldn't be so adamant about fixing it correctly if we didn't. But failed program after failed program shows that throwing money after a problem doesn't FIX it! Ya'll never did answer my question... Just how much is enough? Just how much % of a persons annual income do you want to take from me and give to others? How much will it take to cure the problem? And exactly what is the ROOT problem?
I don't have any "remedies"... if I did.. I'd run for office...
Well, seems you need to fix it correctly then, but I find the right never wants to do that. Its always the money with rightys, while not spending the money costs more more in failed programs that are complained about. How much is whatever it takes to get it right.
We don't need high taxes, we can sell our own resources to pay for our own social services. You want lower taxes, repeal all corporate and foreign aid, and cut the military by 90%. You do want lower taxes don't you?
That's the problem w/ the Right's position. You say you don't WANT people to starve, yet all your "remedies" suggest you don't CARE if they do.
Like I said, no one approves of welfare mooches, but there hasn't been a single responsible, reliable, or cost-effective solution to deal w/ that. In essence, the Right is mounting an effort to eliminate crime in a segment of society. Does that sound possible? All you can do is create as much disincentive to try to scam the system as possible, and that's what we have going on now.
All the welfare programs have ~5% fraud. As strict as our system is now, all the suggestions for eliminating that 5% amount to cutting off way more people that need services than it stops from defrauding the system.
So the question now for the Right is: how many legit people w/ needs are you willing to sacrifice just so you can eliminate the already minuscule amount of fraud?
And all your remedies ensure that they do.
The remedy is to make it very difficult to continue getting entitlements, so that they fend for themselves. Of COURSE rewarding entitlement mentality will make it continue. And of COURSE weaning them off it will be difficult.
I'd like to see your stats on the fact that eliminating fraud will make people suffer? And since you asked, I'd sacrifice ALL of them. Start from scratch, and prove that you NEED the assistance.
Mandatory sterilization. I guess that's what you righties mean by a "less intrusive government."
Couple that with forced ultrasounds, the R politician who wants to make oral sex illegal, even for married couples, and you have a government that isn't intrusive in the least.
Well, obviously they can't be trusted or are too stupid to refrain from having children that they can't pay for.
If they would quit stealing MY hard earned money, I would be HAPPY to stay out of their lives. But the moment they take from ME to support themselves, I DO have a right to intrude.
Well, obviously they can't be trusted or are too stupid to refrain from having children that they can't pay for.
If they would quit stealing MY hard earned money, I would be HAPPY to stay out of their lives. But the moment they take from ME to support themselves, I DO have a right to intrude.
Forcing sterilization is no better than forced abortions in China.
Well, obviously they can't be trusted or are too stupid to refrain from having children that they can't pay for.
If they would quit stealing MY hard earned money, I would be HAPPY to stay out of their lives. But the moment they take from ME to support themselves, I DO have a right to intrude.
Are you one of these people who has trouble with the concept that once you give something (like, say, money) to someone (like, say, the government) it isn't yours any more?
Mandatory sterilization. I guess that's what you righties mean by a "less intrusive government."
Couple that with forced ultrasounds, the R politician who wants to make oral sex illegal, even for married couples, and you have a government that isn't intrusive in the least.
sounds what the left has been doing for years
mandatoty sterilization....that would be called eugenics....started by the left...infact the founder of planned parenthood , maggy singer, major supporter of eugenics program of the liberals
H.G. Wells was of the greatest influences on the progressive mind in the twentieth century (and, it turns out, the inspiration for Huxley's Brave New World). Wells didn't coin the phrase as an indictment, but as a badge of honor. Progressives must become "liberal fascists" and "enlightened Nazis," he told the Young Liberals at Oxford in a speech in July 1932.
Wells called his political views socialist. He was for a time a member of the socialist Fabian Society. The Fabian Society is a British socialist movement, whose purpose is to advance the principles of Democratic socialism via gradualist and reformist, rather than revolutionary, means................ Wells believed in the theory of eugenics. In 1904 he discussed a survey paper by Francis Galton, co-founder of eugenics, saying "I believe ... It is in the sterilisation of failure, and not in the selection of successes for breeding, that the possibility of an improvement of the human stock lies."
George Bernard Shaw a dedicated Socialist and a charter member of the Fabian Society. After visiting the USSR in the 1930s where he met Stalin, Shaw became a supporter of the Stalinist USSR. On 11 October 1931 he broadcast a lecture on American national radio telling his audience that any 'skilled workman...of suitable age and good character' would be welcomed and given work in the Soviet Union. Shaw was a proponent of the theory of "eugenics" that believed in the improvement of the human race through selective reproduction. Advocates of this theory feared society was at risk due to a declining gene pool because inferior people were breeding much more rapidly than the better ones. They advocated for public policies that would prevent this. Shaw claimed only eugenics could save mankind. Shaw even suggested people should have to regularly appear before a board to justify their existence
the history is there, just because you dont like that people like mussilini and hitler tarnished the name of progressives, with Eugenics, population control, economic fascism, etc.... doesnt mean it didnt happen....
Are you one of these people who has trouble with the concept that once you give something (like, say, money) to someone (like, say, the government) it isn't yours any more?
This seems to be the case.
The concept of "giving" vs. "taking" seems it elude you.
That's the problem w/ the Right's position. You say you don't WANT people to starve, yet all your "remedies" suggest you don't CARE if they do.
Like I said, no one approves of welfare mooches, but there hasn't been a single responsible, reliable, or cost-effective solution to deal w/ that. In essence, the Right is mounting an effort to eliminate crime in a segment of society. Does that sound possible? All you can do is create as much disincentive to try to scam the system as possible, and that's what we have going on now.
All the welfare programs have ~5% fraud. As strict as our system is now, all the suggestions for eliminating that 5% amount to cutting off way more people that need services than it stops from defrauding the system.
So the question now for the Right is: how many legit people w/ needs are you willing to sacrifice just so you can eliminate the already minuscule amount of fraud?
Don't let them fool you! Welfare fraud is nothing but a "red herring". The facts of the matter are, the RWNJs don't want one red cent going to anyone, at any place any time. Except of course to themselves and their supporters, but you see they deserve it. They are "Le crème de la crème" and the country would fall apart if they did not get the best of the best of everything all of the time. That is the reason behind every single thing they ever say or do. History teaches us this truth very well. For example, what did the RWNJs think about hundreds of thousands of Americans working and dying, making starvation wages and just generally living like animals in the mining industry. Well, they opposed any safety regulations, they opposed any unions, they opposed any environmental rules or regulations, they opposed giving the workers any pensions, they opposed giving them any access to decent healthcare, they cry if too much is spent on educating their kids and the list just goes on and on. They represent a blot on our western society and they seem to be mostly recognized for it in the western democracies except in the USA where the people are still easy to fool.
I think it depends on the subscriber. And they should NOT be forced to subscribe to healthcare under the penalty of law.
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.
