You Have a RIGHT to Food and Health Care (prison, world, pay)
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.
If you have a "right" to free healthcare and food, then society has a right (and an obligation) to prevent you from bringing people like yourself into this world, if your existence (and the probable existence of your offspring) represents a net loss to society.
I've got no problem with providing services and sustenance to the poor (within reason). But when it becomes a matter of "rights", then that's something else, entirely. And I've got a huge problem with the poor and incapable breeding more poor and incapable. You cannot have a sustainable socialist state without Population Control and Eugenics.
If you have a "right" to free healthcare and food, then society has a right (and an obligation) to prevent you from bringing people like yourself into this world, if your existence (and the probable existence of your offspring) represents a net loss to society.
I've got no problem with providing services and sustenance to the poor (within reason). But when it becomes a matter of "rights", then that's something else, entirely. And I've got a huge problem with the poor and incapable breeding more poor and incapable. You cannot have a sustainable socialist state without Population Control and Eugenics.
Want to live free? Behave responsibly!
Just wondering... How do you know how a poor kid is going to grow up? Some poor kids do well in school, go to college and become professionals.
How do you suggest we execute the population control you suggest?
so the fact that 10,000 boomer retire everyday is NULLIFIED by the fact that 11,000-13,000 turn 18 every day
Nullified? Does that mean that those retiring boomers aren't getting SS and causing its outlay to increase? My goodness, what an interesting way to use statistics.
I remember in Romney's infamous 47% comments he spoke with disgust about those who thought they had a "right to health care... and food"
I think these are a right. Do you?
You think some people have the "right" to the earnings of working Americans? By what justification does the worker "owe" his income to someone who benefits him in no way, and who he doesn't even know? Why can't the worker choose to give charity to whomever he wishes?
If the justification is humanitarian, why aren't Americans ethically bound to pay for the food and health care of everyone on the planet? The answer could be: "Because there aren't enough Americans (300 million) with enough taxable income to confiscate to pay for the needy on a planet of over 6 billion."
The actual question is: "Why do working people (not "the rich" since income tax targets earned wages) OWE all "needy" people in the nation full health care and food, even if said "needy" are purely lazy or irresponsible, or here illegally?"
After that, the cost: "Will there be enough working people (now and in the future), making good enough taxable salaries, to support EVERYONE getting American-cost health care and food (knowing that politicians will not allow THEIR program power-sources to be cut, no matter what)? Can working taxpayers afford THAT entitlement on top of the ones that we already can't pay for, with the retirement of the Baby Boom PLUS the "tsunami" of government pension obligations, and a debt already over $16 trillion?
Instead of looking at expanding taxpayer-funded benefits, we must face that entitlements and debts we already already have are so far beyond the capability of the economy to handle, that our leaders are pursuing dollar devaluation--stealing the value of every dollar you earn, save or invest--to handle a total disaster of a financial situation.
I also hope someone can explain to me how that dependency rate of 3% in 2006 has bled the country dry. As opposed to war spending. And corporate welfare. And stuff.
Then again, of those 3% of eligible families, not even all of them actually accept assistance.
Yep, they're killin' us, all those lazy, good-for-nothing folks buying sports cars and golf clubs.
Could you possibly have come up with a more insanely left wing organization than the one you pulled your charts from? I read the short bios of these people... and WOW! Were the Center for American Progress, MoveOn.org, ThinkProgress.org and Democracy Now not available?
Please note that per the Heritage Foundation entitlement spending takes up 62% of the budget and national defense only takes 19%. That doesn't jive with National Priorities Project's 58% on Military (not even the entire national defense budget, just military spending).
It is a sad day when math is distorted by political ideology.
Edited to add the following:
Gotta love THIS little jewel! This video was on the National Priorities Project main page located here: Home - National Priorities Project
^^^ Watch this video
This IDIOT is trying to sell the idea that the "Fiscal Cliff" is a GOOD thing, only too much of one happening too fast! Are you serious???
Last edited by KS_Referee; 11-23-2012 at 04:47 PM..
Nullified? Does that mean that those retiring boomers aren't getting SS and causing its outlay to increase? My goodness, what an interesting way to use statistics.
uhm...less boomers are retiring during this recession
more people are coming of age to WORK, than boomers are retiring..many boomers are PUTTING OFF RETIRING right now
Nullified? Does that mean that those retiring boomers aren't getting SS and causing its outlay to increase? My goodness, what an interesting way to use statistics.
Guess you missed the part where I mentioned that I've been working all my life. Paid all my taxes even on my unemployment. And I do contribute to charity, with money and time. The world in which private charity can solve the world's social problems, however, has never existed and never will ... a fact of which I'm sure you're aware if you're honest with yourself.
That's why we have taxes. And oh, how I wish I was free to direct my tax money to feeding starving children instead of George and Dick's ever-profitable wars. You can argue all you want about "taking your money" to do stuff for others, but that's how the country works. We just differ on where we want to spend it.
And government-directed spending of monies taken at gunpoint in ever-increasing amounts from taxpayers has not, and never will, solve even this country's social problems, let alone those of the world.
If your personal contributions make you sleep better at night, that's good. Mine do as well. It's the giving of my hard-earned tax dollars to entitlement programs that troubles me. Back to the OP, I do not feel that food and healthcare are "rights" given that no one is being denied the opportunity gain these for and by themselves. "Rights" do not involve direct economic costs to society to provide them.
You want to pursue happiness? Go ahead, have at it. No cost to us. Free speech? Talk all you want but I'm not buying you a soap box. Freedom of assembly? There's a readily-available park for you and your friends to peacefully congregate at. Now if you want a flu shot, then you have to buy it as I'm not ponying up the cost of either the med or the needle while I have kids of my own to buy for. You want to eat? Then work diligently enough to produce funds to do so. No one is stopping you.
Eliminating the poor by giving them money and stuff doesn't work. I'd advocate lower the number of poor by lowering the number of poor. Eliminate entitlements that expand when poor families expand - e.g., no additional funds for producing kids (which in such cases is simply a side effect of their recreational activities.) And people say "eugenics" like it's a bad word...
Last edited by Workin_Hard; 11-23-2012 at 06:56 PM..
Nullified? Does that mean that those retiring boomers aren't getting SS and causing its outlay to increase? My goodness, what an interesting way to use statistics.
Apparently, he/she doesn't realize that the boomers have only just begun to retire. The boomers who are retiring today, likely are not at full retirement age as only a small percentage has reached full retirement age for SS. The first of the big wave of boomers were born in 1947 and will reach age 66 in this coming year. They may or may not retire but most will opt to start collecting social security as there will be no tax pentalty for staying in the work force and collecting social security.
Also, those like my dh who have minor children children will also become eligible for SS benefits. We had no idea dd would get her own ss check. That was a pleasant surprise. We found out when the father or one of her friends went on SS and his son (her friend) started getting his own check. Of course, she thinks that we're going to hand it to her like his parents did. NOT. It's going in her college fund. (I only mention this as dh and I were not aware of this until recently. It does make his retiring next year much easier).
Last edited by Ivorytickler; 11-23-2012 at 06:26 PM..
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.
My goodness, what an interesting way to use statistics.
The boomers who are retiring today, likely are not at full retirement age as only a small percentage has reached full retirement age for SS. The first of the big wave of boomers were born in 1947 and will reach age 66 in this coming year. They may or may not retire but most will opt to start collecting social security as there will be no tax pentalty for staying in the work force and collecting social security. 
