Everyone who pays tax in Ireland pays for those who want to go to university - it is not just a gift bestowed out of benevolence by those who are smart & successful but by every tax payer. In fact most people who are smart and successful usually try to pay as little tax as they can..Phantom2828 wrote:
Who pays for you to go to school. Thats right the people that are smart and successful. You you make good money you say. Well imagine how much more you would be making if you didn't have to pay for lazy people mooching (which undoubtedly happens).CameronPoe wrote:
You are missing the argument. My argument is in favour of taxing the rich to facilitate the development of the less well off. I would not have been able to obtain said degree if it were not for our generous welfare system here in Ireland. It goes without saying that you won't progress unless you work hard but affording everyone as much oppportunity to be able to make it, meeting them half way, is what I'm about.lowing wrote:
Yes yes, but you CHOSE TO GO TO SCHOOL, right???? You came from a poor family, WANTED a higher education and with assistence got it!!.........Cam, you are doing nothing but proving my point. I just don't get it. YOu took the inititive to finsh school and now you are prospering from your decision. Congrats.
PS ....I noted the "worked hard" in your post as well.............Now you know the point I have been trying to make all this time...........thank you
The answer to that is, make sure you are marketable....Not just for your chosen profession, but to be versatile enough to adjust, (like I had to ). You are a desireable employee not just for your resume' but also your work history, your integrity, your personality.CameronPoe wrote:
You have failed to address what should be done when the labour force exceeds the number of jobs.lowing wrote:
Exactly Cam, I heard it again, "hard work" and if their situation doesn't improve after 24 frickin years, then who ya wanna blame??CameronPoe wrote:
Well you would hope their conditions have improved, through hard work, having been afforded every opportunity to succeed through a welfare system that compensates for the poor start in life they receive.
see, my point?? You can't escape the reality of being responsible for ourselves, and if we are a failure due to lack of ambition, trying, or responsibility it is nobodies fault except your own. YOu yourself as well as Jonsimon can't even give a scenario without throwing in "hard work"......It is a MUST, if you are going to succeed in life. No I do not neen another Bill Gates, I mean simply a comfortable living.
I simply do not feel society should be burdened with some no good lazy piece of shit and their self induced problems....If they don't care enough to help themselves, why do I need to worry about it.
Also, you didn't answer my question...............Would our tax money be better served helping those that strive for a better life? Or wasting it on those that are looking for a free ride??
If you loose your job, that would mean you actually HAD A JOB TO loose. IF you had a job, and you lost it, there are programs in place to help you ( unemployment ). Anyway, having a descent job and losing it due to furlough,is a ciumstance beyond your control and is also temporary, therefore, does not fit into the scenario I described as a life style
Last edited by lowing (2006-10-21 16:45:38)
Punishing others financially isnt answering the problem (i.e. over taxing people to "help poor and misfortunate"). You liberals are assuming that the money collected from over taxation goes to all the proper outlets.
The bottom line is Democrats and liberals are stuck in FDR's "New Deal" policy. . . .
This isnt't the 1940's, and over taxing people to create grandiose social programs is a thing of the past. Over taxing people with this uptopian ideal that if we do that, the economy will be fine, is FOOLHARDY. All raising/overtaxing does, is drive more businesses/people away to other countries or out of state. We used to be a country that prided ourselves on manufacturing goods and services. Now all we seem "manufacture" is "entertainment" and "web design/services", that is not going to sustain us!! Look at the upper mid west!! All those automobile factories have been driven out of the country or state, do to OVER TAXING and or stricter regulations of their companies!!
We need to stop punishing those who make money!!!! Because the more money they save, the more products and services are able to be produced HERE in the USA. Therefore, creating jobs, allowing people to get out of poverty, etc etc i.e. Living the "American Dream".
Just collecting money with the ASSUMPTION that if we do that, we are doing the right thing, is WRONG!!!!!!
Why do you think major US companies outsource alot of their labor, and move their headquarters out of the USA?? BECAUSE THEY GET OVER TAXED AND OVER REGULATED!! We need to get these businesses back HERE at home, so we can create jobs and take care of our country/citizens.
The bottom line is Democrats and liberals are stuck in FDR's "New Deal" policy. . . .
This isnt't the 1940's, and over taxing people to create grandiose social programs is a thing of the past. Over taxing people with this uptopian ideal that if we do that, the economy will be fine, is FOOLHARDY. All raising/overtaxing does, is drive more businesses/people away to other countries or out of state. We used to be a country that prided ourselves on manufacturing goods and services. Now all we seem "manufacture" is "entertainment" and "web design/services", that is not going to sustain us!! Look at the upper mid west!! All those automobile factories have been driven out of the country or state, do to OVER TAXING and or stricter regulations of their companies!!
We need to stop punishing those who make money!!!! Because the more money they save, the more products and services are able to be produced HERE in the USA. Therefore, creating jobs, allowing people to get out of poverty, etc etc i.e. Living the "American Dream".
Just collecting money with the ASSUMPTION that if we do that, we are doing the right thing, is WRONG!!!!!!
Why do you think major US companies outsource alot of their labor, and move their headquarters out of the USA?? BECAUSE THEY GET OVER TAXED AND OVER REGULATED!! We need to get these businesses back HERE at home, so we can create jobs and take care of our country/citizens.
Last edited by fadedsteve (2006-10-21 16:53:51)
That's why call centres were inventedCameronPoe wrote:
You have failed to address what should be done when the labour force exceeds the number of jobs.
LOLIG-Calibre wrote:
That's why call centres were inventedCameronPoe wrote:
You have failed to address what should be done when the labour force exceeds the number of jobs.
OMFG what you just said was pure genious srly plus 1fadedsteve wrote:
Punishing others financially isnt answering the problem (i.e. over taxing people to "help poor and misfortunate"). You liberals are assuming that the money collected from over taxation goes to all the proper outlets.
The bottom line is Democrats and liberals are stuck in FDR's "New Deal" policy. . . .
This isnt't the 1940's, and over taxing people to create grandiose social programs is a thing of the past. Over taxing people with this uptopian ideal that if we do that, the economy will be fine, is FOOLHARDY. All raising/overtaxing does, is drive more businesses/people away to other countries or out of state. We used to be a country that prided ourselves on manufacturing goods and services. Now all we seem "manufacture" is "entertainment" and "web design/services", that is not going to sustain us!! Look at the upper mid west!! All those automobile factories have been driven out of the country or state, do to OVER TAXING and or stricter regulations of their companies!!
We need to stop punishing those who make money!!!! Because the more money they save, the more products and services are able to be produced HERE in the USA. Therefore, creating jobs, allowing people to get out of poverty, etc etc i.e. Living the "American Dream".
Just collecting money with the ASSUMPTION that if we do that, we are doing the right thing, is WRONG!!!!!!
Why do you think major US companies outsource alot of their labor, and move their headquarters out of the USA?? BECAUSE THEY GET OVER TAXED AND OVER REGULATED!! We need to get these businesses back HERE at home, so we can create jobs and take care of our country/citizens.
I assume you favour abolishing welfare then.fadedsteve wrote:
Punishing others financially isnt answering the problem (i.e. over taxing people to "help poor and misfortunate"). You liberals are assuming that the money collected from over taxation goes to all the proper outlets.
The bottom line is Democrats and liberals are stuck in FDR's "New Deal" policy. . . .
This isnt't the 1940's, and over taxing people to create grandiose social programs is a thing of the past. Over taxing people with this uptopian ideal that if we do that, the economy will be fine, is FOOLHARDY. All raising/overtaxing does, is drive more businesses/people away to other countries or out of state. We used to be a country that prided ourselves on manufacturing goods and services. Now all we seem "manufacture" is "entertainment" and "web design/services", that is not going to sustain us!! Look at the upper mid west!! All those automobile factories have been driven out of the country or state, do to OVER TAXING and or stricter regulations of their companies!!
We need to stop punishing those who make money!!!! Because the more money they save, the more products and services are able to be produced HERE in the USA. Therefore, creating jobs, allowing people to get out of poverty, etc etc i.e. Living the "American Dream".
Just collecting money with the ASSUMPTION that if we do that, we are doing the right thing, is WRONG!!!!!!
Why do you think major US companies outsource alot of their labor, and move their headquarters out of the USA?? BECAUSE THEY GET OVER TAXED AND OVER REGULATED!! We need to get these businesses back HERE at home, so we can create jobs and take care of our country/citizens.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Absolutely, its a failed exploited financial policy. . .Spark wrote:
I assume you favour abolishing welfare then.fadedsteve wrote:
Punishing others financially isnt answering the problem (i.e. over taxing people to "help poor and misfortunate"). You liberals are assuming that the money collected from over taxation goes to all the proper outlets.
The bottom line is Democrats and liberals are stuck in FDR's "New Deal" policy. . . .
This isnt't the 1940's, and over taxing people to create grandiose social programs is a thing of the past. Over taxing people with this uptopian ideal that if we do that, the economy will be fine, is FOOLHARDY. All raising/overtaxing does, is drive more businesses/people away to other countries or out of state. We used to be a country that prided ourselves on manufacturing goods and services. Now all we seem "manufacture" is "entertainment" and "web design/services", that is not going to sustain us!! Look at the upper mid west!! All those automobile factories have been driven out of the country or state, do to OVER TAXING and or stricter regulations of their companies!!
We need to stop punishing those who make money!!!! Because the more money they save, the more products and services are able to be produced HERE in the USA. Therefore, creating jobs, allowing people to get out of poverty, etc etc i.e. Living the "American Dream".
Just collecting money with the ASSUMPTION that if we do that, we are doing the right thing, is WRONG!!!!!!
Why do you think major US companies outsource alot of their labor, and move their headquarters out of the USA?? BECAUSE THEY GET OVER TAXED AND OVER REGULATED!! We need to get these businesses back HERE at home, so we can create jobs and take care of our country/citizens.
Why would you want to work, if the government is handing you a check? ? ? ? Where is the motivation in that. . . . I know when I was a kid, and my parents were giving me money, I had no work ethic whatsoever! Obiviously there are extreme cases for people who REALLY need help. However they should be taken on an individual basis, so that funds are distributed to the right people who really need the money. Not blanket checks just because you are poor. . . that isnt helping the government, the peoples motivation to work, or the taxpayers.
Once I went to school, stopped getting allowance, and went to work, I realized what the value of a dollar really is worth!!! Its not easy to get a job, make money and be successful, you have to work at it! at 27 yrs old I understand that being a success story isnt going to fall into my lap! If I want to continue to make the money, I am going to have to work for it PERIOD!
If I want to be a slug and not work, quit my job and collect unemployment, I could do that. . . But I am not a freeloading lazy guy, and that mindset wasnt the way I was raised. Unfortunately, we have people in this country who have no problem getting and staying on the government payroll. . . As a taxpayer I have a right to not want my hard earned dollars going to those kind of people.
I will continue to vote for politicians who share this same view about wellfare. . .
Last edited by fadedsteve (2006-10-21 19:16:36)
What's the point in a check that affords you no comfort or luxury whatsover - it's hardly enough to warrant someone being lazy - it's pretty paltry here in Europe: just enough to stay afloat, thus incentivising going out and getting a job.fadedsteve wrote:
Why would you want to work, if the government is handing you a check? ? ? ?
Listen Mr Bleeding Heart. First off, you can join the military without a high school education if you sign a waiver ensuring you obtain a GED or HS equivilancy within one year of active duty enlistment. Do your research. Second, you were very quick to place blame on the society for the military being an option. It is an OPTION. That means there are other ways, I just listed that one because it is the route I took and is the option I can speak of from experience. Third, you stated so matter of factly that I have never endured a situation or time frame in my life where I suffered hardship. WRONG AGAIN. I have been on my own from the age of 16. I worked three jobs to pay rent as a teenager and barely passed high school. I busted my ass and joined the Marine Corps because I had nothing else, literaly, and received my BA in Criminal Justice. I had to sweat, bleed, and see my best friend (the only family I had left) shot to shit in Kosovo to earn what is mine. Never once, and I mean ONCE did I blame anyone. There is nobody to blame, not even myself. You get shit cards in life sometimes, be a fucking man and deal with it. I now have a family and I swear every day I will work so hard to make sure my son never has to deal with what I did. I will give him the world or die trying so that way he can someday be accused by liberals that he is the problem with society. You know, there are some people here that I dont agree with at all, SHIPBUILDER is one of the many, but at least he is intelligent and can support debate with facts. You sir are an idiot and I am now dumber for having shared a debate with you. Instead of responding to this go to the many I hate Republican threads and embarass your political party some more.Masques wrote:
In this situation:deeznutz1245 wrote:
You can join some branches of the service until your early thirties. That is a job. Also, you can recieve a college education and eventualy get a better one.you are most certainly going to be denied entrance in the military. You don't have a HS education, your ASVAB scores are going to be dismally low, and you probably will have other financial engagements that will eat into your enlistment bonus (if there is any). I would question how many "opportunities" are available in any society where military service is literally the only exit route for someone poor. It's easy to say "well, just join the military. It's a job." Truely the words of someone who has never had many opportunities denied them.jonsimon wrote:
The job market. If there are no jobs, then you cannot get a job. That's the complaint with immigration. Game over. It happens, and people like you spit on those it happens to, whether you know it or not. There a million things out of one's control that can keep a man in poverty forever. Besides, how can a highschool dropout get an education? Community colleges won't accept dropouts, anyone over 21 is out of highschool for good. And education costs money, if a man is poor and severely indebted, it doesn't make sense that he can afford any schooling. You simply don't understand what POOR means. It means you have no money you do not owe to someone else. It means debt up to your ears, and you can't pay it because you're barely making enough to keep yourself alive. You middle class right wingers that rant about oppertunities need to get it through your heads that you don't know what poor is.
Malloy must go
What in fucking hell does that have to do with where you were born?lowing wrote:
Nope I don't, ya know why? because I took responsibility for myself and got educated, I didn't let anything stop me.jonsimon wrote:
You also don't live in the ghetto or inner city. Or any area of poverty for that matter.lowing wrote:
Yeah ya got me, I personally know of 57 people whose parents MADE them drop out of HS.
Expelled??.........personal responsibility........you should be studying in school and shit that will get you expelled.
Parents die, so instinctively you drop out of school??........I put that up there with Hurricane Katrina happens, so naturally, I must go break into a store and steal a plasma TV.
You have not posted one reason to through your life away.
Obviously someone should be punished all their life for pantsing someone.
If the parents die in a poor family, the son or daughter has to work for a living.
NO, they shouldn't and they are not, being expelled from one school does not mean you can't finish HS. This is a cop out and you know it.
Yup, maybe so, the key words are "WORK FOR A LIVING". If they are working for a living then they are HELPING THEMSELVES........IF THEY ARE HELPING THEMSELVES, then I am all in favor of helping them.
However, if at 40 years old, you still have not warranted a pay raise from the minimum wage since you were 16, or been able to take care of yourself, since,after all, it has now been 24 god damn years, and your siblings would have grown up and moved on as well, then you are still out of excuses.
Oh yeah, I forgot, EVERYONE CAN AFFORD TO MOVE AND BUY A NEW HOUSE WITH LOANS THEY CAN GET WITHOUT ANY CREDIT AT ALL. You're so dumb, assuming POOR people can do things that require MONEY.
Yeah, work for a MINIMUM WAGE LIVING AT THE POVERTY LEVEL FOR THEIR WHOLE LIFE. And if they're supporting their mother? They're making even less for themself.
Face it lowing, I answered your question, there are many ways a person can be kept at the poverty level without an education.
Last edited by jonsimon (2006-10-22 07:40:24)
No jonsimon, you are proving my point!.. OF COURSE you can be kept at poverty level without education. THAT IS MY POINT.......What I am trying to get you to tell me is how in America, a person can go their whole life WITH an excuse as to why they couldn't get an education at least to a HS diploma or a GED then go earn a living.jonsimon wrote:
What in fucking hell does that have to do with where you were born?lowing wrote:
Nope I don't, ya know why? because I took responsibility for myself and got educated, I didn't let anything stop me.jonsimon wrote:
You also don't live in the ghetto or inner city. Or any area of poverty for that matter.
Obviously someone should be punished all their life for pantsing someone.
If the parents die in a poor family, the son or daughter has to work for a living.
NO, they shouldn't and they are not, being expelled from one school does not mean you can't finish HS. This is a cop out and you know it.
Yup, maybe so, the key words are "WORK FOR A LIVING". If they are working for a living then they are HELPING THEMSELVES........IF THEY ARE HELPING THEMSELVES, then I am all in favor of helping them.
However, if at 40 years old, you still have not warranted a pay raise from the minimum wage since you were 16, or been able to take care of yourself, since,after all, it has now been 24 god damn years, and your siblings would have grown up and moved on as well, then you are still out of excuses.
Oh yeah, I forgot, EVERYONE CAN AFFORD TO MOVE AND BUY A NEW HOUSE WITH LOANS THEY CAN GET WITHOUT ANY CREDIT AT ALL. You're so dumb, assuming POOR people can do things that require MONEY.
Yeah, work for a MINIMUM WAGE LIVING AT THE POVERTY LEVEL FOR THEIR WHOLE LIFE. And if they're supporting their mother? They're making even less for themself.
Face it lowing, I answered your question, there are many ways a person can be kept at the poverty level without an education.
You are tap dancing around and around.....If there is an excuse for a middle aged person who is able bodied and mentally sound to NEVER get at least a HS diploma, and work toward bettering their lives, with all the assistance already available to them, I WANT TO KNOW WHAT IT IS. THERE IS NO EXCUSE. Not even the mighty Cameronpoe can think of one. He is tap dancing as well.
Did you ever think you would be better suited t o taking care of your 180 year old mother if you had the resources to do so??
Also you and Camronpoe still will not touch my other question: DON'T YOU THINK OUR TAX DOLLARS WOULD BE BETTER SERVED HELPING THOSE THAT ARE TRUELY UNABLE TO HELP THEMSELVES RATHER THAN SPEND IT ON THOSE THAT SIMPLY CHOSE NOT TO HELP THEMSELVES?
Wtf are you talking about? You asked for reasons someone would be poor without choosing to be. So I supplied them. You're the one telling me poor people have the money to do things like move and go to college.lowing wrote:
No jonsimon, you are proving my point!.. OF COURSE you can be kept at poverty level without education. THAT IS MY POINT.......What I am trying to get you to tell me is how in America, a person can go their whole life WITH an excuse as to why they couldn't get an education at least to a HS diploma or a GED then go earn a living.jonsimon wrote:
What in fucking hell does that have to do with where you were born?lowing wrote:
Nope I don't, ya know why? because I took responsibility for myself and got educated, I didn't let anything stop me.
NO, they shouldn't and they are not, being expelled from one school does not mean you can't finish HS. This is a cop out and you know it.
Yup, maybe so, the key words are "WORK FOR A LIVING". If they are working for a living then they are HELPING THEMSELVES........IF THEY ARE HELPING THEMSELVES, then I am all in favor of helping them.
However, if at 40 years old, you still have not warranted a pay raise from the minimum wage since you were 16, or been able to take care of yourself, since,after all, it has now been 24 god damn years, and your siblings would have grown up and moved on as well, then you are still out of excuses.
Oh yeah, I forgot, EVERYONE CAN AFFORD TO MOVE AND BUY A NEW HOUSE WITH LOANS THEY CAN GET WITHOUT ANY CREDIT AT ALL. You're so dumb, assuming POOR people can do things that require MONEY.
Yeah, work for a MINIMUM WAGE LIVING AT THE POVERTY LEVEL FOR THEIR WHOLE LIFE. And if they're supporting their mother? They're making even less for themself.
Face it lowing, I answered your question, there are many ways a person can be kept at the poverty level without an education.
You are tap dancing around and around.....If there is an excuse for a middle aged person who is able bodied and mentally sound to NEVER get at least a HS diploma, and work toward bettering their lives, with all the assistance already available to them, I WANT TO KNOW WHAT IT IS. THERE IS NO EXCUSE. Not even the mighty Cameronpoe can think of one. He is tap dancing as well.
Did you ever think you would be better suited t o taking care of your 180 year old mother if you had the resources to do so??
Also you and Camronpoe still will not touch my other question: DON'T YOU THINK OUR TAX DOLLARS WOULD BE BETTER SERVED HELPING THOSE THAT ARE TRUELY UNABLE TO HELP THEMSELVES RATHER THAN SPEND IT ON THOSE THAT SIMPLY CHOSE NOT TO HELP THEMSELVES?
Sorry, I never saw that question, sure you asked it? And sorry, but I haven't found any poor people that choose to be poor yet. So, yes, our money is best spent of the poor, who do not choose to be poor.
Last edited by jonsimon (2006-10-22 08:31:25)
No, I asked how a middle age person who is able bodied and of sound mind could spend theri whole lives in poverty. You did not answer that. Anyone that tries can live at least a lower middle class living. THere is no excuse for a person to spend their entire life on govt. assistance. Except laziness and lack of drive ambition.jonsimon wrote:
Wtf are you talking about? You asked for reasons someone would be poor without choosing to be. So I supplied them. You're the one telling me poor people have the money to do things like move and go to college.lowing wrote:
No jonsimon, you are proving my point!.. OF COURSE you can be kept at poverty level without education. THAT IS MY POINT.......What I am trying to get you to tell me is how in America, a person can go their whole life WITH an excuse as to why they couldn't get an education at least to a HS diploma or a GED then go earn a living.jonsimon wrote:
What in fucking hell does that have to do with where you were born?
Oh yeah, I forgot, EVERYONE CAN AFFORD TO MOVE AND BUY A NEW HOUSE WITH LOANS THEY CAN GET WITHOUT ANY CREDIT AT ALL. You're so dumb, assuming POOR people can do things that require MONEY.
Yeah, work for a MINIMUM WAGE LIVING AT THE POVERTY LEVEL FOR THEIR WHOLE LIFE. And if they're supporting their mother? They're making even less for themself.
Face it lowing, I answered your question, there are many ways a person can be kept at the poverty level without an education.
You are tap dancing around and around.....If there is an excuse for a middle aged person who is able bodied and mentally sound to NEVER get at least a HS diploma, and work toward bettering their lives, with all the assistance already available to them, I WANT TO KNOW WHAT IT IS. THERE IS NO EXCUSE. Not even the mighty Cameronpoe can think of one. He is tap dancing as well.
Did you ever think you would be better suited t o taking care of your 180 year old mother if you had the resources to do so??
Also you and Camronpoe still will not touch my other question: DON'T YOU THINK OUR TAX DOLLARS WOULD BE BETTER SERVED HELPING THOSE THAT ARE TRUELY UNABLE TO HELP THEMSELVES RATHER THAN SPEND IT ON THOSE THAT SIMPLY CHOSE NOT TO HELP THEMSELVES?
Sorry, I never saw that question, sure you asked it? And sorry, but I haven't found any poor people that choose to be poor yet, so, yes, our money is best spent of the poor, who do not choose to be poor.
I have never found any poor people that wanted to be poor either. I have, however, seen plenty of people not willing to work their way out of it.
You make some good points, but there should be a distinction made between aiding people in need and helping people to live off of the system.jonsimon wrote:
Thomas Payne and our founding fathers based their democratic government on the ideals that the government serves the people, a slight contrast from the european monarchies of the time. If supporting your people when in need is not serving them, I don't know what is.
As for citations, sorry, but my AP US covered the revolution back in the beginning of last year, and I'm not going to dredge anything up for no reason.
Here's the thing, everyone has a limit to how much they believe the government is responsible for the less fortunate. The founding fathers each had their own idea on this, as do each of us. The net effect of this discussion with regards to policy making is that the policy of government should reflect what the average citizen wants.
As far as I've seen, the average citizen thinks the welfare system is faulty and should be further limited in what it should provide for people. Working class citizens understandably don't like how a large portion of their taxes are funding people that don't support themselves through their own work.
Again, these are good points, but the modern system of welfare does have some major problems. I would argue a state-based system would work better than a federal one. Inevitably, this means some states would have less funding to work with than others, but why should a prosperous state like New York have to take up the slack for a poor state like Mississippi? I just feel the federal welfare system holds back the productivity and development of the wealthier states.jonsimon wrote:
Who said free ride? Barely surviving on government provided food while others make incredible profits off of government subsidies is not a free ride. There is no on off switch for success. We can preserve the right of everyone to succeed while preserving the right of everyone to feed themselves. Living on minimum wage is not the same as rolling on twenties.
You may have an outdated document, but I have the minds of all our founding fathers and the greats Thomas Payne and Adam Smith. That's the royal flush of revolutionaries.
If barely living on government provided food is a free ride, then yes, some should have a free ride while others work for success.
Also, I wanted to mention that I'm totally against any form of corporate welfare as well. Giving to the poor is one thing, but giving to the rich is ridiculous.
Last edited by Turquoise (2006-10-22 09:50:31)
It is, as you say, an option, but the thrust of my post was to say that if you are so poor that your only option is military service, society has failed at that point. It is true that if you don't get the requisite score on the ASVAB you can be denied enlistment and there are waivers for non-HS grads, but if you're coming from the situation we're talking about, the military might even be an option that is unavailable.deeznutz1245 wrote:
Listen Mr Bleeding Heart. First off, you can join the military without a high school education if you sign a waiver ensuring you obtain a GED or HS equivilancy within one year of active duty enlistment. Do your research. Second, you were very quick to place blame on the society for the military being an option. It is an OPTION. That means there are other ways, I just listed that one because it is the route I took and is the option I can speak of from experience. Third, you stated so matter of factly that I have never endured a situation or time frame in my life where I suffered hardship. WRONG AGAIN. I have been on my own from the age of 16. I worked three jobs to pay rent as a teenager and barely passed high school. I busted my ass and joined the Marine Corps because I had nothing else, literaly, and received my BA in Criminal Justice. I had to sweat, bleed, and see my best friend (the only family I had left) shot to shit in Kosovo to earn what is mine. Never once, and I mean ONCE did I blame anyone. There is nobody to blame, not even myself. You get shit cards in life sometimes, be a fucking man and deal with it. I now have a family and I swear every day I will work so hard to make sure my son never has to deal with what I did. I will give him the world or die trying so that way he can someday be accused by liberals that he is the problem with society. You know, there are some people here that I dont agree with at all, SHIPBUILDER is one of the many, but at least he is intelligent and can support debate with facts. You sir are an idiot and I am now dumber for having shared a debate with you. Instead of responding to this go to the many I hate Republican threads and embarass your political party some more.
Did I insult you personally somehow? Because your answer is somewhat incoherent. Never did I say that those more well off are the problem with society. I'm saying that society as it currently stands has some serious structural problems.
I'm politically unafiliated. So apparently, despite your head being located there, your ass must still have had room for that political party bit that you pulled out of there.
Believe it or not, some would call you an economic moderate, rather than an economic conservative. I personally believe in privatizing education completely, since I'm an economically conservative Libertarian.lowing wrote:
I support govt. funded social programs, free college for those that need it, low interest college loans, child care credits, etc....for ANYONE who is trying ot help themselves.
I do not support taking care of an able bodied 30 year old who makes "minimum wage" for no other reason than, his lack of drive, ambition, or attitude. This is something I have said 10,000 times and I just can't get you liberals to admit that it is a reasonable request to ask of any able bodied person.
Ummmmmmm, I dunno what to say...........you maintain our Constitution is "outdated" and therfore, I can only assume, irrelevent. Yet you praise our founding fathers all of who actually signed it.
If you are going ot ride the US gravy train, do you not agree that you better have a good reason why you are on board???
While I agree that we need to take a closer look at the kind of people we subsidize on welfare, I believe your approach to refuting jonsimon is rather illogical. He may have called the Constitution outdated, but that is a relevant observation considering we occasionally make amendments to it. Perhaps, it is time we made a few more....
I could be wrong here, but I thought most soup kitchens were run by churches.jonsimon wrote:
You might think different if you had ever suffered in your life. Sorry, but minimum wage isn't a choice, no one choses to be the bottom of the food chain. What about the dirt poor, would you support government run soup kitchens? Or is that too commie socialist liberal evil terrorist loving for you?
I agree with this. It is true that not everyone is afforded the same opportunities. We live in a classist system, because every country is classist to a point. I think a much better argument for less socialism in America is that most of us are given enough of an opportunity to become self-sufficient. Some people do fall through the cracks, and others are people that inherit fortunes (like Bush). Obviously, this means we're not all equals with regards to opportunity.CameronPoe wrote:
Lowing is trying to say everyone is afforded the same opportunity in life. That is simply completely untrue. And yet he persists with his line of 'reasoning' carefully skirting the actual realities of life as applied to the totality of everyone within the nation.
Nonetheless, America is much better than most of the world when it comes to giving a minimum but feasible amount of opportunity to its poorer citizens.
Um... I realize you were probably using hyperbole in your comparison, but investment and saving are rarely as successful as you imply.Phantom2828 wrote:
You don't deserve money if you don't make smart decisions and spend your money on booze and cheap hookers. Smart decisions.
Education is by far the most important factor. Everyone has the power to finish HS its free and provided by the government. Did you know that if you finished HS and someone else didn't you both got a job and you saved the difference in pay you make in a bank with interest you would have 6.5 million dollars at age 65.
So remember kids finish HS and don't spend your money on cheap booze and hookers and you will be ok.
Nevertheless, I agree with the principle of your post.
Democrats aren't the only people that prefer spending a lot of money on social programs. Neocons do this as well. Bush isn't exactly an economic conservative when it comes to government spending.fadedsteve wrote:
It seems that the democrats seem to enjoy paying the difference for people who choose to fail. I think thats bad policy, and I dont think my taxes should be increased to pay the difference for that.
Given the choice between a Democrat who spends a lot on social programs but allows for the proper funding of them in tax revenue, and a Republican who does the same thing but with deficit spending rather than ample tax revenue, I'd go with the Democrat. At least the Democrat knows how to budget.
Being a Libertarian, I'd actually prefer neither, but the Democrats really do seem like the lesser of two evils at the moment.
You're probably correct. However, you live in a much smaller country. Ireland has a mere fraction of the U.S.'s population, so it's easier for your government to properly fund and implement social programs.CameronPoe wrote:
The European way is to pay higher taxes in the interests of giving those whose circumstances are against them a helping hand to become self-sufficient and successful. I'm testament to that: from poverty to university graduate on a very healthy salary.
I believe this policy is why we have a higher quality of life/standard of living than in the US, but less millionaires.
I'm a strong proponent of socialism in small countries, but once they grow beyond about 20 million in population, capitalism and privatization become better choices for society.
Good point, but I think that most here that are arguing the opposing point are comparing the US to like societies (ie. the EU, Japan, Israel, Canada, etc.). While the US is much better than say Egypt it ranks near the bottom on significant societal indicators like education, health care, citizens at or below the poverty line, etc. My argument is that with the inherent advantages the US has economically and with evidence that like nations have made certain structural adjustments to raise the base line for society there is no reason for the US to lag behind in those areas listed.Turquoise wrote:
I agree with this. It is true that not everyone is afforded the same opportunities. We live in a classist system, because every country is classist to a point. I think a much better argument for less socialism in America is that most of us are given enough of an opportunity to become self-sufficient. Some people do fall through the cracks, and others are people that inherit fortunes (like Bush). Obviously, this means we're not all equals with regards to opportunity.CameronPoe wrote:
Lowing is trying to say everyone is afforded the same opportunity in life. That is simply completely untrue. And yet he persists with his line of 'reasoning' carefully skirting the actual realities of life as applied to the totality of everyone within the nation.
Nonetheless, America is much better than most of the world when it comes to giving a minimum but feasible amount of opportunity to its poorer citizens.
I used to feel this way as well, but it looks as if the opposite may be true of America. You have to remember that we have 300 million people. The next largest First World country is Germany (at about 80 million). Our ability to remain First World and still so large is nothing short of a miracle. I don't think this is going to last. I believe America will be Second World in about 50 years. This is partially due to increased world demand for resources, and due to the Hispanicization of our culture.Masques wrote:
Good point, but I think that most here that are arguing the opposing point are comparing the US to like societies (ie. the EU, Japan, Israel, Canada, etc.). While the US is much better than say Egypt it ranks near the bottom on significant societal indicators like education, health care, citizens at or below the poverty line, etc. My argument is that with the inherent advantages the US has economically and with evidence that like nations have made certain structural adjustments to raise the base line for society there is no reason for the US to lag behind in those areas listed.
Note that I'm not saying there's anything wrong with America becoming more Hispanic. I'm just saying that our culture is becoming gradually more Catholic, our families are getting larger, our obesity rate is soaring, and our general health is declining. To make matters worse, healthcare costs are getting ridiculous.
Something's gotta give in the economic tug-of-war that globalization represents, and while China and India are on the rise, America really has nowhere to go but down. We can better adapt to this by becoming more economically Darwinian.