Well, without them, there's a necessary increase in costs to help pay for kids that people can't afford.Stingray24 wrote:
Now there's a contradiction in terms.Narupug wrote:
... the neccessary service of late term abortions.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2009-06-30 17:27:21)
Paybacks are a bitch.CameronPoe wrote:
It's amazing how the absolutely retarded, divisive, and much maligned rhetoric and subliminal messaging of the previous administration has been adopted by members of the current one.... ah, the wonderful cycle of politics....
Well then, I don't suppose you mind paying more for social programs if the long term benefit is more taxpayers, correct?Stingray24 wrote:
As my Mom said when I discussed how kids impacted the budget ... "If everyone waited til they could afford kids, no one would have any." Perhaps people should use this new invention called contraception instead of waiting til the 3rd trimester to make a decision. As far as higher taxes, little peeps grow up into working tax paying peeps.
You are making the assumption that these social programs are a net gain on a wage earning population. That is the crux of the argument. I believe these social programs teach people to be dependent on said programs. Therefore, in a normal conservative mind, your argument is false.Turquoise wrote:
Well then, I don't suppose you mind paying more for social programs if the long term benefit is more taxpayers, correct?Stingray24 wrote:
As my Mom said when I discussed how kids impacted the budget ... "If everyone waited til they could afford kids, no one would have any." Perhaps people should use this new invention called contraception instead of waiting til the 3rd trimester to make a decision. As far as higher taxes, little peeps grow up into working tax paying peeps.
If so, please explain this to your fellow conservatives.
But logically, it doesn't make sense to restrict the ability to limit births of the unwanted if one desires less spending on social programs.LividBovine wrote:
You are making the assumption that these social programs are a net gain on a wage earning population. That is the crux of the argument. I believe these social programs teach people to be dependent on said programs. Therefore, in a normal conservative mind, your argument is false.Turquoise wrote:
Well then, I don't suppose you mind paying more for social programs if the long term benefit is more taxpayers, correct?Stingray24 wrote:
As my Mom said when I discussed how kids impacted the budget ... "If everyone waited til they could afford kids, no one would have any." Perhaps people should use this new invention called contraception instead of waiting til the 3rd trimester to make a decision. As far as higher taxes, little peeps grow up into working tax paying peeps.
If so, please explain this to your fellow conservatives.
What exactly would they do without the programs?LividBovine wrote:
You are making the assumption that these social programs are a net gain on a wage earning population. That is the crux of the argument. I believe these social programs teach people to be dependent on said programs. Therefore, in a normal conservative mind, your argument is false.Turquoise wrote:
Well then, I don't suppose you mind paying more for social programs if the long term benefit is more taxpayers, correct?Stingray24 wrote:
As my Mom said when I discussed how kids impacted the budget ... "If everyone waited til they could afford kids, no one would have any." Perhaps people should use this new invention called contraception instead of waiting til the 3rd trimester to make a decision. As far as higher taxes, little peeps grow up into working tax paying peeps.
If so, please explain this to your fellow conservatives.
Get a job? Start a business? What does everybody else do?Narupug wrote:
What exactly would they do without the programs?LividBovine wrote:
You are making the assumption that these social programs are a net gain on a wage earning population. That is the crux of the argument. I believe these social programs teach people to be dependent on said programs. Therefore, in a normal conservative mind, your argument is false.Turquoise wrote:
Well then, I don't suppose you mind paying more for social programs if the long term benefit is more taxpayers, correct?
If so, please explain this to your fellow conservatives.
Some people are unable to do any of that, not because they are lazy but because they are plagued with various different ailments.Flecco wrote:
Get a job? Start a business? What does everybody else do?Narupug wrote:
What exactly would they do without the programs?LividBovine wrote:
You are making the assumption that these social programs are a net gain on a wage earning population. That is the crux of the argument. I believe these social programs teach people to be dependent on said programs. Therefore, in a normal conservative mind, your argument is false.
Well, since I get taxed on what I make, what I spend, forced SS tax, property tax, vehicle tax, phone services tax, gas tax, etc........tell me exactly how much MORE of my money are you suggesting I give up, in order to save everyone else from getting a fucking job?Narupug wrote:
Some people are unable to do any of that, not because they are lazy but because they are plagued with various different ailments.Flecco wrote:
Get a job? Start a business? What does everybody else do?Narupug wrote:
What exactly would they do without the programs?
You're suggesting we say ok you don't have any money, so we'll just let you starve on the street by not giving you any money. Yes their are soup kitchens and the like but they can't handle all the people that would be left to fend for themselves. Having NO money is also likely to impact someone's ability to get a job because if they can't dress properly for the interview then as has been pointed out in some other threads, they can't get the job that you so eagerly want to force them to get.
Only a little more to pay for Free Health Care for All, otherwise what we are doing is fine. I'm not saying we should give more money to welfare programs, simply suggesting what would happen were we to stop these programs as your friend suggested.lowing wrote:
Well, since I get taxed on what I make, what I spend, forced SS tax, property tax, vehicle tax, phone services tax, gas tax, etc........tell me exactly how much MORE of my money are you suggesting I give up, in order to save everyone else from getting a fucking job?Narupug wrote:
Some people are unable to do any of that, not because they are lazy but because they are plagued with various different ailments.Flecco wrote:
Get a job? Start a business? What does everybody else do?
You're suggesting we say ok you don't have any money, so we'll just let you starve on the street by not giving you any money. Yes their are soup kitchens and the like but they can't handle all the people that would be left to fend for themselves. Having NO money is also likely to impact someone's ability to get a job because if they can't dress properly for the interview then as has been pointed out in some other threads, they can't get the job that you so eagerly want to force them to get.
yeah well your "just a little more" is going to cost us more than "just a little more".. also it has been said before and it appears you need a reminder.Narupug wrote:
Only a little more to pay for Free Health Care for All, otherwise what we are doing is fine. I'm not saying we should give more money to welfare programs, simply suggesting what would happen were we to stop these programs as your friend suggested.lowing wrote:
Well, since I get taxed on what I make, what I spend, forced SS tax, property tax, vehicle tax, phone services tax, gas tax, etc........tell me exactly how much MORE of my money are you suggesting I give up, in order to save everyone else from getting a fucking job?Narupug wrote:
Some people are unable to do any of that, not because they are lazy but because they are plagued with various different ailments.
You're suggesting we say ok you don't have any money, so we'll just let you starve on the street by not giving you any money. Yes their are soup kitchens and the like but they can't handle all the people that would be left to fend for themselves. Having NO money is also likely to impact someone's ability to get a job because if they can't dress properly for the interview then as has been pointed out in some other threads, they can't get the job that you so eagerly want to force them to get.
Free for the people not free for the government who has unlimited amounts of money and if they run out they can just tax Cigerettes or Beer some more.lowing wrote:
yeah well your "just a little more" is going to cost us more than "just a little more".. also it has been said before and it appears you need a reminder.Narupug wrote:
Only a little more to pay for Free Health Care for All, otherwise what we are doing is fine. I'm not saying we should give more money to welfare programs, simply suggesting what would happen were we to stop these programs as your friend suggested.lowing wrote:
Well, since I get taxed on what I make, what I spend, forced SS tax, property tax, vehicle tax, phone services tax, gas tax, etc........tell me exactly how much MORE of my money are you suggesting I give up, in order to save everyone else from getting a fucking job?
There is no such thing as FREE health care. That mentality is huge part of the problem.
Oh I didn't know the govt. generated income, I was always under the impression they TOOK it from the people..Narupug wrote:
Free for the people not free for the government who has unlimited amounts of money and if they run out they can just tax Cigerettes or Beer some more.lowing wrote:
yeah well your "just a little more" is going to cost us more than "just a little more".. also it has been said before and it appears you need a reminder.Narupug wrote:
Only a little more to pay for Free Health Care for All, otherwise what we are doing is fine. I'm not saying we should give more money to welfare programs, simply suggesting what would happen were we to stop these programs as your friend suggested.
There is no such thing as FREE health care. That mentality is huge part of the problem.
Last edited by lowing (2009-07-01 09:46:02)
Well they do get money off the parks and such, you are the typical conservative. You have a decent amount of money and you want to keep it so you want less taxes and because you aren't likely to need the governments help anytime soon because you have plenty of money, you don't care what happens to us people who are not that well off. Am I rite?lowing wrote:
Oh I didn't know the govt. generated income, I was always under the impression they TOOK it from the people..Narupug wrote:
Free for the people not free for the government who has unlimited amounts of money and if they run out they can just tax Cigerettes or Beer some more.lowing wrote:
yeah well your "just a little more" is going to cost us more than "just a little more".. also it has been said before and it appears you need a reminder.
There is no such thing as FREE health care. That mentality is huge part of the problem.
You are partially correct. No, I do not have a lot of money, and yes I want to keep what I EARN. You are also correct that I don't care what happens to those of you "who are not well off". If YOU don't care what happens to you and are not willing to make decisions that improves your lives, like taking advantage of the help up programs ALL READY IN PLACE, then I certainly do not care either.Narupug wrote:
Well they do get money off the parks and such, you are the typical conservative. You have a decent amount of money and you want to keep it so you want less taxes and because you aren't likely to need the governments help anytime soon because you have plenty of money, you don't care what happens to us people who are not that well off. Am I rite?lowing wrote:
Oh I didn't know the govt. generated income, I was always under the impression they TOOK it from the people..Narupug wrote:
Free for the people not free for the government who has unlimited amounts of money and if they run out they can just tax Cigerettes or Beer some more.
I know you're gonna say you don't have a lot of money but you do have more then many people in this country.
Last edited by lowing (2009-07-01 09:52:05)
I care about them JUST AS MUCH as they care for themselvesFatherTed wrote:
i can understand not wanting to pay for less priviledged people, but i can't understand how you don't care about them
Last edited by lowing (2009-07-01 10:53:25)
You don't seem to be able to grasp the concept of being unable to get a job or such, not everyone is able to get a job that easily. For example you are too educated and people won't hire you because they're afraid you'll take their job, or you have an illness which isn't bad enough to get you disability but still makes it practically impossible for you to work.lowing wrote:
You are partially correct. No, I do not have a lot of money, and yes I want to keep what I EARN. You are also correct that I don't care what happens to those of you "who are not well off". If YOU don't care what happens to you and are not willing to make decisions that improves your lives, like taking advantage of the help up programs ALL READY IN PLACE, then I certainly do not care either.Narupug wrote:
Well they do get money off the parks and such, you are the typical conservative. You have a decent amount of money and you want to keep it so you want less taxes and because you aren't likely to need the governments help anytime soon because you have plenty of money, you don't care what happens to us people who are not that well off. Am I rite?lowing wrote:
Oh I didn't know the govt. generated income, I was always under the impression they TOOK it from the people..
I know you're gonna say you don't have a lot of money but you do have more then many people in this country.
Also, the money they get from parks and such is tax payer money as well
I see, so I work hard, I EARN, I got educated, I made myself marketable, and I pursued employment, and I am greedy for wanting to reap the rewards for my hard work instead of share it with those that can not be bothered to. Well, that figures.Narupug wrote:
You don't seem to be able to grasp the concept of being unable to get a job or such, not everyone is able to get a job that easily. For example you are too educated and people won't hire you because they're afraid you'll take their job, or you have an illness which isn't bad enough to get you disability but still makes it practically impossible for you to work.lowing wrote:
You are partially correct. No, I do not have a lot of money, and yes I want to keep what I EARN. You are also correct that I don't care what happens to those of you "who are not well off". If YOU don't care what happens to you and are not willing to make decisions that improves your lives, like taking advantage of the help up programs ALL READY IN PLACE, then I certainly do not care either.Narupug wrote:
Well they do get money off the parks and such, you are the typical conservative. You have a decent amount of money and you want to keep it so you want less taxes and because you aren't likely to need the governments help anytime soon because you have plenty of money, you don't care what happens to us people who are not that well off. Am I rite?
I know you're gonna say you don't have a lot of money but you do have more then many people in this country.
Also, the money they get from parks and such is tax payer money as well
For clarification
You want to have to pay less taxes am I rite? And you want programs like welfare cut so this is possible?
I'm getting the impression you're a bit greedy.
Last edited by lowing (2009-07-01 10:55:33)
No, I'm suggesting that anybody here in Australia who doesn't throw their full energy into getting employed while taking welfare should be cut off. If you cannot prove you are medically unfit to be employed, you should only have limited govt assistance and then be cut off. My mother has worked for 25 years in the employment sector and gotten thousands of people into jobs. Due to her experience she's ended up at a private firm in a position which targets a specific demographic. The people she works with are the worst of the worst. Several times this year she's had to request their welfare be cut off to force them to stop making excuses or leaving town and actually show up for jobs that they are quite able to do. I'm all for welfare for those too physically or mentally impaired to work but I know a girl who works in the library in another town who has no control over 70% of her body (control of her head + one arm), one of the guys here in town is mentally retarded and works at the local shopping center. They required very little assistance to get jobs as they were willing to work for their money even though they are medically diagnosed as disabled.Narupug wrote:
Some people are unable to do any of that, not because they are lazy but because they are plagued with various different ailments.Flecco wrote:
Get a job? Start a business? What does everybody else do?Narupug wrote:
What exactly would they do without the programs?
You're suggesting we say ok you don't have any money, so we'll just let you starve on the street by not giving you any money. Yes their are soup kitchens and the like but they can't handle all the people that would be left to fend for themselves. Having NO money is also likely to impact someone's ability to get a job because if they can't dress properly for the interview then as has been pointed out in some other threads, they can't get the job that you so eagerly want to force them to get.
Legalize and regulate dope.Flecco wrote:
There is a serious problem in Western countries at the moment. Over here in the cities you hear stories of young people on the dole getting together, pooling all their welfare money and renting a house. Then they sell weed. The good old dope and dole plan for dodging employment...
Corporations figured that out years ago. Democracy hasn't died, but lobbyism is trying its hardest to kill it.Flecco wrote:
What's that quote that's thrown around a bit, something about democracy dying as soon as people realise they can vote themselves money..
And just which candidate said that...ever?!Narupug wrote:
You guys are terrorists in the sense that many of your candidates practically say vote for me or you will all die because a terrorist will attack . I mean you aren't exactly going around shooting people in the name of religion, well most of you anyway.
I have not, in any way, said to remove all social programs, and I have not said that there are not people that need some assistance. I just want more control over who get that assistance. My biggest beef, for now anyways, is the size of the federal government. If we restore more power to the states, where it should be, we could vote more effectively for the programs we want to have as a population. I do not feel we, as a population, are represented very well. There is far to great a disconnect from the politicians in Washington. Another idea I like is term limits. Politicians are far too comfortable, and do not have to live with the consequences of their laws very often.Turquoise wrote:
But logically, it doesn't make sense to restrict the ability to limit births of the unwanted if one desires less spending on social programs.LividBovine wrote:
You are making the assumption that these social programs are a net gain on a wage earning population. That is the crux of the argument. I believe these social programs teach people to be dependent on said programs. Therefore, in a normal conservative mind, your argument is false.Turquoise wrote:
Well then, I don't suppose you mind paying more for social programs if the long term benefit is more taxpayers, correct?
If so, please explain this to your fellow conservatives.
If you take the route of limiting abortion more without relevant increases in funding for things like orphanages and adoption programs, you overburden the existing systems as a result of more births dependent on said institutions.
Regardless of how you feel toward welfare, less options for abortion equal more births. More births equal more kids in orphanages.
So again, there would appear to be a logical gap between the desire for smaller government and the desire to limit abortion.