U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 05-18-2017, 06:54 AM
 
66,741 posts, read 27,273,122 times
Reputation: 13263

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by maat55 View Post
[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.
-James Madison
Neither is interfering in the business of other countries. I'm willing to make this trade.......fewer welfare programs and we bring every single soldier home.

 
Old 05-18-2017, 06:54 AM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,695 posts, read 10,543,638 times
Reputation: 5595
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimChi2PG View Post
So many Americans have blindly pledged their allegiance to political parties that American freedom is being threatened. Republicans and Democrats alike have been dividing this country for so long most Americans identify by party rather than country.

The political parties have become corporatists and are working for the wealthy because that's where they get their campaign cash. Politicians pay back the big donors with tax breaks and corporate welfare.

Social programs depend on tax revenue to survive. But if the corrupt politicians are giving away all the tax dollars to the fat cats, something has to be cut or this country goes broke. So they vilify social programs as being programs that help the lazy and worthless. And the party loyalists swallow it hook, line and sinker, even if they are the ones getting screwed.

Now THAT'S some serious brain washing!
What you falsely argue is that both parties are equally culpable. While the Republican Party, can be categorized as the party that caters to fat-cats, that's not true for the Democrats. How do I know? Just look at the policies that each party pushes.

Republicans push tax-cuts for the rich -- which included no estate taxes and low or no dividend taxes and lower capital gains and upper ordinary income brackets. Republicans also try to cut Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid -- three programs that the rich will never need. The same can be said of Republican hostility to providing health care.

Democrats, on the other side, created Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, over the complete objection of Republicans. They also created the ACA, that has added tens of millions to the insurance roles who were formerly uninsured.

Why did the Democrats create these programs? It sure wasn't to help the wealthy, since these programs rely upon tax money for funding. Instead, it reflects the moral conscience that says that we should be making the lives of most Americans better and not just cater to the rich.
 
Old 05-18-2017, 06:57 AM
 
66,741 posts, read 27,273,122 times
Reputation: 13263
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
What you falsely argue is that both parties are equally culpable. While the Republican Party, can be categorized as the party that caters to fat-cats, that's not true for the Democrats. How do I know? Just look at the policies that each party pushes.

Republicans push tax-cuts for the rich -- which included no estate taxes and low or no dividend taxes and lower capital gains and upper ordinary income brackets. Republicans also try to cut Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid -- three programs that the rich will never need. The same can be said of Republican hostility to providing health care.

Democrats, on the other side, created Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, over the complete objection of Republicans. They also created the ACA, that has added tens of millions to the insurance roles who were formerly uninsured.

Why did the Democrats create these programs? It sure wasn't to help the wealthy, since these programs rely upon tax money for funding. Instead, it reflects the moral conscience that says that we should be making the lives of most Americans better and not just cater to the rich.
It is the wealthy that have benefitted with the ACA. Many who have it can't afford to use it because of Wall Street running it.
 
Old 05-18-2017, 06:59 AM
 
Location: Oklahoma
1,728 posts, read 552,456 times
Reputation: 806
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
Neither is interfering in the business of other countries. I'm willing to make this trade.......fewer welfare programs and we bring every single soldier home.
While national defense is more complicated and broad now, yes, we are likely overstepping our military footprint.
 
Old 05-18-2017, 06:59 AM
 
58,541 posts, read 25,625,523 times
Reputation: 7088
Quote:
Originally Posted by DukerZ View Post
I understand that. But do poor children choose to be impoverished. 1/5 go to bed hungry. Did they decide that?
I'm not buying that fake and manipulative stat, and here's why...

Income-eligible children on food stamps: 24% obese
Income-eligible children NOT on food stamps: 20% obese
Non-poor children who of course don't even qualify for food stamps: 13% obese

Income-eligible adults on food stamps: 44% obese
Income-eligible adults NOT on food stamps: 33% obese
Non-poor adults who of course don't even qualify for food stamps: 32% obese

Exhibit 5, here:

http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/defaul...-SNAP07-10.pdf

Eliminate Food Stamps. Keep WIC, but add more restrictions on what can be purchased with WIC benefits.
 
Old 05-18-2017, 07:08 AM
 
Location: Oklahoma
1,728 posts, read 552,456 times
Reputation: 806
Quote:
Originally Posted by DukerZ View Post
Sure why not. And can you answer my question directly without the imposition of quotes that you think support your idea that a representative federal government should not meet the needs of its people being represented? I'll wait.
Why would you want my opinion over that of the founders who actually formed the government? The federal government does meet its constitutional duties by providing national defense, infrastructure and other "general" services. Forced redistribution, by nature, is immoral.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/conserv...eral-govt/amp/
 
Old 05-18-2017, 07:09 AM
 
Location: Kansas
19,190 posts, read 13,273,372 times
Reputation: 18068
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mariatozz View Post
A large portion of Americans seem to be against social programs even though it may be for the common good. When there is talk of the (on average) much better social programs in many European countries the general response is "well, they have to spend more on taxes". To which I ask.....so? If it meant far better health care, far better maternity leave, etc. isn't that worth it? Do not the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one?
We can't afford to pay anymore taxes. Those of us that do work can't carry any more of the burden of those that want things to be "free" for them. Those that don't want to work now want the same things that other people have without working for it. Many people barely make ends meet now with both adults in the household working.
 
Old 05-18-2017, 07:10 AM
 
58,541 posts, read 25,625,523 times
Reputation: 7088
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
Except that the states who are the net takers of federal money are the 'red' states, with residents against government "handouts" to "those people."
How is that possible when VERY blue California has 12% of the US population, but 34% of the US's welfare population?

California: The welfare capital - The San Diego Union-Tribune

Your numbers just don't add up. Makes no sense unless federal spending other than means-tested welfare programs are included, like paying for military bases and personnel, etc.
 
Old 05-18-2017, 07:13 AM
 
8,173 posts, read 5,056,839 times
Reputation: 7871
Quote:
Originally Posted by TXStrat View Post
You can quote facts and figures all day long. Have you actually lived it? Have you lived in the United Kingdom, and used the National Health Service? I have, first hand. My wife nearly suffered a burst appendix because of the wait times associated with getting her into surgery. Post surgery, she spent the next 2 days in a 10 bed open bay ward, with patients being treated for everything from cancer, to pneumonia. This open bay room had unscreened windows that opened to street level on a major thoroughfare. Nothing like a healthy dose flying insects and diesel fumes to speed the healing process.

Everyone in the U.S. has access to care now. Hospitals cannot refuse to treat patients. We have Medicare, and Medicaid. Everyone is required by law to have insurance now. It sounds as if you just want free care, no matter how much it lowers the standard of care, so long as you don't have to pay, and everyone has the same lower level of care. Duly noted.
Everyone does not have insurance now. ERs only treat emergencies. Given a choice between that hospital ward room or get no care and die, it's a no brainer.
 
Old 05-18-2017, 07:15 AM
 
27,261 posts, read 18,654,176 times
Reputation: 16072
Quote:
Originally Posted by TXStrat View Post
Here's the trick, have you lived in Europe? I mean actually resided there, not just spent a vacation, or an exchange term at school there? I mean actually lived there for say three or more years? The problem with the fascination of the left in the U.S. with the feel-good social programs of Europe is their deliberate, and willful ignorance to the fact that those programs simply do not work. They are fiscally unsustainable. For a recent example, see the EU wide austerity measures from 2008-2010.

The reality is that yes, people in places like the U.K. do pay significantly higher taxes, but do not receive the "far better health care" you mention as a return on their investment. The NHS is in a shambles. It has operated in the red for nearly 2 decades. The quality of care is nowhere near what we enjoy in the U.S. Wait times for all elective procedures, and care rationing are very real things. I know this, because I lived there, and had to use the NHS for medical care.

So let me ask you in return, is it worth paying a significantly higher amount in taxes, and getting a lower standard of care in return, so long as everyone has the same low level of care?
I've never lived in Europe. Never set foot there.

But I do have many friends who've lived in various European and Scandinavian countries for years. Several of them still live there and are raising their families in their new home countries.

I've heard nothing but praise for these countries' social benefit systems. People that I've spoken with at length praise the systems for (a) providing basic services such as healthcare access at a reasonable cost and (b) alleviating the financial stressors associated with more capitalistic routes of paying for services.

Additionally, I consider myself well read on social benefits and have read numerous books either by economists or sociologists who have convinced me that these systems are sorely needed in today's world. I've also read many books by Europeans and Scandinavians who've told of their own accounts of living in such a system. They acknowledge the systems they lived under weren't perfect (what is?) but say its vastly preferable to living in a country like the US which is behind the times.
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.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top