First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Why do people think they deserve a free ride off of others work
63 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/18/10
As many has already pointed out, welfare is a government program. Know what else is a government program, where your taxpayer money is spent? Hospitals. Fire departments. Police departments. Old folks homes. Retirement. Banks. Airports. These are just a few of the government programs around and not just in the US.

In the US, there's also Medicaid, Medicare, NASA, among others. Without the government, you wouldn't have these commodities.

Quite stupidly, in fact, I've seen various Republicans holding signs, "Don't let the government touch my Medicare." That's how much they actually know.


But let's take a step back. We're getting off-topic. Welfare. Do you know how much people actually make from welfare? Hm?

Not enough to buy a flat-screen TV, that's for sure. Not enough to buy a fancy new car, that's for sure. It's to get by. With an apartment, you get enough to pay your rent, your electrics bill so you won't freeze and food so you won't starve. This is welfare.

Where did the lot of you get the idea that those with welfare are just lazy bums? When you say that, you clearly have not considered all the circumstances around it. If you're sick, or crippled, it's even worse, because then you need insurance to pay for the medical bills.
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 7/18/10 , edited 7/18/10

tarakelly wrote:

I am sorry my mistake 17th was correct Senate being voted in by popular vote is a mistake it kills states right; the 16th amendment is for income tax.


Ok that makes more sense from a libertarian perspective. I don't agree with it, but it's an opinion I can respect and would be willing to discuss and potentially change my mind about it if I were better informed on the subject.


and let the house the senate of each state picks the senators. The house was sit up for the people and the Electoral College has been under mind as well. Otherwise we might as will use the American idol floor mat to pick a president


I don't get what you're saying here. Are you saying that we should let states pick senators and take away power from the voters? Because that would mean you are in favor of repealing the 17th amendment, which means you're in favor of giving the government more power, which, again, is a blatant contradiction if you're a libertarian.


Now tell me how you can call a libertarian a far right extremist is that I do not agree with you, because to me I do not care what you do as long as theft and violence or to infringe on other people rights.


When it comes to fiscal policy, then yes libertarians are far-right because they want to reduce taxes and regulation as much as possible, no matter if deregulation has proven to be faulty in the past. But when it comes to civil liberties then they are far-left, since they want to let everyone do almost anything and everything they want to. So I guess that would mean that libertarians are moderate overall.

I didn't say all libertarians are far-right, just that many of the people I've talked to who claim to be libertarians are far-right.


At your age you’re still too young to comprehend what’s facing you.


The old "you're too young" argument. I've been hearing that since I was about 13 years old, and I always hear it when an older person can't logically discredit what I've said, so they just pull an ad hominem and say I'm too young to know what I'm talking about.


If your high school teacher have feed this crap to you asked them if they ever had a real job and had to compete with other. I bet ZERO most teacher go straight from college to school room.


Actually the teachers in my school had a wide variety of political views, and none of them ever forced their opinions on me. I know and understand all sorts of political views mainly because my teachers were all over the political spectrum, there was no clear conservative/liberal or Republican/Democrat split among them. On some issues they were neatly divided that way, on other issues they were all against each other, and on some they were all in agreement. So I didn't get spoon-fed any crap, I listened to many different perspectives and formed my own opinion based on what sounded most reasonable to me.

My teachers all had very different life stories as well, only 2 out of about 25 of them started teaching right after college, most were doing a variety of other things before they began teaching. A few even owned their own businesses on top of teaching, and they were all liberal when it came to fiscal policy and they voted for Obama. So there are people who do know what it's like to have to compete for work and maintain a business who would agree with much of what I believe in, which is evidence that I'm not totally naive.


Allhailodin wrote:


Cuddlebuns wrote:


A lot less than what we're spending now, which is why we need to end them or at least scale them down. These wars aren't doing anything to protect our country, so there's no need to be in them.


How is the war not doing anything to protect our country ? Its killing terrorists that would otherwise be killing American citizens.


That's what it was initially about, but if you kept up with current events then you'd know that killing terrorists isn't even one of our concerns in Afghanistan anymore:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/president-obamas-secret-100-al-qaeda-now-afghanistan/story?id=9227861


papagolfwhiskey wrote:

Actually the invasion of Iraq probably saved the US economy and as a consequence, my own countries economy. One of the things that props up the US dollar and keeps people buying into the ponzi scheme that is the federal reserve and T-bills is that fact that it's the only currency in which the world trades oil.

Saddam was threatening/planning to start trading Oil in Euros. that would have been VERY VERY bad for the economy. I wonder if in 40 years we'll look upon bush the way we look on another unpopular president who got involved in wars and stood up to the enemy of the day. ...

President Truman.



Well then I guess it's perfectly fine that tons of civilians and soldiers have died, stability in the Middle East has been further disrupted, the U.S government lied about WMDs and Iraq's connection to Al-Qaeda , and that Bush is a war criminal for violating international law but was never tried, since in the end we got to keep feeding our oil addiction, which is what really matters.
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 7/18/10 , edited 7/18/10

Pitchguest wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:


Cuddlebuns wrote:


A lot less than what we're spending now, which is why we need to end them or at least scale them down. These wars aren't doing anything to protect our country, so there's no need to be in them.


How is the war not doing anything to protect our country ? Its killing terrorists that would otherwise be killing American citizens.


That's a joke, right?

The terrorists make up less than half of the country's population. Most "terrorists" being killed are civilians incorrectly marked as terrorists. Don't take my word for it. Look it up.

Do you hold the lives of "American" (Youessian) citizens to a higher standard than those living in Iraq or Afghanistan?



That doesn't matter, innocents die in every war. The muslim extremists are taking over the governments of the countries in the Middle East, just like their doing to the governments in the countries in Europe, can't let them do that, if they do that their resources will grow exponentially, their access to weapons increases and most important so will monetary resources(tax monies, oil monies), they'll use to it do develop nuclear weapons like Iran is doing, can't let terrorists get their hands on nuclear weapons cause they'll use them without any form of restraint. And if they can make as many of them as they want, that's a formula for disaster.

Simple math

Muslim Extremists + Nuclear Weapons = Millions of deaths.

Muslim extremists have the mindset that anyone who isn't a Muslim is a traitor to Allah and must die, now put a nuclear bomb in that persons hands.

Doesn't matter if there's only 5 of them, only takes 1 person to detonate a nuclear bomb that can kill millions.

And no I don't value the lives of Americans more than others, I value my life more than others.
75432 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
49 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 7/18/10

Cuddlebuns wrote:

Well then I guess it's perfectly fine that tons of civilians and soldiers have died, stability in the Middle East has been further disrupted, the U.S government lied about WMDs and Iraq's connection to Al-Qaeda , and that Bush is a war criminal for violating international law but was never tried, since in the end we got to keep feeding our oil addiction, which is what really matters.


Relevance? your earlier point was that it did nothing for the US, I'm saying it may have actually done quite a lot. Now, you're quibiling about the price. That's a different argument and one I'd largely concede.

On the other hand there is a scholarly debate going on that the bombing of Dresden constitutes a war crime. that would make 'the great' Winston Churchill a war criminal and many servicemen among the allies parties to his crime.

There has long been evidence and argument that FDR knew that Pearl Harbour was going to happen and let happen in order to get america off it's ass an into World War II. You know, that 'good' War that was all about good vs. evil.

Yei on these very pages has gone on a long rant about Hiroshima and Nagasaki being all kinds of evil.

I'm not saying 'W' is a saint. I'm just pointing out that 40 years from now he may be viewed differently by history compared to how he's viewed under current events. There is a case to be made that he prevented a world economic debt bomb from going off 10 years ago. one that would have caused incalculable poverty and social disruption world wide. I'm not saying it justifies what happened I'm saying... things are never easily painted in unequivocal black and white.

Or course the bomb is still there....






10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 7/18/10 , edited 7/18/10

Cuddlebuns wrote:

That's what it was initially about, but if you kept up with current events then you'd know that killing terrorists isn't even one of our concerns in Afghanistan anymore:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/president-obamas-secret-100-al-qaeda-now-afghanistan/story?id=9227861


It only takes 1 person to detonate a nuclear bomb that can kill millions. And if that person can do it remotely, then 1 person can kill tens of millions with multiple nuclear bombs.

When Iran gets their nuclear capabilities the terrorists will now have access to nuclear bombs. If lets say 1 nuclear bomb could only kill 1 million people, then 100 terrorists(the amount in Afghanistan) could kill 100 million people. Tho in reality a single nuclear bomb can do more than 1 million people.

And there are still plenty of terrorists in other countries slowly taking those countries over. If they do that, their monetary resources will significantly grow.

Just a single terrorist has the potential to kill millions of people.

And there have always been a civilian deaths in every war ever. Its to be expected.

And the reason there is so many is that the terrorists dress up like the civilians, according some old ass war document i can't remember the name of(or maybe it was just an unspoken rule, i cant remember the details), after an war is initiated the soldiers from both sides are required to wear uniforms so they can be distinguished from civilians for exactly this reason, the terrorists ain't doing that, they bend in so well you can't tell them apart for shit until they've blow you up.
65911 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
54 / F / Atlanta GA
Offline
Posted 7/18/10
Trying to get back on topic do nonproductive in America deserve a free ride. The earned income tax credit, for having rodents, (aka) children I do not like that free money is give out for that. People get back far more than they paid in. there something wrong here. Why should anybody get money to make babies then get money for them? If you have them you should raise them nobody put a gun to their head and made have them. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If only 20% spent on military where dose the other 80% go to. 60% Ruff guess goes to SSI Medicaid Medicare and social security and government retirement programs. That leaves 20% to do whatever else. That is if it was a Real budget barrowing over 4 Trillion to make the budget work is crazy. A trillion dollars is a Billion x billion = Trillion By the way the house and senate are far more responsible for this night mare. Budget these clown have an open check book and do not care as long as they stay in power.
1142 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / F / PLACES
Offline
Posted 7/18/10

tarakelly wrote:


angrierchick wrote:


tarakelly wrote:

I have work many years putting in 4000 hour in a year that twice as much as 40 hour work week. Now I am semi-retired what right do people have to my money that I have worked for? Why would I want to pay the way for under achievers?


The same way that you also about to benefit from government programs. Retirement = social security = a government program.

Shall we take this away so that you feel better about "NOT TAKING FROM THAT DAMNED GOVERNMENT?"

Also, Obama is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. One thing I don't recall him having done during the election is claim that he's so much more liberal than he actually is. I do, however, think socialist is not a bad thing. If people remember properly, socialism was utilized almost 2 years ago when capitalism failed.


What do you not understand, about semi-retired most the job highly skilled and dangerous and paid well. I stared a small home renovation company and made money that way, I am not wealthy but I can make do with my nest egg. Now I do use the VA for medical but that from serving in the military. My truck is 22 year old so why do you keep on in sting I live off the government. I probably could if liquidated everything I own. My property tax is less than 600 a year my truck and home owner insurance is less than 500 a year.


That's probably why.

In addition, there is no way in hell that you are going to lead me to believe that from the time that you started working until the time that you're 'semi-retired', that you didn't pay into a bit of Social Security.
65911 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
54 / F / Atlanta GA
Offline
Posted 7/18/10
Within the first quarter I paid to the limit it out six years straight, with FICA tax. When you are running your company you have to match what is being taken from your employee check and my own check. It is the law lose the attitude if you can my life has sucked from the day I was born. I have my own monster in my head or should I say damage. Life not easy nor is it fair if you think that what it should be like you will be very disappointed. I grew up mental pain that has been crippling head ache through up the gift that keeps on giving. Head trauma from being tossed into walls tossed down stair wells as a child I begged god to kill me.
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 7/19/10 , edited 7/19/10

Allhailodin wrote:

It only takes 1 person to detonate a nuclear bomb that can kill millions. And if that person can do it remotely, then 1 person can kill tens of millions with multiple nuclear bombs.


So that means we have to send 1,000 troops to kill that one guy?


When Iran gets their nuclear capabilities the terrorists will now have access to nuclear bombs. If lets say 1 nuclear bomb could only kill 1 million people, then 100 terrorists(the amount in Afghanistan) could kill 100 million people. Tho in reality a single nuclear bomb can do more than 1 million people.


I guess we have to go invade Iran, start another war, and raise taxes to fund it.


And there are still plenty of terrorists in other countries slowly taking those countries over. If they do that, their monetary resources will significantly grow.


And while we're invading Iran we might as well go ahead and invade every other country in the world too, including ourselves, since there's terrorists everywhere.You never know when a kid will snap and shoot up his school, so we have to wage war on our own country to make sure that doesn't happen.


papagolfwhiskey wrote:

Relevance? your earlier point was that it did nothing for the US, I'm saying it may have actually done quite a lot. Now, you're quibiling about the price. That's a different argument and one I'd largely concede.


My point was that it is no longer doing anything for the U.S, so as far as I know there is no reason why we shouldn't be in the process of withdrawing or de-escalating our military presence. At the very least someone should be coming up with a plan for withdrawal, which, as far as I know, no one is doing or has done yet, meaning that the current plan is to stay there forever.
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 7/19/10 , edited 7/19/10

Cuddlebuns wrote:

So that means we have to send 1,000 troops to kill that one guy?


That's absolutely ridiculous, it would just take 1 sniper 1 bullet with the right intelligence.

Its all about the intelligence. Without it fighting terrorism isn't going accomplish shit.


I guess we have to go invade Iran, start another war, and raise taxes to fund it.


bah thats too expensive and horribly inefficient, its much cheaper and more efficient to form a blockade around the country and shut down all imports and exports, and everything else to. To my knowledge they aren't producing their own uranium so their importing it from somewhere. Their nuclear program would grind to a halt without uranium or funding.

But what your saying it, its better to let millions of people die in a nuclear explosion at the hands of terrorists than it is to try to prevent them from getting nuclear weapons in the first place. If they get nuclear weapons they won't hesitate to use them you know. Lots of people would die. Tens of thousands. That's ok with you as long as your not one of the dead ?


And while we're invading Iran we might as well go ahead and invade every other country in the world too, including ourselves, since there's terrorists everywhere.You never know when a kid will snap and shoot up his school, so we have to wage war on our own country to make sure that doesn't happen.


Its not very efficient to invade like that. Its more efficient to shut down the terrorists economically, without money their work grinds to a halt. But if they take over they get all that oil money and then you can't shut them down, and them getting nuclear weapons is unavoidable and they will undoubtedly use them and kill millions of people, but you've already said you don't care if they kill millions of people as long as your not one of them.

And frankly its unavoidable that kid shoots up a school every now and then. Sure its a tragedy and all, but there's really nothing you can do to stop it.
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 7/19/10

Allhailodin wrote:


Cuddlebuns wrote:

So that means we have to send 1,000 troops to kill that one guy?


That's absolutely ridiculous, it would just take 1 sniper 1 bullet with the right intelligence.

Its all about the intelligence. Without it fighting terrorism isn't going accomplish shit.


Then the U.s military isn't very intelligent. We have thousands of soldiers in Afghanistan chasing down 100 people who may or may not be there.



But what your saying it, its better to let millions of people die in a nuclear explosion at the hands of terrorists than it is to try to prevent them from getting nuclear weapons in the first place. If they get nuclear weapons they won't hesitate to use them you know. Lots of people would die. Tens of thousands. That's ok with you as long as your not one of the dead ?


No my point is that it's stupid to start wars because someone might be a threat, because then we'd have to wage war on the whole world. Like you said, there more efficient methods to handle possible threats than invasion, but instead of resorting to those we started a war. Of course terrorists need to be stopped, but preemptive war is not the best way to do that, and the only reason why we did it is because people are making money off of the war.

I never said it's ok for them to kill millions of people, don't put words in my mouth. If I supported senseless killing then I wouldn't be opposing these wars.



10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 7/19/10

Cuddlebuns wrote:

Then the U.s military isn't very intelligent. We have thousands of soldiers in Afghanistan chasing down 100 people who may or may not be there.


Tahts a complete waste, i could understand a few hundred soldiers, gotta gather information somehow.


No my point is that it's stupid to start wars because someone might be a threat, because then we'd have to wage war on the whole world. Like you said, there more efficient methods to handle possible threats than invasion, but instead of resorting to those we started a war. Of course terrorists need to be stopped, but preemptive war is not the best way to do that, and the only reason why we did it is because people are making money off of the war.


I think they started the war by flying a plane into a building. Actually you could go so far as to say they started it in 1993 when they tried to blow up the trade center with a car bomb in teh basement.


I never said it's ok for them to kill millions of people, don't put words in my mouth. If I supported senseless killing then I wouldn't be opposing these wars.


You say terrorists need to be stopped, but at the same time you want to end the war ? It doesn't quite work like that, the only thing that will stop them is some kind of force, They are not people who you can simply talk it out with. May not need an outright invasion, but some kind of force is required.

You really only have 2 options

A. Use some kind of force to stop them from acquiring and thus using nuclear weapons to kill people.
B. Don't use force and sit back and allow them to acquire nuclear weapons and thus use them to kill people

There is no option C.
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 7/19/10

Allhailodin wrote:
I think they started the war by flying a plane into a building. Actually you could go so far as to say they started it in 1993 when they tried to blow up the trade center with a car bomb in teh basement.


Those are the reasons why we went into Afghanistan, we're the ones who started the war in Iraq because they might be a threat (and for oil), which, as I said before, is stupid because we'd have to wage a war on everyone who might be a threat, including America itself.


You say terrorists need to be stopped, but at the same time you want to end the war ? It doesn't quite work like that, the only thing that will stop them is some kind of force, They are not people who you can simply talk it out with. May not need an outright invasion, but some kind of force is required.

You really only have 2 options

A. Use some kind of force to stop them from acquiring and thus using nuclear weapons to kill people.
B. Don't use force and sit back and allow them to acquire nuclear weapons and thus use them to kill people

There is no option C.


I know we need to use military force to stop terrorists, but that only justifies us initially going into Afghanistan, although there is still no legitimate reason why Obama sent another 30,000 troops, on top of however many were already there, to stop 100 or less guys.

We didn't go into Iraq because of terrorists or nukes, it was proven years ago that the whole WMDs, Iraq's connection to Al-Qaeda, and almost every other claim made by the Bush administration was a lie meant to scare us into supporting the war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War#Criticisms_of_the_rationale_for_the_Iraq_war

IMO we should reduce military presence in Afghanistan because, as you and I both agree, thousands of troops for 100 guys is overkill. We should also have a plan for gradually withdrawing from Iraq. I don't know the current state of the country, but I'm sure we've done too much damage to just withdraw everyone instantly. But, as of now, there are no plans to do either.

I never have and never will supported the idea of letting terrorists run free and nuke everyone, but I also do not support the idea of invading every country that might have terrorists in it. Unless it can be proven beyond all doubt that a country is a threat to our safety or the safety of our allies, there is no reason for us to go to war with them.


Posted 7/19/10

Cuddlebuns wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:
I think they started the war by flying a plane into a building. Actually you could go so far as to say they started it in 1993 when they tried to blow up the trade center with a car bomb in teh basement.


Those are the reasons why we went into Afghanistan, we're the ones who started the war in Iraq because they might be a threat (and for oil), which, as I said before, is stupid because we'd have to wage a war on everyone who might be a threat, including America itself.


You say terrorists need to be stopped, but at the same time you want to end the war ? It doesn't quite work like that, the only thing that will stop them is some kind of force, They are not people who you can simply talk it out with. May not need an outright invasion, but some kind of force is required.

You really only have 2 options

A. Use some kind of force to stop them from acquiring and thus using nuclear weapons to kill people.
B. Don't use force and sit back and allow them to acquire nuclear weapons and thus use them to kill people

There is no option C.


I know we need to use military force to stop terrorists, but that only justifies us initially going into Afghanistan, although there is still no legitimate reason why Obama sent another 30,000 troops, on top of however many were already there, to stop 100 or less guys.

We didn't go into Iraq because of terrorists or nukes, it was proven years ago that the whole WMDs, Iraq's connection to Al-Qaeda, and almost every other claim made by the Bush administration was a lie meant to scare us into supporting the war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War#Criticisms_of_the_rationale_for_the_Iraq_war


IMO we should reduce military presence in Afghanistan because, as you and I both agree, thousands of troops for 100 guys is overkill. We should also have a plan for gradually withdrawing from Iraq. I don't know the current state of the country, but I'm sure we've done too much damage to just withdraw everyone instantly. But, as of now, there are no plans to do either.

I never have and never will supported the idea of letting terrorists run free and nuke everyone, but I also do not support the idea of invading every country that might have terrorists in it. Unless it can be proven beyond all doubt that a country is a threat to our safety or the safety of our allies, there is no reason for us to go to war with them.




all it takes for people well most to wage war is not common sense but the to establish fear in the people that something might/will happen and also mention that Muslims are the bad-guys because they are different than us and we all know how most people in America view people that different >_>
65911 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
54 / F / Atlanta GA
Offline
Posted 7/19/10
all it takes for people well most to wage war is not common sense but the to establish fear in the people that something might/will happen and also mention that Muslims are the bad-guys because they are different than us and we all know how most people in America view people that different >_> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Look I would give fly bank but after (9-11) any Muslim country that makes an open threat of war they need to be taken as the declared war and treated as such. This wait and see stuff is silly, and get good people killed. I have met enough Muslims to understand they can not be trusted. Other than animal on a block and rip off from the new and old testaments praying 5 times a day towards Mecca and there supposed too go touch some silly block of stone. I just think there nuts.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.