Is this a hate crime? Part 2

[rasheedfan2005]

I'm on board.

then vote for Deez nutz, he had a great following in NC

 

[riverman]

Because NO country has cut their way to prosperity.

Actually I believe Cost Rica disbanded its military and funneled the money into infrastructure, education and cultural restoration that made them a lot better off and a tourist mecca of sorts. I think it was in the 70s or 80s and I believe their president won the Nobel Prize for doing it..I'm just too lazy to google a link

 

[magnifier661]

last news


http://goo.gl/VtaJgZ

Talk about unlucky

 

[dviss1]

my sister has 2 kids and makes slightly more than me. she gets huge tax breaks and food stamps for the kids. i get bent over by uncle sam and he doesnt even spit before giving me the shaft.

This should change IMO.

 

[dviss1]

Did you think that me being in favor of cutting expenses meant that I wanted to cut revenue as well?

TBH I'm not sure what you meant. I just know that across the board cuts just to cut isn't the way to do it.

 

[rasheedfan2005]

Actually I believe Cost Rica disbanded its military and funneled the money into infrastructure, education and cultural restoration that made them a lot better off and a tourist mecca of sorts. I think it was in the 70s or 80s and I believe their president won the Nobel Prize for doing it..I'm just too lazy to google a link

they dont need a military, the US guards them for free

 

[dviss1]

wouldnt a simple compromise for conservatives and liberals be to cut defense, welfare, and healthcare all at the same time?

Welfare has already been cut. Clinton capitulated and cut it with his "reform".

 

[riverman]

they dont need a military, the US guards them for free

goegraphy 101...Costa Rica is not Panama

 

[rasheedfan2005]

This should change IMO.

not only do the kids get food stamps but she receives child support for each child monthly, essentially making her income go from $160 more a month in salary than me to about $800 extra in child support.

 

[rasheedfan2005]

goegraphy 101...Costa Rica is not Panama

i feel owned so i will distract you with a dancing wookiee

 

[PtldPlatypus]

TBH I'm not sure what you meant. I just know that across the board cuts just to cut isn't the way to do it.

Of course not, because some government expense is justified and necessary. But there are many parts of the current federal budget which are gross excess, and that's where cuts should come from. The main thing is that the budget needs to be cut to a level that is not just at the projected revenue level, but at least 10% below. Cutting foreign aid and international military spending would be one of many places to begin. Giant corporate subsidies would be another. Government sponsored healthcare (not including Medicare) would be a third.

 

[dviss1]

Of course not, because some government expense is justified and necessary. But there are many parts of the current federal budget which are gross excess, and that's where cuts should come from. The main thing is that the budget needs to be cut to a level that is not just at the projected revenue level, but at least 10% below. Cutting foreign aid and international military spending would be one of many places to begin. Giant corporate subsidies would be another. Government sponsored healthcare (not including Medicare) would be a third.

The push is to expand this not cut it. Personally I believe in Medicare part E. Medicare for all.
Healthcare should be a right. How can you be pro life (not you necessarily) and not want to take care of it after it's alive?

 

[dviss1]

not only do the kids get food stamps but she receives child support for each child monthly, essentially making her income go from $160 more a month in salary than me to about $800 extra in child support.

Child support is not income bro. Do you have any kids? I do. Only 1. And I'm a single Father who has his child 5 days per week. It's the hardest, best thing I've ever done. I fucking WISH my ex wife would be ABLE to pay me for support. This boy is eating me out of house and home!!

 

[riverman]

Pull our troops out of S. Korea and Germany now...we're bleeding money and those areas are capable of shoring up their own defenses

 

[rasheedfan2005]

Child support is not income bro.

tell that to her tattoo hobby

 

[riverman]

tell that to her tattoo hobby

If I knew the guy, I would

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Heathcare should be a right.

I disagree. To me, a right is something you naturally have simply by virtue of being human, something that government doesn't grant, but would only be capable of inhibiting. Life, freedom, expression, willing silence, self-protection--these are not imbued by a government. Rights, by their very nature, do not have to be provided--they simply are.

Nothing that has to be provided to a person should be considered a right, because inherent in that would be an obligation being placed on another to provide that thing. This is why even basic needs like food, clothing, and shelter are not considered rights, because if a person does not choose to procure those things for themself, then an obligation to provide those things is created for another. Health care falls under that same category.

 

[dviss1]

I disagree. To me, a right is something you naturally have simply by virtue of being human, something that government doesn't grant, but would only be capable of inhibiting. Life, freedom, expression, willing silence, self-protection--these are not imbued by a government. Rights, by their very nature, do not have to be provided--they simply are.

Nothing that has to be provided to a person should be considered a right, because inherent in that would be an obligation being placed on another to provide that thing. This is why even basic needs like food, clothing, and shelter are not considered rights, because if a person does not choose to procure those things for themself, then an obligation to provide those things is created for another. Health care falls under that same category.

If you believe you have a right to life, how do you care for that life without healthcare?

 

[dviss1]

I disagree. To me, a right is something you naturally have simply by virtue of being human, something that government doesn't grant, but would only be capable of inhibiting. Life, freedom, expression, willing silence, self-protection--these are not imbued by a government. Rights, by their very nature, do not have to be provided--they simply are.

Nothing that has to be provided to a person should be considered a right, because inherent in that would be an obligation being placed on another to provide that thing. This is why even basic needs like food, clothing, and shelter are not considered rights, because if a person does not choose to procure those things for themself, then an obligation to provide those things is created for another. Health care falls under that same category.

IMHO You're wrong on this. In this country today, if a person is in poverty, these things can be provided by the state.

 

[riverman]

I disagree. To me, a right is something you naturally have simply by virtue of being human, something that government doesn't grant, but would only be capable of inhibiting. Life, freedom, expression, willing silence, self-protection--these are not imbued by a government. Rights, by their very nature, do not have to be provided--they simply are.

Nothing that has to be provided to a person should be considered a right, because inherent in that would be an obligation being placed on another to provide that thing. This is why even basic needs like food, clothing, and shelter are not considered rights, because if a person does not choose to procure those things for themself, then an obligation to provide those things is created for another. Health care falls under that same category.

Until you have something like a SARS outbreak that is airborne and you have to breath the same air that the homeless guy is breathing who doesn' t even have an ID...you'll wish that guy was required to recieve medical attention before he breathes on your children..whether he wants it or not

 

[Mediocre Man]

Who pays for this healthcare is a right?

 

[PtldPlatypus]

If you believe you have a right to life, how do you care for that life without healthcare?

Again, the nature of a right is that government has a responsibility not to actively infringe upon it without due process. We have a right to life--not not have that life forcibly removed from us by the government. If our lives are taken naturally (through age, illness, or accident), that is not the government's responsibility. The government's only responsibility regarding our natural rights is to not do anything to inhibit them.

You need to differentiate between rights and obligations. A right is completely on yourself, something you have simply by existing. An obligation is dependent on provision by another entity. It's easy to differentiate if you consider if the particular thing in question would continue to exist if the government ceased to. If the entire federal government closed up shop tomorrow, we would still have freedom of speech, right to life, the right to remain silent, et al. We would not, however, have government provided welfare, healthcare, housing, etc. Now, if you want to say that you believe that the government has an obligation to provide basic needs to its populace, then that's your right to hold that opinion. But it is a perversion of the concept of natural rights to identify as a right something that has to be provided by someone else.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

IMHO You're wrong on this. In this country today, if a person is in poverty, these things can be provided by the state.

Sure, they can be provided. But if I chose to use all of my income to pay for frivolities, would I still have a right to have the government provide my family all the food, water, clothing, shelter, and healthcare that they need? If these things are truly rights, then they should be available to me at all times regardless of my circumstances.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

my sister has 2 kids and makes slightly more than me. she gets huge tax breaks and food stamps for the kids. i get bent over by uncle sam and he doesnt even spit before giving me the shaft.

Pardon my confusion, but this doesn't make much sense. If your sister makes little enough to collect food stamps, and you make less, you probably aren't paying very much in taxes. Maybe things have changed, enlighten me!

 

[magnifier661]

Again, the nature of a right is that government has a responsibility not to actively infringe upon it without due process. We have a right to life--not not have that life forcibly removed from us by the government. If our lives are taken naturally (through age, illness, or accident), that is not the government's responsibility. The government's only responsibility regarding our natural rights is to not do anything to inhibit them.

You need to differentiate between rights and obligations. A right is completely on yourself, something you have simply by existing. An obligation is dependent on provision by another entity. It's easy to differentiate if you consider if the particular thing in question would continue to exist if the government ceased to. If the entire federal government closed up shop tomorrow, we would still have freedom of speech, right to life, the right to remain silent, et al. We would not, however, have government provided welfare, healthcare, housing, etc. Now, if you want to say that you believe that the government has an obligation to provide basic needs to its populace, then that's your right to hold that opinion. But it is a perversion of the concept of natural rights to identify as a right something that has to be provided by someone else.

eloquently stated.. Good job

 

[Denny Crane]

If you believe you have a right to life, how do you care for that life without healthcare?

You have a right to "health care" but you don't have a right to make doctors and nurses into slaves. If you want your right to health care, take an aspirin. That's where your right ends. You don't have a right to the fruits of someone else's labor.

My words are carefully chosen.

 

[rasheedfan2005]

Pardon my confusion, but this doesn't make much sense. If your sister makes little enough to collect food stamps, and you make less, you probably aren't paying very much in taxes. Maybe things have changed, enlighten me!

Total amount no, not much, but % wise, ouch!

 

[dviss1]

Sure, they can be provided. But if I chose to use all of my income to pay for frivolities, would I still have a right to have the government provide my family all the food, water, clothing, shelter, and healthcare that they need? If these things are truly rights, then they should be available to me at all times regardless of my circumstances.

Call me a democratic socialist.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Call me a democratic socialist.

Well, we saw how well "From each according to his ability; to each according to his need" worked. I believe in charity, but not entitlement.

 

[dviss1]

Again, the nature of a right is that government has a responsibility not to actively infringe upon it without due process. We have a right to life--not not have that life forcibly removed from us by the government. If our lives are taken naturally (through age, illness, or accident), that is not the government's responsibility. The government's only responsibility regarding our natural rights is to not do anything to inhibit them.

You need to differentiate between rights and obligations. A right is completely on yourself, something you have simply by existing. An obligation is dependent on provision by another entity. It's easy to differentiate if you consider if the particular thing in question would continue to exist if the government ceased to. If the entire federal government closed up shop tomorrow, we would still have freedom of speech, right to life, the right to remain silent, et al. We would not, however, have government provided welfare, healthcare, housing, etc. Now, if you want to say that you believe that the government has an obligation to provide basic needs to its populace, then that's your right to hold that opinion. But it is a perversion of the concept of natural rights to identify as a right something that has to be provided by someone else.

See, I believe WE are the government. It's not a separate entity. It is supposed to be for the people BY the people.
We would be providing these rights to one another.