Taxifornia!

[imacdog]

Just one thing. When you retire, or lose your medical, don't get medicare or social security. If you do, you need to go around with a big sign on the front of your shirt that says 'Hypocrite.' Agreed?

This is where your argument falls apart. Gunfyter has been paying into the system and the money he will be receiving is HIS money. Rephrase this a bit differently and you'll understand. Ready?

"Given the choice to opt out of social security payments in exchange for not receiving any benefits, would you?"

Is Gunfyter a hypocrite for not being a fan of the system he is required to be in? Um, of course not.

 

[wacoflyr]

"Given the choice to opt out of social security payments in exchange for not receiving any benefits, would you?"

It is not just about him, or you. Given the choice to leave an old lady on the street, or contribute to her rent, would you?

 

[imacdog]

Yes, it is about him. The question posed was about him.

 

[wacoflyr]

He is a member of a society. That society educated him, protected him from fire, ilness, and enemies both foriegn and domestic. You tell me; does he owe an obligation to that society? Look a vietnam vet in the eye and then tell me there is no obligation. Do it. I dare you.

 

[Oakum_Boy]

Health care should not be "for profit"? What? Neither should commercial airline transportation, or anything else for that matter. You want a state-run bankrupt airline like Olympic of Greece? Thats working well for them. You see, nothing works well without talented people who are in it for profit. Just visit DC and witness the negro welfare system that are the US federal government agencies. TSA, anyone?? A complete disaster and WASTE of your tax dollars.

Let's not have wealth envy. There's always a huge misunderstanding, a very uncomfortable one, when dealing with a middle-class mentality. I tried dating a few girls from modest backgrounds who thought my parents' house in a nice neighborhood meant that they, and I, had money to burn. Quite the opposite.. they have PAYROLL to think of before buying anything for themselves. YOUR payroll.

So get over it, and get on with your trip to COSCO and the rest of the like-minded sheep, Super Genius..

 

[imacdog]

Of course there is an obligation. Where have I stated otherwise, and why are you twisting what I have stated? Gunfyter's issue is not with an obligation to pay for government services; it's how that obligation should be collected, and whether other services rendered are considered constitutional or necessary. I have no idea how you've started to go on some tangent involving fire departments and the military; I really don't.

Look, I know Tuesday was a tough day for you, maybe you should go shoot some pool, enjoy a cold Alaskan Amber, and in the morning you'll be ready to discuss these issues without going on wild tangents. It really is annoying trying to keep up with these random topics being thrown out by you.

He is a member of a society. That society educated him, protected him from fire, ilness, and enemies both foriegn and domestic. You tell me; does he owe an obligation to that society? Look a vietnam vet in the eye and then tell me there is no obligation. Do it. I dare you.

Edit - that quote was so ridiculous and off topic that I just had to throw it in for posterity's sake.

 

[gunfyter]

And those who are less privelaged than you. Those with down's syndrome, however it is spelled. Those who have a bum leg, with no insurance to fix it, those who didn't get your education, are they just out of luck? What about old people who struggled to put their children through college and are now out of money, what about people who's companies did not pay for insurance, and suffered an illness like cancer. Too bad, huh? Where, where is your compassion? I believe you are religious, though I may be wrong. Don't you believe in helping those who are not as well off as you? If an old lady is kept off the streets by solcial security, wouldn't you agree that is a good thing? Your stated beliefs are convenient, but not convincing. When, not if, you come between a rock and a hard place, you will change your tune.

I frequently wish it was not true, but we are all part of a grand society. No true man can avoid his obligations to the society. That is the way things are, for better or worse.

I wish the best for you, but I do not believe in your argument.

Wacoflyr

Waco,

I believe in helping people -- but Charity is NOT a proper function of government. Charity is a function of the Church and other Charities ... Separation of Church and State you know.

Explained in this Davy Crockett story:

Not Yours to Give.pdf - Not Yours to Give

 

[wacoflyr]

This is where your argument falls apart. Gunfyter has been paying into the system and the money he will be receiving is HIS money. Rephrase this a bit differently and you'll understand. Ready?

"Given the choice to opt out of social security payments in exchange for not receiving any benefits, would you?"

Is Gunfyter a hypocrite for not being a fan of the system he is required to be in? Um, of course not.

Ok, perhaps I diverged. My fault. Back to this quote; Why is it such a stretch that these payments from all of us go to help the disenfranchised? Do you not want to help them? Or would you like to help them? If so, how? This is a simple question. A simple answer would be good.

 

[glasspilot]

Look, both sides have merrit. If the State gives crap away then the people will take it. If they don't then most will will go buy what they need, some will try to find someone else to give it to them and others will just do without.

Go to two weddings. One with an open bar and one with a cash bar. Peoples behaviours are different at each. At the open bar people go crazy and drink til they can't stand up. At the cash bar people are way more restrained. I get it. If you give it away then why would anyone work for it.

Except some people CANT work for it. You said, "NOBODY" should be on the state dime. Well, that's cold. An orphan with an IQ of 65 should be (my opinion). What's the alternative? Toss him out in the cold?

Ah yes, charities should do it. Okay, but they are not. And besides, what's the differance if some of the masses give a lot or all of the masses give a little to take care of those who can't take care of themselves?

How do you stop abuse? I don't know. But to simply take all state aid away because SOME lazy fucs abuse they system isn't right either.

Note to mods: "fucs" stands for Fundamentaly Untrying CitizanS. It's a real term. Google it.

 

[stupidpilot]

Ok, perhaps I diverged. My fault. Back to this quote; Why is it such a stretch that these payments from all of us go to help the disenfranchised? Do you not want to help them? Or would you like to help them? If so, how? This is a simple question. A simple answer would be good.

There is a huge difference between helping those who can't help themselves, and enabling a bunch of freeloading bums.