The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: Ralph Wiggum on October 04, 2013, 02:00:54 PM
-
Left2Tackle (22 posts)
Swiss to vote on $2,800 monthly income for all adults (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023784677)
Switzerland will hold a vote on whether to introduce a basic income for all adults, in a further sign of growing public activism over pay inequality since the financial crisis.
A grassroots committee is calling for all adults in Switzerland to receive an unconditional income of 2,500 Swiss francs — about $2,800 — per month from the state, with the aim of providing a financial safety net for the population.
http://news.msn.com/world/swiss-to-vote-on-dollar2800-monthly-income-for-all-adults?stay=1
Good for them. It'll be interesting to see how this vote goes.
Predictable DUmmy responses follow...
liberal_at_heart (5,970 posts)
1. Someone gets it! Too bad it isn't us.
Yay, free shit for everyone!!! :whatever:
Avalux (29,512 posts)
2. Wow. The Swiss are doing it right. n/t
steve2470 (16,869 posts)
3. Good for the Swiss
Maybe one day we can follow their example. Less misery for the poor = better life for everyone.
No free sex, though Stevie Numbers.
castles in the air (5 posts)
19. OMG, can you imagine if we had that here?
Is Switzerland still homogeneous or do they have immigrants like other European nations? I hear that they are blamed for these lessening in benefits in recent years.
liberal_at_heart (5,970 posts)
30. could you imagine the careers you would be free to pursue if you have a guaranteed income?
I could be a zoologist and not have to worry if my paycheck would be enough to support my family. People could pursue their passion and follow careers they felt would make a difference in this world instead of which ones pay the rent.
Oh good lord. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
If you read some of the DUmmy links, this is a "grassroots" effort. Which I can only infer that it means there are some "Occupoopers" who are floating this idea.
-
Does anyone discuss just where exactly does this 33,600.00/yr windfall come from?
-
Does anyone discuss just where exactly does this 33,600.00/yr windfall come from?
Of course not. Just like when they discuss raising the minimum wage, without realizing that goods and services will increase pricing just as well.
-
I waded over and as usual about 15% of them "get it" as far as what a joke it is and the other 85% are like our current DUmbass visitor Laelth,so incredibly idiotic that it makes ones head spin.
-
Sounds like a good idea to me. We could use a guaranteed minimum income here in the United States.
Flame-retardant suit on.
:rofl:
-Laelth
-
I waded over and as usual about 15% of them "get it" as far as what a joke it is and the other 85% are like our current DUmbass visitor Laelth,so incredibly idiotic that it makes ones head spin.
You rock, Carl. btw, you haven't given me enough bitch-slaps. I'm expecting one an hour from you. Come on, don't let me down.
:rofl:
-Laelth
-
liberal_at_heart (5,970 posts)
30. could you imagine the careers you would be free to pursue if you have a guaranteed income?
1. Dope smoker extraordinary.
2. Cloud formation interpreter.
3. Tea leaf reader.
4. Navel gazer.
5. Multiple pud puller.
6. Extreme freeloader.
-
Sounds like a good idea to me. We could use a guaranteed minimum income here in the United States.
Flame-retardant suit on.
:rofl:
-Laelth
Why? Should we just "give" everyone a guaranteed $50k a year? Do you even realize how that would affect the prices of the essentials, food/gas/etc.? :popcorn:
-
You rock, Carl. btw, you haven't given me enough bitch-slaps. I'm expecting one an hour from you. Come on, don't let me down.
:rofl:
-Laelth
I don`t have to wait. :wink:
-
So do they get this $2800 in addition to what they are already getting?
According to a 2012 American Community Survey, between federal and states welfare, we spend roughly $60,000 per family per year on families below the poverty level.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/over-60000-welfare-spentper-household-poverty_657889.html
-
Does anyone discuss just where exactly does this 33,600.00/yr windfall come from?
The rich. Where else?
-
The rich. Where else?
...and when the rich get tired of working for nothing.....then what?
-
...and when the rich get tired of working for nothing.....then what?
Well according to Lilith we can just keep racking up debt for "the foreseeable future".
-
liberal_at_heart (5,970 posts)
30. could you imagine the careers you would be free to pursue if you have a guaranteed income?
1. Dope smoker extraordinary.
2. Cloud formation interpreter.
3. Tea leaf reader.
4. Navel gazer.
5. Multiple pud puller.
6. Extreme freeloader.
7. Professional Hand Photographer
8. Full time sender of white light
-
If my math is correct, that would work out to about $16/hour based on a 40 hour work week. Imagine how many people would decide that work was unnecessary if they received that for sitting around breathing.
-
7. Professional Hand Photographer
8. Full time sender of white light
:rotf: :rotf: :rotf:
-
So, can a DUmmy just waltz on over to Switzerland, hop the border and be granted amnesty, be given a driver's license and get all these bennies and a free education? What is stopping the Dummies from racing over there by the boatful?
-
So, can a DUmmy just waltz on over to Switzerland, hop the border and be granted amnesty, be given a driver's license and get all these bennies and a free education? What is stopping the Dummies from racing over there by the boatful?
The Swiss Army :-)
-
If my math is correct, that would work out to about $16/hour based on a 40 hour work week. Imagine how many people would decide that work was unnecessary if they received that for sitting around breathing.
The few instances in my 20 years post-college where I was unemployed, I actually did file for unemployment. I could have gotten somewhat menial part-time jobs for $10/$12 an hour, but sadly my unemployment benefits payed more than that. So I kept looking for full-time work and took the benefits. I'm not proud of it, but that's the way it made more sense economically.
-
The Swiss Army :-)
But, but, but...that's not fair. That is oppression. That is inhumane. We are alllll citizens of this planet and that is all that should matter... :panic:
-
So, can a DUmmy just waltz on over to Switzerland, hop the border and be granted amnesty, be given a driver's license and get all these bennies and a free education? What is stopping the Dummies from racing over there by the boatful?
Well, per capita gun ownership in Switzerland is actually higher than in the US, so the DUmmies are probably afraid of all those crazy gun owners :wink:
-
Why? Should we just "give" everyone a guaranteed $50k a year? Do you even realize how that would affect the prices of the essentials, food/gas/etc.? :popcorn:
Even I will concede that $50k/year is extraordinary and excessive, but that just shows how far the U.S. is out of line with all the rest of the liberal democracies in the world. Personally, I'd be happy with a $1,000.00/month ($12k/year) minimum income. No doubt, most of the posters on CC would consider this outrageous. No surprise, really. Heaven forbid, we might be giving a little money to people who are undeserving.
(http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r251/xyzero123/shrug_n.gif)
-Laelth
-
Oh brother - from the article linked by the DUmmie:
In March, Swiss voters backed some of the world's strictest controls on executive pay, forcing public companies to give shareholders a binding vote on compensation.
A separate proposal to limit monthly executive pay to no more than what the company's lowest-paid staff earn in a year, the so-called 1:12 initiative, faces a popular vote on Nov. 24.
:thatsright:
-
Something tells me that this is going to go down in flames.
-
Sounds like a good idea to me. We could use a guaranteed minimum income here in the United States.
Flame-retardant suit on.
:rofl:
-Laelth
Yeah so you sorry ass freeloaders can take more of the money that people like me bust our asses off for. Just where the hell do you think that money comes from? The flippin north pole, a magical money tree, or it just happens to be there. No it comes from people who decided instead of sucking on the government's tit that would make something of themselves. I was unemployed for 2 1/2 years doing odd jobs for my parents to make ends meet till I found the job I have now. One thing really pisses me off is that their fing dope heads, dead beats, and lazy asses that bitch and moan that minimum wage isn't enough, and strike demanding $15 a hour. They don't even have anything to offer their employer that is worth that. What libtards like you don't get your income is dictated by what skills are worth. Doesn't matter if it is trade craft like my job or a job the requires a degree. Moral of the story. GET OFF YOUR ASS.
-
Even I will concede that $50k/year is extraordinary and excessive, but that just shows how far the U.S. is out of line with all the rest of the liberal democracies in the world. Personally, I'd be happy with a $1,000.00/month ($12k/year) minimum income. No doubt, most of the posters on CC would consider this outrageous. No surprise, really. Heaven forbid, we might be giving a little money to people who are undeserving.
(http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r251/xyzero123/shrug_n.gif)
-Laelth
Huh? You don't "deserve" anything. If you want it, work for it. People don't owe you just for walking around and breathing air. Why should someone else work hard to give to someone else who chooses not to?
-
Even I will concede that $50k/year is extraordinary and excessive, but that just shows how far the U.S. is out of line with all the rest of the liberal democracies in the world. Personally, I'd be happy with a $1,000.00/month ($12k/year) minimum income. No doubt, most of the posters on CC would consider this outrageous. No surprise, really. Heaven forbid, we might be giving a little money to people who are undeserving.
(http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r251/xyzero123/shrug_n.gif)
-Laelth
I'll just bet you would. Tell me, what do the taxpayers get for that grand a month? Increased Cheeto consumption?
liberal_at_heart (5,970 posts)
30. could you imagine the careers you would be free to pursue if you have a guaranteed income?
I could be a zoologist
(http://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4599241130574529&pid=1.7)
Uh, huh......
-
Even I will concede that $50k/year is extraordinary and excessive, but that just shows how far the U.S. is out of line with all the rest of the liberal democracies in the world. Personally, I'd be happy with a $1,000.00/month ($12k/year) minimum income. No doubt, most of the posters on CC would consider this outrageous. No surprise, really. Heaven forbid, we might be giving a little money to people who are undeserving.
(http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r251/xyzero123/shrug_n.gif)
-Laelth
If you don`t earn it or win it through a legitimate contest by what logic do you feel someone "deserves" it?
-
Even I will concede that $50k/year is extraordinary and excessive, but that just shows how far the U.S. is out of line with all the rest of the liberal democracies in the world. Personally, I'd be happy with a $1,000.00/month ($12k/year) minimum income. No doubt, most of the posters on CC would consider this outrageous. No surprise, really. Heaven forbid, we might be giving a little money to people who are undeserving.
(http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r251/xyzero123/shrug_n.gif)
-Laelth
Being out of line with all the rest of the liberal democracies of the world is what made this country the strong great country that it once was.
-
Being out of line with all the rest of the liberal democracies of the world is what made this country the strong great country that it once was.
:thumbs: :thumbs: :thumbs: :hi5:
-
Even I will concede that $50k/year is extraordinary and excessive, but that just shows how far the U.S. is out of line with all the rest of the liberal democracies in the world. Personally, I'd be happy with a $1,000.00/month ($12k/year) minimum income.
Yes, because America is so awful. Giving every adult over the age of 18 a thousand dollars a year would cost roughly $250 billion per year. The federal government already spends more than twice that on public welfare.
When does the gravy train stop? Or would you be willing to trade one for the other?
-
Being out of line with all the rest of the liberal democracies of the world is what made this country the strong great country that it once was.
Home run. Touchdown. Goal. Basket.
-
If my math is correct, that would work out to about $16/hour based on a 40 hour work week. Imagine how many people would decide that work was unnecessary if they received that for sitting around breathing.
Why that would mean that the MCDonald's drive up boob that can't count to ten if sh/e/it took off it's shoes would be raking in $25.00/hr!!
I can't see how that wouldn't work....... :whatever:
That's OK, I'll get used to $15.99 Filet-O-Fishes.
-
Why that would mean that the MCDonald's drive up boob that can't count to ten if sh/e/it took off it's shoes would be raking in $25.00/hr!!
I can't see how that wouldn't work....... :whatever:
That's OK, I'll get used to $15.99 Filet-O-Fishes.
Just eat at home and then drive by the window and watch the DUmmies starve to death......it'll be a great learning experience for the kids.
-
Yes, because America is so awful. Giving every adult over the age of 18 a thousand dollars a year would cost roughly $250 billion per year. The federal government already spends more than twice that on public welfare.
When does the gravy train stop? Or would you be willing to trade one for the other?
Sorry, my freind, the United States is awesome--the greatest empire the world has ever seen, and I am proud of it. It could be better, admittedly, but that's another question altogether. We spend less than all the other liberal democracies on the planet (as a percentage of GDP) protecting our poor people, and that's shameful, but it would be easy for us to guarantee every American citizen a minimum income of $12k/year. Why aren't we doing that?
(http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r251/xyzero123/shrug_n.gif)
-Laelth
-
Sorry, my freind, the United States is awesome--the greatest empire the world has ever seen, and I am proud of it. It could be better, admittedly, but that's another question altogether. We spend less than all the other liberal democracies on the planet (as a percentage of GDP) protecting our poor people, and that's shameful, but it would be easy for us to guarantee every American citizen a minimum income of $12k/year. Why aren't we doing that?
(http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r251/xyzero123/shrug_n.gif)
-Laelth
Why SHOULD we do that? Jesus, I'm trying to wrap my brain around your thinking. If you want $1000 go do $1000 worth of work. WTH is stopping you? Why should anyone just *give* you money?
-
Why SHOULD we do that? Jesus, I'm trying to wrap my brain around your thinking. If you want $1000 go do $1000 worth of work. WTH is stopping you? Why should anyone just *give* you money?
Why? Because it's just. Because it's good. Because, deep down, we are good people and we don't want to see people suffer.
We can easily afford it. Why shouldn't we do it?
(http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r251/xyzero123/shrug_n.gif)
-Laelth
-
Why should the productive reward the uneducated and unskilled? The greatest detriment to earning a living wage in this country is an entirely self-inflicted problem.
-
liberal_at_heart (5,970 posts)
30. could you imagine the careers you would be free to pursue if you have a guaranteed income?
I could be a zoologist and not have to worry if my paycheck would be enough to support my family. People could pursue their passion and follow careers they felt would make a difference in this world instead of which ones pay the rent.
George...I mean liberal_at_heart...it would be best if you pretended to be an architect or marine biologist.
Watching the DUmp is so often like a TV sitcom. Well, except for the fact that the idiots on the sitcoms aren't usually as stupid as the DUmmies.
-
Why? Because it's just. Because it's good. Because, deep down, we are good people and we don't want to see people suffer.
We can easily afford it. Why shouldn't we do it?
(http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r251/xyzero123/shrug_n.gif)
-Laelth
I swear....this country is getting worse and worse.....damn people have gotten so damn lazy they won't even do their own stealing any more.....vote in some communist to do it for them and call it progressivism and "voting their own best interest".
-
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-SoxKAa_qknE/TgUuuBamLCI/AAAAAAAAA74/3P6GzYCDdPQ/s1600/caballito%2B1.jpg)
How do you manage to breath and post at the same time???
-
George...I mean liberal_at_heart...it would be best if you pretended to be an architect or marine biologist.
Watching the DUmp is so often like a TV sitcom. Well, except for the fact that the idiots on the sitcoms aren't usually as stupid as the DUmmies.
He can be whatever the hell he wants but unless someone is willing to pay him to do it, it's not a job, it's a hobby.
-
Why? Because it's just. Because it's good. Because, deep down, we are good people and we don't want to see people suffer.
We can easily afford it. Why shouldn't we do it?
(http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r251/xyzero123/shrug_n.gif)
-Laelth
OMFG, because you are a grown ass adult that should be supporting yourself and responsible for yourself? For ****s sake, I don't even give my kids an "allowance" because I don't want to teach them they are entitled to someone else's money just because they exist. They have to earn spending money, through chores. Good people don't want to take what isn't theirs.
-
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-SoxKAa_qknE/TgUuuBamLCI/AAAAAAAAA74/3P6GzYCDdPQ/s1600/caballito%2B1.jpg)
How do you manage to breath and post at the same time???
:rotf:
-
OMFG, because you are a grown ass adult that should be supporting yourself and responsible for yourself? For ****s sake, I don't even give my kids an "allowance" because I don't want to teach them they are entitled to someone else's money just because they exist. They have to earn spending money, through chores. Good people don't want to take what isn't theirs.
I am happy for you that in your lifetime you have never had to depend on government largess. 50% of us, or more, are not in the same boat. Good thing we had some, miniscule social safety net to protect us ... from you and those who think like you.
Stuff happens. Most of the poor people I know became poor through no fault of their own. They got unlucky. It's that simple. I hope you never get unlucky. If you do, I hope your ideology bites you in the buttocks.
-Laelth
-
Laelth...where does this free money come from?
-
OMFG, because you are a grown ass adult that should be supporting yourself and responsible for yourself? For ****s sake, I don't even give my kids an "allowance" because I don't want to teach them they are entitled to someone else's money just because they exist. They have to earn spending money, through chores. Good people don't want to take what isn't theirs.
I didn't even get that....daddy said, "You put your feet under my table, you sleep in my bed, under my roof, there are things you have to do around here to keep getting that."
I guess it was about the same on any farm.
-
I am happy for you that in your lifetime you have never had to depend on government largess. 50% of us, or more, are not in the same boat. Good thing we had some, miniscule social safety net to protect us ... from you and those who think like you.
Stuff happens. Most of the poor people I know became poor through no fault of their own. They got unlucky. It's that simple. I hope you never get unlucky. If you do, I hope your ideology bites you in the buttocks.
-Laelth
Bull shit,ever hear the term you make your own luck?
It far and away describes the circumstances in both direction for the majority of the poor and successful that I know.
-
I am happy for you that in your lifetime you have never had to depend on government largess. 50% of us, or more, are not in the same boat. Good thing we had some, miniscule social safety net to protect us ... from you and those who think like you.
Stuff happens. Most of the poor people I know became poor through no fault of their own. They got unlucky. It's that simple. I hope you never get unlucky. If you do, I hope your ideology bites you in the buttocks.
-Laelth
Bull. Being a poor adult, in the vast majority of cases (Amber, Doug etc.), has to do with poor choices or plain old laziness.
-
I didn't even get that....daddy said, "You put your feet under my table, you sleep in my bed, under my roof, there are things you have to do around here to keep getting that."
I guess it was about the same on any farm.
Your Daddy is exactly right. There are things they have to do around here because they LIVE here. These are decided by their parents. Then there are additional things they may choose to do if they want extra money. There is always work to be done. 1 child is more ambitious than the others right now, because he wants a PS4. Should I be taking part of his money he earns through his efforts and redistribute it to the ones laying on their asses watching movies?
-
I am happy for you that in your lifetime you have never had to depend on government largess. 50% of us, or more, are not in the same boat. Good thing we had some, miniscule social safety net to protect us ... from you and those who think like you.
Stuff happens. Most of the poor people I know became poor through no fault of their own. They got unlucky. It's that simple. I hope you never get unlucky. If you do, I hope your ideology bites you in the buttocks.
-Laelth
You aren't asking for a ****ing safety net. You want everyone and their frigging Uncle Joe to receive $1000 a month for life just because they breathe air and fart it out. It is one thing to provide temporary assistance to someone who has fallen on hard times while they get back on their feet. Quite another for paying them to lay there and stay there.
-
I am happy for you that in your lifetime you have never had to depend on government largess. 50% of us, or more, are not in the same boat. Good thing we had some, miniscule social safety net to protect us ... from you and those who think like you.
Stuff happens. Most of the poor people I know became poor through no fault of their own.[/b]...and remain poor because like you they sit on their ass and whine. Oh ****ing boo hoo. Get off your ass and stop waiting for some democrat politician to steal something and give it to you. Do something dammit even if it's wrong. They got unlucky. It's that simple. I hope you never get unlucky. If you do, I hope your ideology bites you in the buttocks.
-Laelth
-
I didn't even get that....daddy said, "You put your feet under my table, you sleep in my bed, under my roof, there are things you have to do around here to keep getting that."
I guess it was about the same on any farm.
I grew up in the suburbs, not on the farm, but my parents had the same policy. When I asked for an allowance for my chores, my mom told me that they were my expected contribution to the household, not something I should be paid for. I babysat in my early teens for my spending money, and got a job at 17 for more steady spending money :-)
-
I grew up in the suburbs, not on the farm, but my parents had the same policy. When I asked for an allowance for my chores, my mom told me that they were my expected contribution to the household, not something I should be paid for. I babysat in my early teens for my spending money, and got a job at 17 for more steady spending money :-)
Good for you. I bet you're a lot like my older sister, a good soul. Times were better when my baby sister came along and daddy spoiled her by giving her everything, land, house, money.....she married a lazy bastard and worshipped the ground he walked on. She used her kid to milk daddy for all she could get Now we're all getting old and she's miserable.
Reminds me, I need to call and check on the good sister and her husband.
-
I'll never understand the entitlement group. I've had my share of rough spots and never had anything given to me. I think I collected unemployment once for three days before I started another job.
-
Even I will concede that $50k/year is extraordinary and excessive, but that just shows how far the U.S. is out of line with all the rest of the liberal democracies in the world. Personally, I'd be happy with a $1,000.00/month ($12k/year) minimum income. No doubt, most of the posters on CC would consider this outrageous. No surprise, really. Heaven forbid, we might be giving a little money to people who are undeserving.
(http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r251/xyzero123/shrug_n.gif)
-Laelth
The thing is, there are many who are able to work but won't. A lot of these are the ones who will hop onto the minimum income bandwagon without doing any of the minimum work.
As it is now a minimum wage job will give over $15K per year (roughly $1300/month) an amount that meets your threshhold - but so many want the $ without the work. Those are the leeches that most of us have issues with.
-
I grew up in the suburbs, not on the farm, but my parents had the same policy. When I asked for an allowance for my chores, my mom told me that they were my expected contribution to the household, not something I should be paid for. I babysat in my early teens for my spending money, and got a job at 17 for more steady spending money :-)
Your guy is a lucky man, milady. H5. :cheersmate:
-
So, can a DUmmy just waltz on over to Switzerland, hop the border and be granted amnesty, be given a driver's license and get all these bennies and a free education? What is stopping the Dummies from racing over there by the boatful?
They would have to save up for the boat/plane ticket. That cuts into their drug money.
-
They would have to save up for the boat/plane ticket. That cuts into their drug money.
People sponsor foreign exchange students....maybe each of us could sponsor one DUmmie each a one way no return ticket to the and of free milk and honey?
The tax burden on your kids and grandkids would more than offset your initial expenditure.....if when all DUmmies were gone we killed off all the remaining democrat politicians. Hey, Obama's buddy Bill Ayers wanted to kill off 25,000,000 of us so I figure we're owed a few thousand DUmmie politicians.
-
Now from the mouth of a bona fide DUmmy. No doubt about it.
Response to Left2Tackle (Original post)
Fri Oct 4, 2013, 02:08 PM
Star Member dkf (36,749 posts)
4. But it's over "pay inequality" so do you have to work? Is this basically a minimum wage?
:thatsright:
-
People sponsor foreign exchange students....maybe each of us could sponsor one DUmmie each a one way no return ticket to the land of free milk and honey?
I would do it. In fact, I would buy a ticket to any socialist or communist country of their choice.
-
I am happy for you that in your lifetime you have never had to depend on government largess. 50% of us, or more, are not in the same boat. Good thing we had some, miniscule social safety net to protect us ... from you and those who think like you.
Stuff happens. Most of the poor people I know became poor through no fault of their own. They got unlucky. It's that simple. I hope you never get unlucky. If you do, I hope your ideology bites you in the buttocks.
-Laelth
Bovine organic waste matter. I've been thru harder times growing up than you EVER have. I'm sure many people here can say the same thing. Not once did I think to blame someone else for my "bad luck". I've had a job of some kind or another since I was 8 and could push a lawn mower and deliver papers. That money was to help out the family because Pa Perky did not believe in welfare. Things were damned tough here back in the late 70's.
I have been formally unemployed exactly 1 week and 2 days since 1981, the day I turned 16. The 2 days were when I was 17 and got fired cause the manager pissed me off, and the week was when I was leaving 1 job and going to another and took a week in between to go on vacation.
No loser, luck had nothing to do with it. I have worked harder and longer than everybody else at every job I ever had. So much so that I never had to worry about being laid off. Company I worked for one time folded. I went out to all my clients that day, told them the company went tits up, and had 6 job offers to do the same thing I was doing. Had a job by noon.
No, luck has nothing to do with it. You make your own luck.
Now that does not mean I do not support having a safety net for someone that has hit hard times. Everyone needs a helping hand along the way from time to time. The way it has turned out is that the safety net is now a cradle. Too many people with your way of thinking. Sooner or later, you will outnumber the people that think like me and it will all fall apart. See Greece for reference.
I don't care though. I and my kind will survive. Your kind will shrivel up and die. Rightfully so in my opinion. It happens in nature to the wildlife, it will happen to your type.
-
$1000/month is fine with me but you will have to give up your right to vote.
-
Laelth...where does this free money come from?
[/b]
Good question. Quoting so our liberal but buddy can answer.
Louis Farakahn disagreed with Karl Marx in a speech. He said that religion was not the opiate of the masses, free money was.
I think Laelth (than handle sounds so freaking gay), is salivating of free stuff and is unable to contemplate where such monies must come from.
---or
he/she is salivating over the concept that one party will literally enslave millions of otherwise able bodied people to the democrat party through dependance on govt handouts. This is money for nothing. Work is not needed to obtain this.
Further, I doubt Laelth has any concept of the sheer damage this will do to the economy in a few years.
Laelth, you are stupid far and beyond normal stupid. Only a brain dead liberal could see any benefit to this.
-
$1000/month is fine with me but you will have to give up your right to vote.
DAMNED RIGHT!!!!!
I think the right to vote should be only for the ones that actually PAY taxes.
-
DAMNED RIGHT!!!!!
I think the right to vote should be only for the ones that actually PAY taxes.
I agree with that, DD. H5!!!
-
Just eat at home and then drive by the window and watch the DUmmies starve to death......it'll be a great learning experience for the kids.
:-) Nah, I don't eat that crap anyway.....
So Lie-eth(D)Ummy, why can't you answer the question?
Where does this money come from and show us your figures. Remember, tAxThErIcH!!!!!1111eLeBiNtY!!!!1111 doesn't work. Lay out the plan and show us the figures.
-
Sorry, my freind, the United States is awesome--the greatest empire the world has ever seen, and I am proud of it. It could be better, admittedly, but that's another question altogether. We spend less than all the other liberal democracies on the planet (as a percentage of GDP) protecting our poor people, and that's shameful, but it would be easy for us to guarantee every American citizen a minimum income of $12k/year. Why aren't we doing that?
(http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r251/xyzero123/shrug_n.gif)
-Laelth
Because they're getting 5 times that in services already? :shucks:
-
Holy hell. I'm working 60 hour weeks and making only about 2200 a month (damn you salary!)
I need to move to Switzerland.
-
I am happy for you that in your lifetime you have never had to depend on government largess. 50% of us, or more, are not in the same boat. Good thing we had some, miniscule social safety net to protect us ... from you and those who think like you.
Stuff happens. Most of the poor people I know became poor through no fault of their own. They got unlucky. It's that simple. I hope you never get unlucky. If you do, I hope your ideology bites you in the buttocks.
-Laelth
I've lost everything - twice. Never had to take a handout, never needed government largess, never sat with my hand out and whined.
Maybe you should look to spread my work ethic and determination? :shucks:
-
Holy hell. I'm working 60 hour weeks and making only about 2200 a month (damn you salary!)
I need to move to Switzerland.
You get to keep a fully automatic battle weapon at home as a bonus. Wonder if the DUmmies have overlooked that little part?
-
If this country were to do this, we need to at least be honest and rename what we call ourselves, because it wouldn't really be the United States of America anymore. In fact, we're moving away from being able to call it that everyday we become more and more liberal.
.
-
Personally, I'd be happy with a $1,000.00/month ($12k/year) minimum income.
Nah, let's do $2,800/mo per person. If we're going to go full bore stupid, might as well make it pedal to the metal and get it over with.
.
-
Sorry, my freind, the United States is awesome--the greatest empire the world has ever seen, and I am proud of it. It could be better, admittedly, but that's another question altogether. We spend less than all the other liberal democracies on the planet (as a percentage of GDP) protecting our poor people, and that's shameful, but it would be easy for us to guarantee every American citizen a minimum income of $12k/year. Why aren't we doing that?
-Laelth
This is why Proglodytes don't deserve to live as free people, if at all.
You idiot whores cried for free birth control, then as soon as the government was about to shutdown you cried your birth control was going to be taken away.
Golly! If you didn't come to rely on the government then you wouldn't be threatened by political winds taking away from you what you could easily do for yourself.
If you want money, earn it. People don't deserve shit just because their parents made the mistake of letting their worthless asses live.
-
Nah, let's do $2,800/mo per person. If we're going to go full bore stupid, might as well make it pedal to the metal and get it over with.
.
Basic economics is one of those things that has to be left out of the batch when a leftist is stirred up.
-
If everyone was going to get paid 33k a year to sit on their ass who would bother going to work?
-
When I asked for an allowance for my chores, my mom told me that they were my expected contribution to the household, not something I should be paid for. I babysat in my early teens for my spending money, and got a job at 17 for more steady spending money :-)
Same here. I grew up in a rural sub division. I did a lot of baby sitting and helping out people on farms and realatives that had things that needed done. This started when I was about 13. The kids I knew that were given nice allowances for doing nothing at home turned out pretty lazy. I was doing body work, mechanical work and painting cars in the garage before I was even old enough to drive cars.
-
If everyone was going to get paid 33k a year to sit on their ass who would bother going to work?
Which in turn leads to: if no one needs to work where are the taxes going to come from to pay everyone to not work?
-
Which in turn leads to: if no one needs to work where are the taxes going to come from to pay everyone to not work?
Exactly.
-
I made a mistake in my previous post. Giving every American over the age of 18 a thousand dollars a month for an entire year would cost $2.8 TRILLION dollars. Since the Census website is down due to the federal shutdown (:rofl:) I had to use figures from another site (http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/99-total-population-by-child-and-adult-populations?loc=1&loct=2#detailed/1/any/false/867,133,38,35,18/39,40,41/416,417). You can do the math yourself.
All these liberal wet dreams would never work. This country just doesn't have the tax base to support that kind of insanity.
-
I made a mistake in my previous post. Giving every American over the age of 18 a thousand dollars a month for an entire year would cost $2.8 TRILLION dollars. Since the Census website is down due to the federal shutdown (:rofl:) I had to use figures from another site (http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/99-total-population-by-child-and-adult-populations?loc=1&loct=2#detailed/1/any/false/867,133,38,35,18/39,40,41/416,417). You can do the math yourself.
All these liberal wet dreams would never work. This country just doesn't have the tax base to support that kind of insanity.
Just raise taxes and make the Koch brothers bleed!!!!!!!1111111
-
$2.8 trillion is slightly less than what Bush spent in his entire final budget (2008) and liberals went nuts about overspending and deficits, and that was with Pelosi and Reid in charge of Congress.
I wonder where those same libs are today.
-
Just raise taxes and make the Koch brothers bleed!!!!!!!1111111
90%! 90%!! :angryvillagers:
-
Even I will concede that $50k/year is extraordinary and excessive, but that just shows how far the U.S. is out of line with all the rest of the liberal democracies in the world. Personally, I'd be happy with a $1,000.00/month ($12k/year) minimum income. No doubt, most of the posters on CC would consider this outrageous. No surprise, really. Heaven forbid, we might be giving a little money to people who are undeserving.
(http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r251/xyzero123/shrug_n.gif)
-Laelth
You are free to do exactly that. Donate any money you make beyond $12,000 a year to someone whom you deem "undeserving".
-
Sorry, my freind, the United States is awesome--the greatest empire the world has ever seen, and I am proud of it. It could be better, admittedly, but that's another question altogether. We spend less than all the other liberal democracies on the planet (as a percentage of GDP) protecting our poor people, and that's shameful, but it would be easy for us to guarantee every American citizen a minimum income of $12k/year. Why aren't we doing that?
(http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r251/xyzero123/shrug_n.gif)
-Laelth
Try earning it. You're not owed a thing. If the rest of the socialist twits want to support slugs, so be it.
There is nothing "right" about supporting slugs, nothing.
You little twerps just think that "being", gives you the right to steal from those that earn.
cat-sand-mallet Some assembly required.
-
This is why Proglodytes don't deserve to live as free people, if at all.
You idiot whores cried for free birth control, then as soon as the government was about to shutdown you cried your birth control was going to be taken away.
Golly! If you didn't come to rely on the government then you wouldn't be threatened by political winds taking away from you what you could easily do for yourself.
If you want money, earn it. People don't deserve shit just because their parents made the mistake of letting their worthless asses live.
HI5 agreed these peeps don't deserve handouts they deserve Total Cranial Evacuations!
:killemall:
-
Why? Should we just "give" everyone a guaranteed $50k a year? Do you even realize how that would affect the prices of the essentials, food/gas/etc.? :popcorn:
If we abolished Welfare, food stamps, Wic, Section 8 etc, we'd probably save money
-
If everyone was going to get paid 33k a year to sit on their ass who would bother going to work?
Many people in the United States already get cash and benefits that exceed that once you include Section 8, EBT, Medicaid, Cash, SSI for the kids, etc.
-
Basic economics is one of those things that has to be left out of the batch when a leftist is stirred up.
Along with basic common sense, basic knowledge, basic understanding, basic "life skills"...
IOW, all the "basics".
-
Sorry, my freind, the United States is awesome--the greatest empire the world has ever seen, and I am proud of it. It could be better, admittedly, but that's another question altogether.
We're not an Empire. We are a country. Only you Libtard idiots in D.C. think were some kind of Empire spreading evil around the globe.
It could be better...we could run all of you Liberal Socialist Utopia mastermind types OUT of here.
We spend less than all the other liberal democracies on the planet (as a percentage of GDP) protecting our poor people, and that's shameful, but it would be easy for us to guarantee every American citizen a minimum income of $12k/year. Why aren't we doing that?
(http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r251/xyzero123/shrug_n.gif)
-Laelth
We spend nearly 16% of our GDP on social welfare programs and it's expanding rapidly under this Administration.
I know that 12K a year may sound great to you and your boss up on the Hill...but again it also shows how out of touch with reality you inside the beltway types are.
What's going to happen when you have more people taking idiotic free stuff like this than you have workers to tax to pay for your moronic scheme?
That money HAS to come from somewhere. And unless you plan on going to a 90% tax rate on everyone working you'll soon have more people on the dole than providing revenue to the Government via federal income taxes. You're expenditures will greatly outpace your income in no time.
Then what? What's going to happen to your little scheme when 75 - 80% of the people are taking this money instead of working?
Congratulations you've just destroyed any incentive an American has to work. Which I think is part of the plan.
You libs NEVER think about the consequences of your actions...you're too tied up and invested in the emotion of the act and the optics to care about the nuts and bolts reality.
On and lastly we're not a "Liberal Democracy" were a Constitutional Representative Republic.
-
Maybe you should look to spread my work ethic and determination? :shucks:
Interesting proposal. How could we accomplish this? Wouldn't it require massive state/government intrusion?
-Laelth
-
Interesting proposal. How could we accomplish this? Wouldn't it require massive state/government intrusion?-Laelth
NOPE. Being hungry is a great motivator.
-
Because they're getting 5 times that in services already? :shucks:
I wouldn't mind expanding the services or starting up the WPA or the CCC again to give jobs to people who are capable of working. I assumed that proposal would be toxic here at CC.
-Laelth
-
Laelth...where does this free money come from?
I am not sure how the Swiss have their government finances set up, but I am guessing they plan to pay these checks out of their general treasury.
-Laelth
-
I am not sure how the Swiss have their government finances set up, but I am guessing they plan to pay these checks out of their general treasury.
-Laelth
Oh, so they've tapped the other end of that bottomless hole in the ground where all things come from for free.
-
NOPE. Being hungry is a great motivator.
Kind of like a boot-camp prerequisite for any kind of government assistance--the "Learn to Be Like wasp69" training camp?
-Laelth
-
I wouldn't mind expanding the services or starting up the WPA or the CCC again to give jobs to people who are capable of working. I assumed that proposal would be toxic here at CC.
-Laelth
Considering how well it didn't do the first time....
-
Kind of like a boot-camp prerequisite for any kind of government assistance--the "Learn to Be Like wasp69" training camp?
-Laelth
You know, if you're up this late you could have worked the night shift....if you're up this early, you could be heading in to work.
Why don't you do that instead of begging for freebies?
-
Yes, because America is so awful. Giving every adult over the age of 18 a thousand dollars a year would cost roughly $250 billion per year. The federal government already spends more than twice that on public welfare.
When does the gravy train stop? Or would you be willing to trade one for the other?
America is excellent, but it can be better. As always, the liberal instinct is to tinker. Try one program and see if it works. If it does, keep it (until the problem is solved). If it doesn't, get rid of it. With that mind-set, it's difficult for me to say when this "gravy train" would stop. We'd stop it, I assume, when it no longer served its intended function or if we discovered that the program's benefits are outweighed by its costs.
I am not following your "trade one for the other" line of thought. Care to expand upon that?
-Laelth
-
You know, if you're up this late you could have worked the night shift....if you're up this early, you could be heading in to work.
Why don't you do that instead of begging for freebies?
I'm just responding to people who have responded to my comments. It might seem rude to ignore them, and I always miss a few, here, as lots of people want to take a bite out of this liberal chew-toy. I'm providing a public service.
:-)
-Laelth
-
Interesting proposal. How could we accomplish this? Wouldn't it require massive state/government intrusion?
-Laelth
Not really.
Remove the incentive for not working and watch amazing things happen. You might be surprised to know people can accomplish what they thought impossible when they put their minds to it.
-
Not really.
Remove the incentive for not working and watch amazing things happen. You might be surprised to know people can accomplish what they thought impossible when they put their minds to it.....and their backs into it.
-
I'm just responding to people who have responded to my comments. It might seem rude to ignore them, and I always miss a few, here, as lots of people want to take a bite out of this liberal chew-toy. I'm providing a public service.
:-)
-Laelth
Considering how obtuse your answers are, as well as ignoring requests for real data and ignoring certain posts outright, I am beginning to believe your sole purpose here is to disrupt and troll. Which, I believe, is a direct violation of CC's TOS.
What say you?
-
Stuff happens. Most of the poor people I know became poor through no fault of their own. They got unlucky. It's that simple. I hope you never get unlucky. If you do, I hope your ideology bites you in the buttocks.
-Laelth
This was a response to kraven, and I want to walk back the last part. Actually, if you ever are unlucky and do find yourself dependent upon "We the People" of the United States, I hope that there's an adequate social safety net to protect you and your family.
-Laelth
-
This was a response to kraven, and I want to walk back the last part. Actually, if you ever are unlucky and do find yourself dependent upon "We the People" of the United States, I hope that there's an adequate social safety net to protect you and your family.
-Laelth
His safety net is his willingness to solve his own problems.
-
Considering how obtuse your answers are, as well as ignoring requests for real data and ignoring certain posts outright, I am beginning to believe your sole purpose here is to disrupt and troll. Which, I believe, is a direct violation of CC's TOS.
What say you?
I deny the disrupt/troll accusation. I came here a few days ago to just say, "Hi," as I am a member here, and it had been a long time since I had checked in. I also wanted to ask a couple of questions, and I did that, because I was curious to know what CC thought about the government shutdown and my "left has already won on social issues" thesis. That second one got shot down in flames, and that's fine, but I learned a lot and it was useful. Only one person was willing to take a good stab at a response to my question about the shut-down, and that's fine too.
At this stage, I am just responding to people. It appears lots of posters want to engage me.
-Laelth
-
This was a response to kraven, and I want to walk back the last part. Actually, if you ever are unlucky and do find yourself dependent upon "We the People" of the United States, I hope that there's an adequate social safety net to protect you and your family.
-Laelth
You tried this before and got vigorously slapped down for it. When you abuse substances you are not unlucky, when you repeatedly show up for work late (if at all) you are not unlucky and when you make yourself so physically repulsive you can't work with customers you are not unlucky. We all have setbacks in life but, you dust your self off and hit the bricks again. We have more and more people in this country on generational welfare. If you've never tried to support yourself you are not unlucky you are lazy.
-
I made a mistake in my previous post. Giving every American over the age of 18 a thousand dollars a month for an entire year would cost $2.8 TRILLION dollars. Since the Census website is down due to the federal shutdown (:rofl:) I had to use figures from another site (http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/99-total-population-by-child-and-adult-populations?loc=1&loct=2#detailed/1/any/false/867,133,38,35,18/39,40,41/416,417). You can do the math yourself.
All these liberal wet dreams would never work. This country just doesn't have the tax base to support that kind of insanity.
Not even the Swiss are talking about giving a check to every citizen over the age of 18. I suspect the plan is to create a "guaranteed minimum income," i.e. if you make more than $12k/year, you get no check. The vast majority of Americans over the age of 18 make more than $12k/year. The program could never be as costly as your figures indicate.
-Laelth
-
We're not an Empire. We are a country.
I don't believe for one second this poster didn't use this word on purpose. Laelth is nothing more than a flame bait posting, trolling, disruptor that thinks itself clever and cute; not a very original one at that.
Resurrecting two year old threads, disrupting others, purposely starting flame bait threads... Nothing new for a smarter than everyone else liberal troll.
-
Not even the Swiss are talking about giving a check to every citizen over the age of 18. I suspect the plan is to create a "guaranteed minimum income," i.e. if you make more than $12k/year, you get no check. The vast majority of Americans over the age of 18 make more than $12k/year. The program could never be as costly as your figures indicate.
-Laelth
Let's say I'm a 18.5 year old "American" making $12,005.00 slaving over the fry machine at Micky Dee's or, a 22 year old drug dealer making $50K in unreported income. Do you see a potential problem here Lilith?.
-
Do you see a potential problem here Lilith?.
Of course it won't, and will answer you in the most pedestrian and obtuse way possible to ensure maximum continued disruption. This poster is not serious, it holds us "lower beings" in contempt and thinks it great fun making us chase our tails. You'll never get an answer past its sneering sarcasm and mockery of everything we hold dear.
-
Not even the Swiss are talking about giving a check to every citizen over the age of 18. I suspect the plan is to create a "guaranteed minimum income," i.e. if you make more than $12k/year, you get no check. The vast majority of Americans over the age of 18 make more than $12k/year. The program could never be as costly as your figures indicate.
-Laelth
It's a ridiculous, unworkable idea only a fool would support.
Hello, fool.
-
Of course it won't, and will answer you in the most pedestrian and obtuse way possible to ensure maximum continued disruption. This poster is not serious, it holds us "lower beings" in contempt and thinks it great fun making us chase our tails. You'll never get an answer past its sneering sarcasm and mockery of everything we hold dear.
You're right Wasp. I'm putting Lilith on my iggy list.....PLOINK!!!!!!
-
I don't believe for one second this poster didn't use this word on purpose. Laelth is nothing more than a flame bait posting, trolling, disruptor that thinks itself clever and cute; not a very original one at that.
And it's also the same kind of crap someone like his boss on the Hill uses when referring to the U.S. None of them are too bright.
Resurrecting two year old threads, disrupting others, purposely starting flame bait threads... Nothing new for a smarter than everyone else liberal troll.
Well if he wants to resurrect that thread...which was a Fight Club thread that I started...I'd be happy to pick up where I left off in there.
-
And it's also the same kind of crap someone like his boss on the Hill uses when referring to the U.S. None of them are too bright.
Which fool hired the troll?
-
Which fool hired the troll?
My top two pics are either John Lewis or Hank Johnson.
-
Let's say I'm a 18.5 year old "American" making $12,005.00 slaving over the fry machine at Micky Dee's or, a 22 year old drug dealer making $50K in unreported income. Do you see a potential problem here Lilith?.
Certainly, a guaranteed minimum income creates incentives for some people to not work. It also creates a way for certain people to abuse the system (and get an extra $12k on top of unreported income). I see that.
Evidently the Swiss aren't too worried about these potential problems. Wonder why? We should watch how this program works out for them, given that there's no political will to do any such thing in the United States. If it works, we might want to try something similar, and we can also learn from them how to combat the potential problems you envision.
-Laelth
-
Certainly, a guaranteed minimum income creates incentives for some people to not work. It also creates a way for certain people to abuse the system (and get an extra $12k on top of unreported income). I see that.
Evidently the Swiss aren't too worried about these potential problems. Wonder why? We should watch how this program works out for them, given that there's no political will to do any such thing in the United States. If it works, we might want to try something similar, and we can also learn from them how to combat the potential problems you envision.
-Laelth
Why do you Libs always use tiny little countries with small populations?
How well would your little theory work on a country of say 310 million?
Your little utopian dreams start falling apart when you don't use such tiny countries for your example.
-
Why do you Libs always use tiny little countries with small populations?
How well would your little theory work on a country of say 310 million?
Your little utopian dreams start falling apart when you don't use such tiny countries for your example.
For starters, the "Swiss" government isn't considering this and for that reason, they aren't concerned. This is usual the progressive crap from the Swiss version of the Occupoopers.
-
Who was it who said, "Democracy can only last until people realize they can vote themselves free money."
Laelth is either stupid or evil.
Stupid to think this can work...
or
Evil for seeking to enslave millions to the govt dole, and political slavery with the democrats as their new masters.
my vote is for Evil.
-
HEHE its always funny how these libtard's talk about Switzerland....They wouldn't last 2 sec there or be let in. You have to own a gun and shoot WELL there. They use citizen militias, they have no standing army....so libs are out! Open carry is allowed in most places without special license. They are not allowed full auto but they are allowed with proper licence (background checks like we have here) semi-auto...etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland (i know wikipedia..but same info elsewhere)
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/switzerland
edit for sp.
-
Who was it who said, "Democracy can only last until people realize they can vote themselves free money."
Laelth is either stupid or evil.
Stupid to think this can work...
or
Evil for seeking to enslave millions to the govt dole, and political slavery with the democrats as their new masters.
my vote is for Evil.
HI5
-
America is excellent, but it can be better. As always, the liberal instinct is to tinker. Try one program and see if it works. If it does, keep it (until the problem is solved). If it doesn't, get rid of it. With that mind-set, it's difficult for me to say when this "gravy train" would stop. We'd stop it, I assume, when it no longer served its intended function or if we discovered that the program's benefits are outweighed by its costs.
I am not following your "trade one for the other" line of thought. Care to expand upon that?
-Laelth
What you just described would be great except for the reality of the situation regarding the bolded part. When has the liberal establishment ever called for the elimination of a failed program? The current wisdom is to pile more and more and more government on top of that failed program, apparently in the idea that if one bad idea doesn't work, three or four might work better. The Department of Energy, created to make us energy independent during the Carter Administration, has yet to fulfill that goal but had all kinds of other stuff thrown on top of it. Same for the Department of Education - schools are failing students but all we hear is that more money is needed. The Great Society effectively killed the need for the family unit and the response to that in the intervening five decades has been to make it less desirable to make a family. Even the ACA is nothing more than a blanket on top of current programs - conservatives have learned from long and painful lesson that liberals have no interest whatsoever in making government smaller or in "throwing out ideas that don't work" as you put it.
-
What you just described would be great except for the reality of the situation regarding the bolded part. When has the liberal establishment ever called for the elimination of a failed program? The current wisdom is to pile more and more and more government on top of that failed program, apparently in the idea that if one bad idea doesn't work, three or four might work better. The Department of Energy, created to make us energy independent during the Carter Administration, has yet to fulfill that goal but had all kinds of other stuff thrown on top of it. Same for the Department of Education - schools are failing students but all we hear is that more money is needed. The Great Society effectively killed the need for the family unit and the response to that in the intervening five decades has been to make it less desirable to make a family. Even the ACA is nothing more than a blanket on top of current programs - conservatives have learned from long and painful lesson that liberals have no interest whatsoever in making government smaller or in "throwing out ideas that don't work" as you put it.
FDR launched a ton of programs to combat the Great Depression. Nearly all of them are gone now. Clinton abolished AFDC. These things just happen. We try stuff, and we get rid of stuff. This dynamic does not bother me.
-Laelth
-
FDR launched a ton of programs to combat the Great Depression. Nearly all of them are gone now. Clinton abolished AFDC. These things just happen. We try stuff, and we get rid of stuff. This dynamic does not bother me.
-Laelth
FDR took a recession and created the Great Depression with the policies that were eventually ditched. The economy was beginning to rebound (sound familiar?) until he decided to channel his inner Wilson. I wonder why the Evil (R)epublicans® didn't do the same in 1920-21 with a post-WW1 depression, that started arguably far worse (by the numbers) then the 29 crash and ended withing 14 months .....but then, there was an manufactured crisis that cried out not to be wasted, huh.
Evidently the Swiss aren't too worried about these potential problems. Wonder why?
-Laelth
They haven't voted yet. Mind reader, too?
-
You're right Wasp. I'm putting Lilith on my iggy list.....PLOINK!!!!!!
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
I regret that I only have one :hi5: to give!
-
Interesting proposal. How could we accomplish this? Wouldn't it require massive state/government intrusion?
-Laelth
Sorry. Exactly the reverse.
....and you know it's true.
Quote from: Laelth on October 04, 2013, 01:21:56 pm
Stuff happens. Most of the poor people I know became poor through no fault of their own. They got unlucky. It's that simple. I hope you never get unlucky. If you do, I hope your ideology bites you in the buttocks.
-Laelth
This was a response to kraven, and I want to walk back the last part. Actually, if you ever are unlucky and do find yourself dependent upon "We the People" of the United States, I hope that there's an adequate social safety net to protect you and your family.
-Laelth
That would be prudent. That ideology built this country that has allowed an ever growing welfare state to survive. Conservative fiscal policy didn't shrink the safety net and drive Social Security to impending insolvency. You can thank Johnson and the slick accounting practices of the Clintoon Administration, for that. The only two administrations that attempted to do anything to fix SS were the Reagan (somewhat successfully) and the Bush (ignored and vilified relentlessly with more lies about ...."no problems").
We don't live paycheck to paycheck. The inevitable "rainy days" are planned for and we live (well) within our means. Funny thing about those rainy days. Almost every single one involved the government. Speaking of which, your welfare state ideology is in the process of monsooning the average Joe. Enjoy the fail.
I do find it somewhat amusing that your beloved EuroSocialists -through the IMF - are all worried about the US debt ceiling and how it's going to crash the world economy if it's not raised.
I wonder why that is?
-
Sorry. Exactly the reverse.
....and you know it's true.
Not being snarky here. I really am not following you.
wasp69 suggested that the world would be a better place if everyone shared his admirable work ethic. Fine. But how can we force people to adopt wasp69's work ethic without massive, government intrusion? That's my question.
The SCOTUS has ruled that the right to rear one's children as one sees fit is a fundamental, constitutional right protected at strict scrutiny. The SCOTUS has signaled that it will strike down any law that attempts to tell parents how to rear their children (assuming such a law was designed to force parents to create in their children that desirable wasp69 work ethic).
How can we do this? How can we make people have the good work ethic that wasp69 was lucky enough to have inherited from his parents? See what I mean? It would take massive, government intrusion if we wanted to do this by law. If we're talking about some mechanism other than the law, it's outside the realm of politics.
-Laelth
-
Not being snarky here. I really am not following you.
wasp69 suggested that the world would be a better place if everyone shared his admirable work ethic. Fine. But how can we force people to adopt wasp69's work ethic without massive, government intrusion? That's my question.
The SCOTUS has ruled that the right to rear one's children as one sees fit is a fundamental, constitutional right protected at strict scrutiny. The SCOTUS has signaled that it will strike down any law that attempts to tell parents how to rear their children (assuming such a law was designed to force parents to create in their children that desirable wasp69 work ethic).
How can we do this? How can we make people have the good work ethic that wasp69 was lucky enough to have inherited from his parents? See what I mean? It would take massive, government intrusion if we wanted to do this by law. If we're talking about some mechanism other than the law, it's outside the realm of politics.
-Laelth
Liberals hate Christianity....so they should approve if we take the antichristian route....we let them go hungry, naked and homeless for awhile and then those that still won't work to eat we kill...same method Stalin/Mao used.
-
Not being snarky here. I really am not following you.
Of course not. You have no answers that lay within the realm of reality. I couldn't care less if you're "following" me or not. Progressives are not hardwired to follow logic and mAtH!!!!111!!!! is a foreign language.
How can we do this? How can we make people have the good work ethic that wasp69 was lucky enough to have inherited from his parents? See what I mean? It would take massive, government intrusion if we wanted to do this by law. If we're talking about some mechanism other than the law, it's outside the realm of politics.
-Laelth
Inherited?!?!?! :rofl:
You have got to be kidding me. No, it's learned behavior just as sloth is learned behavior. Everyone, has a tendency to be lazy, at times.
-
Liberals hate Christianity....so they should approve if we take the antichristian route....we let them go hungry, naked and homeless for awhile and then those that still won't work to eat we kill...same method Stalin/Mao used.
Quite recently, I read an article that made what I thought was an interesting point. Paraphrasing, the jist of the argument was that conservatives believe you can get the best out of people by treating people badly whereas liberals tend to believe that you get the best out of people if you treat them well.
Apparently, there's some truth to that argument.
:???:
-Laelth
-
More trollishness.
I treat you badly because I don't respect you...not because I'm expecting better behavior.
-
Inherited?!?!?! :rofl:
You have got to be kidding me. No, it's learned behavior just as sloth is learned behavior. Everyone, has a tendency to be lazy, at times.
Yes, inherited. I don't know about you, but I certainly didn't "earn" my parents, nor did I "earn" the work ethic I learned from them. I lucked into it. What do we do with people whose parents lacked the work ethic that wasp69's parents had? How are these citizens to blame for their parents' failures?
More importantly, what are we willing to do about it? My point was that we can't force parents, constitutionally, to create a good work ethic in their children. So, now what?
:???:
-Laelth
-
FDR launched a ton of programs to combat the Great Depression. Nearly all of them are gone now. Clinton abolished AFDC. These things just happen. We try stuff, and we get rid of stuff. This dynamic does not bother me.
-Laelth
Completely irrelevant. The Great Depression was beaten not by anything FDR or the Congress did but by war. Clinton abolished the AFDC not as a thing that didn't work but as part of a grand, sweeping plan to "end welfare as we know it," a measure to get ahead of Gingrich and the Contract with America. Besides, it's now back, less than a generation later, as Obama is insisting that more and more money be thrown at the failed LBJ measures.
-
Its not my job to keep you alive ...it is YOURS! I do not believe rewarding bad behavior, just good behavior. If you work you eat...if you don't the liberal dies. Not real hard you just seem really dense.
-
Not being snarky here. I really am not following you.
wasp69 suggested that the world would be a better place if everyone shared his admirable work ethic. Fine. But how can we force people to adopt wasp69's work ethic without massive, government intrusion? That's my question.
The only "government intrusion" would be for the same government to stop the incentive for healthy people to not work, end the overlapping and job killing regulations that stand in the way of business, and save the "safety net" as a minimum for the truly needy. That would put the onus back on to the various religious and private charities who served as the local/regional help before the liberals turned the government into "mommy".
The rest can be accomplished by society. Why don't you join us in resurrecting the notions of shame, embarassment, and pride? Those don't need a government commisar.
The SCOTUS has ruled that the right to rear one's children as one sees fit is a fundamental, constitutional right protected at strict scrutiny. The SCOTUS has signaled that it will strike down any law that attempts to tell parents how to rear their children (assuming such a law was designed to force parents to create in their children that desirable wasp69 work ethic).
See a problem, look to the government to fix it, huh? Sad... Why do you need a king?
How can we do this? How can we make people have the good work ethic that wasp69 was lucky enough to have inherited from his parents? See what I mean? It would take massive, government intrusion if we wanted to do this by law. If we're talking about some mechanism other than the law, it's outside the realm of politics.
-Laelth
What you deem inherited was more a product of inculculation of common sense principals being applied to a problem as well as learned behavior from practical experience. Your genetic model is wrong and has no basis in reality. But you knew that already, didn't you? You wouldn't be your obtuse, disrupting, trolling self if you were honest, would you?
What I have done can be taught and is something that is repeatable if one applies it.
-
Quite recently, I read an article that made what I thought was an interesting point. Paraphrasing, the jist of the argument was that conservatives believe you can get the best out of people by treating people badly whereas liberals tend to believe that you get the best out of people if you treat them well.
Apparently, there's some truth to that argument.
:???:
-Laelth
No, you didn't, nor could you point to a credible source where any such thing was written.
-
No, you didn't, nor could you point to a credible source where any such thing was written.
He's a DUmmy. Liberals lie, all the time.
-
No, you didn't, nor could you point to a credible source where any such thing was written.
Here you go, rude person. http://www.ianwelsh.net/the-logic-of-the-surveillance-state/
Liberalism, in its classic form, is, among other things, the proposition that you get more out of people if you treat them well. Conservatism is the proposition that you get more out of people if you treat them badly.
Full iggy for you.
-Laelth
-
Quite recently, I read an article that made what I thought was an interesting point. Paraphrasing, the jist of the argument was that conservatives believe you can get the best out of people by treating people badly as responsible adults whereas liberals tend to believe that you get the best out of people if you treat them well as dependent children.
Apparently, there's some truth to that argument.
:???:
-Laelth
Fixed for truth and accuracy.
-
Here you go, rude person. http://www.ianwelsh.net/the-logic-of-the-surveillance-state/
Full iggy for you.
-Laelth
Childish....typical Lib.
-
Quote from: Laelth on Today at 08:41:50 am
Quite recently, I read an article that made what I thought was an interesting point. Paraphrasing, the jist of the argument was that conservatives believe you can get the best out of people by treating people badly whereas liberals tend to believe that you get the best out of people if you treat them well.
Apparently, there's some truth to that argument.
Huh?
-Laelth
Well....the straight line descent from deliberately obtuse to blatant lie. What complete and utter crap. So typical. We can create a surveillance state that will be all hopey changey and by sheer force of our superior intellect ( :rotf: :rotf: ), bypass all the bad stuff (that always happens).
How stupid does one have to be to constantly disregard history?
-
Liberalism, in its classic form, is, among other things, the proposition that you get more out of people if you treat them well. Conservatism is the proposition that you get more out of people if you treat them badly.
Bullshit! Liberals, or as I prefer to call them leftists treat people horribly. They treat people like children, and tell them they need someone looking out for them. They tell people how big their sodas can be, how much salt they can use, and what kind of health insurance they need. They also demonize those who are successful and tell people who are lazy that they are deserving of some of the wealth that the successful people have. Instead of trying to push people to do better leftists simply lower the standards whether it's in education or requirements for the workforce.
Conservatives treat people like adults who are capable of doing things for themselves. I would much rather be treated like an adult than a child that needs the government to run my life and steal from other people to give "free stuff" to me.
Naturally leftists feel that conservatives treat people badly when we expect adults to be adults, because leftists are still mentally children that have never been forced to grow up.
-
Liberalism, in its classic form, is, among other things, the proposition that you get more out of people if you treat them well. Conservatism.
Something you don't learn in Ethnic Studies.
-
Bullshit! Liberals, or as I prefer to call them leftists treat people horribly. They treat people like children, and tell them they need someone looking out for them. They tell people how big their sodas can be, how much salt they can use, and what kind of health insurance they need. They also demonize those who are successful and tell people who are lazy that they are deserving of some of the wealth that the successful people have. Instead of trying to push people to do better leftists simply lower the standards whether it's in education or requirements for the workforce.
Conservatives treat people like adults who are capable of doing things for themselves. I would much rather be treated like an adult than a child that needs the government to run my life and steal from other people to give "free stuff" to me.
Naturally leftists feel that conservatives treat people badly when we expect adults to be adults, because leftists are still mentally children that have never been forced to grow up.
Hey, your argument is with Ian Welsh, not me. I just said I had read it recently. I said that in response to the argument that treating the poor badly would "give them an incentive" to work (an attitude shared by more than a few people on this site). If so, it appears Mr. Welsh may be onto something.
-Laelth
-
Hey, your argument is with Ian Welsh, not me. I just said I had read it recently. I said that in response to the argument that treating the poor badly would "give them an incentive" to work (an attitude shared by more than a few people on this site). If so, it appears Mr. Welsh may be onto something.
-Laelth
What you call treating people badly is what we call personal responsibility. If you constantly make bad decisions in your life and some government agency bails you out how are you going to ever learn to take care of yourself? Look at that DUmmy locust who is 30 something and couldn't even last a week in college, his parents enabled him his whole life and now he can't even deal with dorm life. Did his parents do him any favors by not using tough love? No they turned him into a neurotic leech.
My argument is with you, you posted that so you must be in agreement with it.
-
What you call treating people badly is what we call personal responsibility. If you constantly make bad decisions in your life and some government agency bails you out how are you going to ever learn to take care of yourself? Look at that DUmmy locust who is 30 something and couldn't even last a week in college, his parents enabled him his whole life and now he can't even deal with dorm life. Did his parents do him any favors by not using tough love? No they turned him into a neurotic leech.
My argument is with you, you posted that so you must be in agreement with it.
I'm just letting you prove Mr. Welsh's point. What you call "tough love" I call "treating people badly." It's clear you favor that. So be it.
-Laelth
-
I hate to tell you, you poor ****ing DUchebags, that 30 years ago I was knocking down almost $2.600/month out of college.
Of course I had a BSME, had put myself through college by first drafting, then designing equipment and had 5 years of that experience. What I didn't get to do was to go out and party every night or go to all the concerts in college but I sure got to do everything I wanted after getting out. I also got to work about 55 hrs a week exempt. Overalll the $/hr was not as big of change once I had the degree.
Hard work, applying yourself, getting experience, and good decisions can and used to make all the difference in the world. Doing nothing, getting a BA in some easy yet obscure area, and whining about how you are so special does not get you anywhere in life other than the basement or section h8.
-
I'm just letting you prove Mr. Welsh's point. What you call "tough love" I call "treating people badly." It's clear you favor that. So be it.
-Laelth
By what evidence of humanity have you ever seen coddling be productive?
-
Here you go, rude person. http://www.ianwelsh.net/the-logic-of-the-surveillance-state/
Full iggy for you.
-Laelth
Some guy named Ian's blog is not a credible source.
Some guy named ian
"Liberalism, in its classic form, is, among other things, the proposition that you get more out of people if you treat them well."
Particularly not the blog of someone who is so horribly wrong about classical liberalism (the progenitor of today's libertarianism, not your leftist Statism).
The classical liberal knows that men are inherently corrupt, and the organizations of corrupt men are equally corrupt themselves. Government must have no more than the minimum amount of power necessary to accomplish its purpose- to protect the personal liberty of its Citizens.
-
It appears lots of posters want to engage me.
One fire hydrant, many dogs.
(http://laborunionreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/dogs-peeing-on-fire-hydrant.jpg)
-
I'm just letting you prove Mr. Welsh's point. What you call "tough love" I call "treating people badly." It's clear you favor that. So be it.
-Laelth
And what you call compassion is what I call treating people badly.
It's obvious you have no desire to live free, you want government involved in every aspect of your life telling you what you should and shouldn't do and if you can't make financial ends meet, you want the government to take from someone else and give to you. Some people were just meant to be ruled. So may I suggest that everyone who wants to be ruled move to a country where people are ruled and leave this one alone? It's not like I can move to another country that promotes freedom there aren't any, and there are tons of countries that you leftists would enjoy living in.
-
Here you go, rude person. http://www.ianwelsh.net/the-logic-of-the-surveillance-state/
Full iggy for you.
-Laelth
Love your quote. Only one problem - you collectivists are far from liberalism in its "classical form" and your source is far from credible. At least you managed to link something.
Edited to add: BTW, I'm not rude, you're just a bitch.
-
Childish....typical Lib.
Yeah... That, coddling mediocrity, and an inability to deal with plain spoken words are why these disruptive trolls usually "plonk" me.
Oh, well, I'll have to figure out how to carry on... :whatever:
Did you notice the troll glazed right over the post just before that?
-
FDR launched a ton of programs to combat the Great Depression.
And they actually caused the Great Depression to go on for much longer than it should have. The only thing that pulled us out of it was WW II.
Nearly all of them are gone now.
Thank God.
Clinton abolished AFDC.
And replaced it with TANF.
We try stuff, and we get rid of stuff.
Like what? All that happens is that the program either gets re named or a new more complicated and expensive version gets rolled out.
This dynamic does not bother me.
-Laelth
Of course it doesn't because Liberals never ever get rid of a social welfare program. It's their bread and butter way to keep people enslaved to Liberalism.
-
One fire hydrant, many dogs.
(http://laborunionreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/dogs-peeing-on-fire-hydrant.jpg)
Yes, thank you. It does feel a bit like that.
:rofl:
-Laelth
-
Yes, thank you. It does feel a bit like that.
:rofl:
-Laelth
You bring it on yourself
-
Some guy named ian
"Liberalism, in its classic form, is, among other things, the proposition that you get more out of people if you treat them well."
NO! It means you let people do what they want as long as those actions do not bring harm to another. Your brand of Liberalism is nothing but control freakness on steroids.
-
You bring it on yourself
No doubt. I voluntarily came here to read and post. I knew exactly what I was getting into.
-Laelth
-
No doubt. I voluntarily came here to read and post. I knew exactly what I was getting into.
-Laelth
Either you're a masochist and enjoy having your longwinded Libtard diatribes beaten to a pulp or you honestly think you'll convert us.
Either way you're failing.
So I have to go with the third option...you just like the sound of your own voice.
-
No doubt. I voluntarily came here to read and post. I knew exactly what I was getting into.
-Laelth
Then you knew we don't like leftists here. We tolerate them because we are secure enough in our beliefs that we can stand to see another point of view.
-
Either you're a masochist and enjoy having your longwinded Libtard diatribes beaten to a pulp or you honestly think you'll convert us.
Either way you're failing.
So I have to go with the third option...you just like the sound of your own voice.
Option 3 is disruptive troll.
-
No doubt. I voluntarily came here to read and post. I knew exactly what I was getting into.
-Laelth
Here I sit, brokenhearted...
-
No doubt. I voluntarily came here to read and post. I knew exactly what I was getting into.
-Laelth
Alternate verse...
Some people come to sit and think...
-
Quite recently, I read an article that made what I thought was an interesting point. Paraphrasing, the jist of the argument was that conservatives believe you can get the best out of people by treating people badly whereas liberals tend to believe that you get the best out of people if you treat them well.
Apparently, there's some truth to that argument.
:???:
-Laelth
It had to come from some liberal blogger that made a moonbat interpretation of something that I learned in BUS101 almost 40 years ago and that being that type X supervisors believes that workers are inherently lazy and need to be threatened with discipline in order to get them to do any work. Whereas a type Y supervisor believes that people want to work and can perform their duties with minimal supervision. Where the failure comes into play when supervised by a type Y Mgr. is that the hard worker sees the lazy worker take advantage of everyone in the department and a type X Mgr. is needed to bring order back into the workplace.
-
Yes, inherited. I don't know about you, but I certainly didn't "earn" my parents, nor did I "earn" the work ethic I learned from them. I lucked into it. What do we do with people whose parents lacked the work ethic that wasp69's parents had? How are these citizens to blame for their parents' failures?
More importantly, what are we willing to do about it? My point was that we can't force parents, constitutionally, to create a good work ethic in their children. So, now what?
:???:
-Laelth
We could start with the school system. The fact that anybody is able to graduate high school without being able to read or write is testament that we as a society are fostering poor work habits from a young age. School should be holding children back a grade in the younger years when they don't learn what they are supposed to learn, or failing them when they are older and don't do what they are expected to do.
There should be a work element to welfare, a certain number of hours of work for society in exchange for your benefits. You don't work, you don't get your benefits, just like a job. There should be some sort of work element when it comes to benefits like section 8 housing, and there should be consequences for trashing a place.
Conservative philosophy isn't about being "mean," it is about the fact that in life actions have consequences. If you work hard you can do very well, if you don't work hard life becomes more challenging. I don't have a problem with temporary unemployment benefits, after all, anybody can fall on hard times. I do have a problem with able bodied adults collecting any sort of government benefits long term.
WIC is an example of a good program. Limits are set, it is for pregnant women and for families with children 5 and under, and there are guidelines on what you can purchase. SNAP is an example of a similar program that is not run as well. No, I don't want people to starve, but why shouldn't they have guidelines on what they can buy with money given to them by the government? Why not require a certain number of hours of volunteer work to exchange for their SNAP benefits?
Expecting something for nothing is a learned behavior, and like any learned behavior it can be changed.
-
Yes, inherited. I don't know about you, but I certainly didn't "earn" my parents, nor did I "earn" the work ethic I learned from them. I lucked into it. What do we do with people whose parents lacked the work ethic that wasp69's parents had? How are these citizens to blame for their parents' failures?
More importantly, what are we willing to do about it? My point was that we can't force parents, constitutionally, to create a good work ethic in their children. So, now what?
:???:
-Laelth
Take their kids off of them. If some slacking piece of shit drug addict can't hold a job, or provide adequate food, shelter, and basic necessities for their kids, they lose custody and the kids are placed with someone who can. Many kids are purposefully brought in to this world simply as a meal ticket from the Govt. Remove those incentives and birth rates will decline. I am not talking a family that loses their job and needs a little time to get back on their feet. Liberals love to confuse the two. I am talking about people that have never held a job, have no intentions of having one, spend years and years, decades on govt assistance and keep spitting out one after the other, making little to no effort to parent appropriately.
-
Take their kids off of them. If some slacking piece of shit drug addict can't hold a job, or provide adequate food, shelter, and basic necessities for their kids, they lose custody and the kids are placed with someone who can. Many kids are purposefully brought in to this world simply as a meal ticket from the Govt. Remove those incentives and birth rates will decline. I am not talking a family that loses their job and needs a little time to get back on their feet. Liberals love to confuse the two. I am talking about people that have never held a job, have no intentions of having one, spend years and years, decades on govt assistance and keep spitting out one after the other, making little to no effort to parent appropriately.
Here you go.
Somebody needs to pay for my 15 kids.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBqjZ0KZCa0
-
Quote from: Laelth on Today at 08:47:20 am
Yes, inherited. I don't know about you, but I certainly didn't "earn" my parents, nor did I "earn" the work ethic I learned from them.
-Laelth
Veering into a gNads word mash of contradiction.
-
Veering into a gNads word mash of contradiction.
Excellent. You get my point, and I am glad to see it.
Regards,
-Laelth
-
(http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/7145/dkqo.jpg)
-
(http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/2325/8ggq.jpg)
-
(http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/1594/uzmy.jpg)
-
(http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/7097/wo5x.jpg)
-
(http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/8660/k9rz.jpg)
-
(http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/1594/uzmy.jpg)
"How did that annoyingly adorable kitten get in here?"
(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5149/5573379674_7fd0790b18_z.jpg)
-
(http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/8660/k9rz.jpg)
(http://i1299.photobucket.com/albums/ag72/conscave/clappingdog_zps19585f32.gif)
-
Take their kids off of them. If some slacking piece of shit drug addict can't hold a job, or provide adequate food, shelter, and basic necessities for their kids, they lose custody and the kids are placed with someone who can. Many kids are purposefully brought in to this world simply as a meal ticket from the Govt. Remove those incentives and birth rates will decline. I am not talking a family that loses their job and needs a little time to get back on their feet. Liberals love to confuse the two. I am talking about people that have never held a job, have no intentions of having one, spend years and years, decades on govt assistance and keep spitting out one after the other, making little to no effort to parent appropriately.
You want to pay all the taxes necessary to take care of all those kids whose parents aren't "good enough" for you? I doubt it.
-Laelth
-
I'd ask her(Laeith)to go to Blockbuster and rent the Mickey Rooney movie about Boys Town.
-
You want to pay all the taxes necessary to take care of all those kids whose parents aren't "good enough" for you? I doubt it.
-Laelth
So you think druggies and criminals who let their kids roam the streets are good enough parents? Interesting.
We are probably on the third generation of welfare brats. It's a way of life for a lot of them.
You should read Starr Parker's book "Uncle Sam's Plantation". She lived that life.
-
You want to pay all the taxes necessary to take care of all those kids whose parents aren't "good enough" for you? I doubt it.
-Laelth
Lots of people who can't have kids would adopt those kids in a heartbeat.
-
Lots of people who can't have kids would adopt those kids in a heartbeat.
You'll notice, however, how the little troll jumps all over the government solution.
-
You'll notice, however, how the little troll jumps all over the government solution.
Yup. Liberal indoctrination at its finest. Womb to tomb Government is your answer to anything.
Marx would be proud of him.
-
(http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/7097/wo5x.jpg)
(http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/8660/k9rz.jpg)
WHOO HOO Beer and boobiez!!!!! HI5
edit for sp...lol damn I do that alot.
-
WHOO HOO Beer and boodiez!!!!! HI5
I never should have left here in such a huff for 2 years.
I forgot how every thread, irrespective of topic, ends up with Beer and Boobies!
-
I never should have left here in such a huff for 2 years.
I forgot how every thread, irrespective of topic, ends up with Beer and Boobies!
In your absence, we added Bacon and Pie.
-
In your absence, we added Bacon and Pie.
So that was the enticing smell that I followed back...
:)
-
Gleaned from the Hot air comment section on the article on this. The guy (in italics) is from Switzerland:
This is bull !
We may “have†to vote on this socialist crap but it will NEVER be accepted by the Swiss people, I predict 90% will refuse this stupid thing. Swiss people aren’t that crazy ;-)
It’s just how our democratic system works… Say this vote is just a little “collateral damage†from the very democratic powers, that we, as Swiss, have : popular referendums : https://www.ch.ch/en/referendum
The good point is that this popular referendum powers also gave us the possibility to definitively ban the construction on minarets (late 2009 vote) and two weeks ago, one canton – Tessin – (canton = “stateâ€) just banned the burka in all public places :-)
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss_news/Burka_ban_approved_in_Italian-speaking_Switzerland.html?cid=36951992
I’ll just add that this latest success on banning burkas will now go national as a country wide vote on that subject will take place, probably late next year !
coolapic on October 6, 2013 at 9:50 AM
Oh, by the way, I AM SWISS, I live, vote and have political activities there (in the right wing UDC party) ;-)
coolapic on October 6, 2013 at 9:58 AM
@ virgo
I’m sure there’s some procedural nuance here: not every referendum gets implemented.
Correct, it must be compatible with our constitution ot it gets rejected. Alas, this may be constitutional and we may have to vote on it. But be assured it will be rejected, by at least 90% of the voters.
the Swiss may give socialism a try
No way, Switzerland is firmly on the right, the largest party is the UDC/SVP (right of the Tea Party, if compared).
Unfortunately we also have leftists and “greensâ€, sure, but those are a shrinking minority !
coolapic on October 6, 2013 at 12:25 PM
@ ZhivBlago
Yep, they are very much on the right. The UDC/SVP (same party, different language) is really right wing.
But I agree that the name can be confusing… I’m part of it, you can now feel reassured ;-)
coolapic on October 6, 2013 at 12:38 PM
The good point is that this popular referendum powers also gave us the possibility to definitively ban the construction on minarets (late 2009 vote) and two weeks ago, one canton – Tessin – (canton = “stateâ€) just banned the burka in all public places :-)
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss_news/Burka_ban_approved_in_Italian-speaking_Switzerland.html?cid=36951992
I’ll just add that this latest success on banning burkas will now go national as a country wide vote on that subject will take place, probably late next year !
coolapic on October 6, 2013 at 9:50 AM
-
(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5149/5573379674_7fd0790b18_z.jpg)
I just realized- this dog looks like Morgan Freeman.
-
Lots of people who can't have kids would adopt those kids in a heartbeat.
Interesting. How would that work?
At what age would the child be taken away from its parents? At what point would you be willing to say that a given child has parents who will not instill in their children a good wasp69 work ethic? Would 5 years old be about right? Where are all the people wanting to adopt 5-year-olds? Or, would you take these children away from their parents earlier than that? And who would get to make the decision that X parent is incapable of producing a child with a good wasp69 work ethic? Would you honestly be willing to use the heavy hand of government in this way? If so, so much for "land of the free."
Sorry. I don't see adoption as a good solution to this problem.
-Laelth
-
Yup. Liberal indoctrination at its finest. Womb to tomb Government is your answer to anything.
Marx would be proud of him.
I'll say this again, just in case you missed it the first time. I would much rather have the free market, private charities, or just about anything else take care of this problem, if they could, but they haven't yet, and it doesn't look like they ever will. In circumstances like this, government may be the only tool we have to combat a problem, and, as you can imagine, I would be willing to use it. If the plan we try doesn't work, we can get rid of it. If the problem gets solved, we can eliminate the government program that we set up to address it. If we like the program and continue to see benefits from it, we can keep it.
I do not believe government should be the first option, but, when we're talking about politics, we're talking about government, so it makes sense to consider what the government could do, and then consider whether the government should do it (these are very different questions).
-Laelth
-
I'll say this again, just in case you missed it the first time. I would much rather have the free market, private charities, or just about anything else take care of this problem, if they could, but they haven't yet, and it doesn't look like they ever will. In circumstances like this, government may be the only tool we have to combat a problem, and, as you can imagine, I would be willing to use it. If the plan we try doesn't work, we can get rid of it. If the problem gets solved, we can eliminate the government program that we set up to address it. If we like the program and continue to see benefits from it, we can keep it.
I do not believe government should be the first option, but, when we're talking about politics, we're talking about government, so it makes sense to consider what the government could do, and then consider whether the government should do it (these are very different questions).
-Laelth
Forget about what the government "could do". It is not the purpose of government to solve the private problems of private citizens.
Ask this question first: Given that the Federal government is Constitutionally established as one of limited, enumerated powers, what does the Constitution empower the government to do?
Davy Crockett said, when he was a US Representative, "We have the right as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money." Charity is not the business of government.
-
Forget about what the government "could do". It is not the purpose of government to solve the private problems of private citizens.
Ask this question first: Given that the Federal government is Constitutionally established as one of limited, enumerated powers, what does the Constitution empower the government to do?
Davy Crockett said, when he was a US Representative, "We have the right as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money." Charity is not the business of government.
H5! :cheersmate:
-
Thank you for this thoughtful response.
We could start with the school system. The fact that anybody is able to graduate high school without being able to read or write is testament that we as a society are fostering poor work habits from a young age. School should be holding children back a grade in the younger years when they don't learn what they are supposed to learn, or failing them when they are older and don't do what they are expected to do.
Hmm ... schools are locally controlled (or state controlled, as is the case with Texas). I presume you're not advocating a federal solution. I don't deny that the problem you identify is real, but I would not favor another national law to address inadequacies in education. I'd like to keep some state sovereignty and some local control of education. So, what did you have in mind?
There should be a work element to welfare, a certain number of hours of work for society in exchange for your benefits. You don't work, you don't get your benefits, just like a job. There should be some sort of work element when it comes to benefits like section 8 housing, and there should be consequences for trashing a place.
As far as I know, unemployment beneficiaries are required to look for work, constantly, while getting benefits. Not sure what all the states have done with TANF, but it's temporary (and virtually useless). Some states may have work requirements to get these benefits. I really don't know. I am not opposed to a work requirement for section 8 housing, provided we agree that only those who are able to work have to meet the requirement. Lots of people are simply unable to work. I, for one, am not interested in just letting them die.
Conservative philosophy isn't about being "mean," it is about the fact that in life actions have consequences. If you work hard you can do very well, if you don't work hard life becomes more challenging. I don't have a problem with temporary unemployment benefits, after all, anybody can fall on hard times. I do have a problem with able bodied adults collecting any sort of government benefits long term.
Responses from a number of posters here suggest to me that many conservatives do feel that "being mean" is the best way to get maximum productivity out of our citizens. If you disagree with them, more power to you.
WIC is an example of a good program. Limits are set, it is for pregnant women and for families with children 5 and under, and there are guidelines on what you can purchase. SNAP is an example of a similar program that is not run as well. No, I don't want people to starve, but why shouldn't they have guidelines on what they can buy with money given to them by the government? Why not require a certain number of hours of volunteer work to exchange for their SNAP benefits?
Agreed that WIC is good. So is SNAP. Most SNAP beneficiaries I know are working, actually. Most Wal-Mart employees qualify for SNAP. In essence, We the People of the United States are subsidizing Wal-Mart's profits with a minimum wage that keeps Wal-Mart employees in poverty. This, imho, is a problem.
Expecting something for nothing is a learned behavior, and like any learned behavior it can be changed.
I agree. The question is, what do we want to do about it?
-Laelth
-
I've been away from here so long, that I have to ask what is probably common knowledge: Lealth -are you currently employed?
-
Forget about what the government "could do". It is not the purpose of government to solve the private problems of private citizens.
Ask this question first: Given that the Federal government is Constitutionally established as one of limited, enumerated powers, what does the Constitution empower the government to do?
Davy Crockett said, when he was a US Representative, "We have the right as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money." Charity is not the business of government.
I fundamentally disagree. A group of "private persons" got together to form this government because they felt they needed it to solve their personal problems (like the fact that the British Navy and privateers were raiding and stealing goods from private businesses). As such, our Navy was created.
Government has always been a tool for private citizens to use, collectively, to improve the lot of all of us. These guys are no exception to that rule:
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_b4mZSnRHUAw/Sky9EqEDZ2I/AAAAAAAABDc/3HoaNU_rSao/s320/jonathan-trumbull-signing-of-the-declaration-of-independence-large.jpg)
-Laelth
-
Forget about what the government "could do". It is not the purpose of government to solve the private problems of private citizens.
Ask this question first: Given that the Federal government is Constitutionally established as one of limited, enumerated powers, what does the Constitution empower the government to do?
Davy Crockett said, when he was a US Representative, "We have the right as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money." Charity is not the business of government.
Amen brother. H5 :cheersmate:
-
I've been away from here so long, that I have to ask what is probably common knowledge: Lealth -are you currently employed?
I don't intend to respond to any personal questions.
-Laelth
-
I don't intend to respond to any personal questions.
-Laelth
Lilith, since neither the Swiss nor our government are going to guarantee your income in the remotely near future, have you considered Wishadoo?
-
Lilith, since neither the Swiss nor our government are going to guarantee your income in the remotely near future, have you considered Wishadoo?
:lmao: ...to late, that cow has already been milked.
-
I fundamentally disagree. A group of "private persons" got together to form this government because they felt they needed it to solve their personal problems (like the fact that the British Navy and privateers were raiding and stealing goods from private businesses). As such, our Navy was created.
Government has always been a tool for private citizens to use, collectively, to improve the lot of all of us. These guys are no exception to that rule:
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_b4mZSnRHUAw/Sky9EqEDZ2I/AAAAAAAABDc/3HoaNU_rSao/s320/jonathan-trumbull-signing-of-the-declaration-of-independence-large.jpg)
-Laelth
Absolutely dead wrong...the founders created the governmental system we have for the simple purpose of civil order and protection,they in no way shape or form regarded government as a tool to improve lives in a direct sense.
It is the leftist bastardization of the very concept our country was founded on which is destroying it.
-
I don't intend to respond to any personal questions.
-Laelth
Dodging the real issue at hand, I see. I'll take that as a "no", or at least assume your resume is peppered with numerous gaps. Anyone who has worked steadily since they were able is typically averse to handouts, especially the non quid-pro-quo kind. I have no problem with the government handing out money to the unemployed, as long as the recipients pay it back in kind. All the trash piling up alongside out highways could be cleaned up by those on the dole. And if the takers can't perform that simple task due to real (or imagined) disabilities, there a LOTS more jobs that serve the public to be had. They could do data entry - child care for the children of their fellow takers who claim they can't work because they can't afford childcare... school cafeteria and janitorial staff... the list is ENDLESS.
-
Lilith, since neither the Swiss nor our government are going to guarantee your income in the remotely near future, have you considered Wishadoo?
That's funny. Credit where it is due.
I think a guaranteed minimum income would be good for the United States, but because there's no will to do any such thing here, at the moment, I don't see the point in discussing it further.
-Laelth
-
I think a guaranteed minimum income would be good for the United States, but ..... there's no will to do any such thing here
-Laelth
Nor will there EVER be; of that I am certain.
-
That's funny. Credit where it is due.
I think a guaranteed minimum income would be good for the United States, but because there's no will to do any such thing here, at the moment, I don't see the point in discussing it further.
-Laelth
You were all for it in the forth post to this thread. Every time you get your ass handed to you, you see no need in discussing it further.
-
Dodging the real issue at hand, I see. I'll take that as a "no", or at least assume your resume is peppered with numerous gaps. Anyone who has worked steadily since they were able is typically averse to handouts, especially the non quid-pro-quo kind. I have no problem with the government handing out money to the unemployed, as long as the recipients pay it back in kind. All the trash piling up alongside out highways could be cleaned up by those on the dole. And if the takers can't perform that simple task due to real (or imagined) disabilities, there a LOTS more jobs that serve the public to be had. They could do data entry - child care for the children of their fellow takers who claim they can't work because they can't afford childcare... school cafeteria and janitorial staff... the list is ENDLESS.
You know, I agree with you. I'd love to see people paid to do the things you list. I suspect many of your conservative peers here, however, would oppose government paying people to do those things.
(http://metaldetectingforum.com/images/smilies/shrug.gif)
-Laelth
-
Absolutely dead wrong...the founders created the governmental system we have for the simple purpose of civil order and protection,they in no way shape or form regarded government as a tool to improve lives in a direct sense.
It is the leftist bastardization of the very concept our country was founded on which is destroying it.
:banghead:
-Laelth
-
You were all for it in the forth post to this thread. Every time you get your ass handed to you, you see no need in discussing it further.
I'm still all for it. What's your point?
:banghead:
-Laelth
-
:banghead:
-Laelth
Show me in the Constitution where the government was tasked with the direct care of individuals.
-
I'll say this again, just in case you missed it the first time. I would much rather have the free market, private charities, or just about anything else take care of this problem, if they could, but they haven't yet, and it doesn't look like they ever will. In circumstances like this, government may be the only tool we have to combat a problem, and, as you can imagine, I would be willing to use it. If the plan we try doesn't work, we can get rid of it. If the problem gets solved, we can eliminate the government program that we set up to address it. If we like the program and continue to see benefits from it, we can keep it.
And le ME say it again. Government isn't the answer it's the problem.
You sit there knowing that tax rates...out of control regulation and Obamacare are killing the free market right now and declare "the free market id dead".
You Liberals have created the ultimate self licking ice cream cone and then claim innocence and deny your own complicity when the free market struggles under the weight of what you've wrought...all to promote Big Government as the only way.
And on top oif it you insult the intelligence of every one here by acting like the free market has failed or is failing on it's own...totallly ignoring the giant push it got from what you think is the solution.
I do not believe government should be the first option, but, when we're talking about politics, we're talking about government, so it makes sense to consider what the government could do, and then consider whether the government should do it (these are very different questions).
-Laelth
You don't believe it's should be the first option...you believe it should be the ONLY option.
-
Show me in the Constitution where the government was tasked with the direct care of individuals.
You can't see it? It's right there next to gay rights and abortion.
-
Show me in the Constitution where the government was tasked with the direct care of individuals.
Here comes "The General Welfare" Bull Shit.E
-
Here comes "The General Welfare" Bull Shit.E
Yep,and anything that actually does that,leftists hate.
-
You don't believe it's should be the first option...you believe it should be the ONLY option.
I think it's funny that when I tell you what I actually believe, you turn around and, in your infinite wisdom, tell me what you think I really and truly believe, even when what you think I believe is the exact opposite.
Seriously. What am I supposed to do with that?
(http://metaldetectingforum.com/images/smilies/shrug.gif)
-Laelth
-
Seriously. What am I supposed to do with that?
(http://metaldetectingforum.com/images/smilies/shrug.gif)
-Laelth
Toss prevents me from responding to your question so, I see no point in responding further.
-
Y'all are losing the discussion to Laelth's infant wisdom.
-
Toss prevents me from responding to your question so, I see no point in responding further.
That's funny.
:cheersmate:
-Laelth
-
Y'all are losing the discussion to Laelth's infant wisdom.
So's that.
:cheersmate:
-Laelth
-
I think it's funny that when I tell you what I actually believe, you turn around and, in your infinite wisdom, tell me what you think I really and truly believe, even when what you think I believe is the exact opposite.
Because you're a Liberal. And despite your protestations to the contrary your beliefs that you state on here are the polar opposite of what you say you believe in.
Everything with you comes back to only one answer...more Federal Government. You can say you believe in the free market and capitalism...but when you immediately turn around and claim they've failed then announce that more Government is the only solution...it proves the first part of your statement to be utterly false.
You sound just like your boss and the rest of the Libs there with you on Capitol Hill. Oh yeah Socialist Dems ALLLL claim they love and believe in free markets and free enterprise...even Obama says that...yet in the next breath they claim the system is broken and only Government can fix it.
Seriously. What am I supposed to do with that?
(http://metaldetectingforum.com/images/smilies/shrug.gif)
-Laelth
Do you really want me to answer that?
-
Because you're a Liberal. And despite your protestations to the contrary your beliefs that you state on here are the polar opposite of what you say you believe in.
Everything with you comes back to only one answer...more Federal Government. You can say you believe in the free market and capitalism...but when you immediately turn around and claim they've failed then announce that more Government is the only solution...it proves the first part of your statement to be utterly false.
You sound just like your boss and the rest of the Libs there with you on Capitol Hill. Oh yeah Socialist Dems ALLLL claim they love and believe in free markets and free enterprise...even Obama says that...yet in the next breath they claim the system is broken and only Government can fix it.
If the free market and the private sector had already solved these problems, we wouldn't be having this discussion. As a liberal, when I see a problem (like a large percentage of the American people uninsured and lacking adequate access to health care--just as an example) that neither the free market, nor charity, nor anything else has been able to fix, I think it's prudent to ask what the government could do to solve these problems. In my mind, that's what the government is for.
Do you really want me to answer that?
LOL. No, you're right. I don't want you to answer that one.
:rofl:
-Laelth
-
If the free market and the private sector had already solved these problems, we wouldn't be having this discussion. As a liberal, when I see a problem (like a large percentage of the American people uninsured and lacking adequate access to health care--just as an example) that neither the free market, nor charity, nor anything else has been able to fix, I think it's prudent to ask what the government could do to solve these problems. In my mind, that's what the government is for.
LOL. No, you're right. I don't want you to answer that one.
:rofl:
-Laelth
What if the "fix" is more harmful to those who don`t need it then it is helpful for the few that might?
-
If the free market and the private sector had already solved these problems, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
This discussion would be moot if the free market were allowed to fix the problems.
As it is an over arching overly intrusive Government won't let it.
As a liberal, when I see a problem (like a large percentage of the American people uninsured and lacking adequate access to health care--just as an example) that neither the free market, nor charity, nor anything else has been able to fix, I think it's prudent to ask what the government could do to solve these problems. In my mind, that's what the government is for.
And yet the government fix leaves more people in the same situation they claim they are saving them from.
And your fix doesn't give them health care...just health insurance...nothing in the carefully crafted Libspeak you and your Capitol Hill bosses spew says that care is guarenteed...just the insurance...so you're actually taking away something that actually IS guarenteed now.
-
What if the "fix" is more harmful to those who don`t need it then it is helpful for the few that might?
Good question. If that "fix" ends up being worse than what we started with, we should abolish the law and try something else.
-Laelth
-
This discussion would be moot if the free market were allowed to fix the problems.
As it is an over arching overly intrusive Government won't let it.
On that, we will never agree. The "free market" has had plenty of time to insure that all Americans have adequate and reasonable access to health care, and it has failed. I am not interested in giving it more time. Government needed to do something, and it did. Not sure what government intrusion you think was preventing the free market from solving this problem, but Congress ran out of patience in 2010 and decided to do something. Thus the ACA.
And yet the government fix leaves more people in the same situation they claim they are saving them from.
Perhaps. We'll see after the ACA has been operational for a few years exactly whom it serves and how well it does so. We won't know until we try it.
And your fix doesn't give them health care...just health insurance...nothing in the carefully crafted Libspeak you and your Capitol Hill bosses spew says that care is guarenteed...just the insurance...so you're actually taking away something that actually IS guarenteed now.
Spot on. I am on record saying that nobody needs health insurance. What people need is health care, and, as you rightly note, those are very different things. Sadly, it appears we can't guarantee health care to all Americans. Instead, as a compromise, Democrats decided to try the Heritage Foundation's plan from the 1990s to guarantee health insurance for all Americans. I think that was a stupid move, and I have said so. I'd much rather we guaranteed and insured that all Americans have access to health care.
-Laelth
-
Good question. If that "fix" ends up being worse than what we started with, we should abolish the law and try something else.
-Laelth
You pretty well just made the case against Ocare and even though this wet dream thread will never happen the same thing applies.
-
On that, we will never agree. The "free market" has had plenty of time to insure that all Americans have adequate and reasonable free access to health care, and it has failed. I am not interested in giving it more time. Government needed to do something, and it did. Not sure what government intrusion you think was preventing the free market from solving this problem, but Congress ran out of patience in 2010 and decided to do something. Thus the ACA FCA.
Perhaps. We'll see after the ACA FCA vhas been operational for a few years exactly whom it serves and how well it does so. We won't know until we try it. (Pelosism: we have to pass it to see what's in it....)
Spot on. I am on record saying that nobody needs health insurance. What people need is free health care, and, as you rightly note, those are very different things. Sadly, it appears we can't guarantee free health care[/b] to all Americans. Instead, as a compromise, Democrats decided to try the Heritage Foundation's plan from the 1990s to guarantee health insurance for all Americans. I think that was a stupid move, and I have said so. I'd much rather we guaranteed and insured mandated taxpayer funding so that all Americans have access to free health care.
-Laelth
You libs keep confusing the concept of "adequate" with "free". I have fixed your statement to reflect what you REALLY meant to say. Because, in my experience, hospitals typically treat anyone who rolls through the door and writes off the unpaid bills later (of course all write offs are recouped in the form of higher costs billed to those of us who DO pay our bills).
-
You libs keep confusing the concept of "adequate" with "free". I have fixed your statement to reflect what you REALLY meant to say. Because, in my experience, hospitals typically treat anyone who rolls through the door and writes off the unpaid bills later (of course all write offs are recouped in the form of higher costs billed to those of us who DO pay our bills).
Nothing is "free" in this society, as you well know. Not sure what you're driving at.
-Laelth
-
You libs keep confusing the concept of "adequate" with "free". I have fixed your statement to reflect what you REALLY meant to say. Because, in my experience, hospitals typically treat anyone who rolls through the door and writes off the unpaid bills later (of course all write offs are recouped in the form of higher costs billed to those of us who DO pay our bills).
It's actually federal law that if you show up at the emergency room they have to treat you whether you can pay or not. It's the reason. That so many of the ER's have closed in CA. The illegals were bankrupting the hospitals by flooding their ER's to get treated
This notion that the professional leftists like Laelth put up about people beimg denied healthcare in the US is just a flat out lie. So is the actial number if uninsured
-
Nothing is "free" in this society, as you well know. Not sure what you're driving at.
-Laelth
Then why push for free health insurance? Would YOU work for free in DC if they suddenly declared that anyone working on The Hill wouldn't get paid?
Go back to Georgia start your own law firm and take nothing but pro Bono cases.
I mean after all that's what you're advocating the health insurance industry and doctors do.
-
If the free market and the private sector had already solved these problems, we wouldn't be having this discussion. As a liberal, when I see a problem (like a large percentage of the American people uninsured and lacking adequate access to health care--just as an example) that neither the free market, nor charity, nor anything else has been able to fix, I think it's prudent to ask what the government could do to solve these problems. In my mind, that's what the government is for.
LOL. No, you're right. I don't want you to answer that one.
:rofl:
-Laelth
Well government has been trying to fix poverty since the 1960s we still have lots of poverty and record numbers of people on government assistance today. Obviously even the almighty government that you love so much has failed. So what's your solution? Even more of the same that has failed.
You said that people not having health insurance is a problem. So the government steps in and makes it even more expensive with the added bonus of fines for not having it. Sounds like a piss poor solution to me.
-
The "free market" has had plenty of time to insure that all Americans have adequate and reasonable access to health care, and it has failed. I am not interested in giving it more time. Government needed to do something, and it did. Not sure what government intrusion you think was preventing the free market from solving this problem, but Congress ran out of patience in 2010 and decided to do something. Thus the ACA.
Oh, this is just rich!
Insurance, especially health insurance, is one of the most highly regulated industries in the country. For anyone to suggest what we have had over the past several decades (especially after the government HMO "fix") is somehow or another a "free market" solution is a very special kind of stupid.
To also suggest democrats (there were zero republican votes) swung into action to save the day is also hilarious. You don't call the guy who set the fire to come put it out, troll.
Free market insurance.... :lmao:
-
Oh, this is just rich!
Insurance, especially health insurance, is one of the most highly regulated industries in the country. For anyone to suggest what we have had over the past several decades (especially after the government HMO "fix") is somehow or another a "free market" solution is a very special kind of stupid.
To also suggest democrats (there were zero republican votes) swung into action to save the day is also hilarious. You don't call the guy who set the fire to come put it out, troll.
Free market insurance.... :lmao:
Just to help the DUmbass out a little...
https://www.google.com/search?q=selling+health+insurance+across+state+lines+bad+idea&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
Seems leftists have been hell bent to kill free market competition.
What say you Laelth?
-
I've been away from here so long, that I have to ask what is probably common knowledge: Lealth -are you currently employed?
I see he didn't answer.
He claims to be a lawyer in Macon, GA.
.
-
Just to help the DUmbass out a little...
https://www.google.com/search?q=selling+health+insurance+across+state+lines+bad+idea&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
Seems leftists have been hell bent to kill free market competition.
What say you Laelth?
That's a very bad idea. It'll be just like the banks (that moved to Delaware and South Dakota to get the most business-friendly laws that they could then impose on all 50 states and thereby circumvent the laws, the people, and the regulations of each of those states through a federal fiat). If you actually believe in a limited federal government that can't easily impose its will on the states, you should oppose a "national" insurance scheme that would allow Delaware law to supplant Georgia law on the complicated issues that arise from insurance policies.
-Laelth
-
That's a very bad idea. It'll be just like the banks (that moved to Delaware and South Dakota to get the most business-friendly laws that they could then impose on all 50 states and thereby circumvent the laws, the people, and the regulations of each of those states through a federal fiat). If you actually believe in a limited federal government that can't easily impose its will on the states, you should oppose a "national" insurance scheme that would allow Delaware law to supplant Georgia law on the complicated issues that arise from insurance policies.
-Laelth
Not surprisingly your answer is more government and regulations on all levels.
TRG was 100% correct in his assessment.
-
Not surprisingly your answer is more government and regulations on all levels.
TRG was 100% correct in his assessment.
That is the leftist answer to everything, more government with more power and less and less power for the people.
Leftists view us all as children in need of some government agency to hold our hands all through life. They have no desire for freedom and no desire for us to be free either.
-
And le ME say it again. Government isn't the answer, it's the problem.
You sit there knowing that tax rates...out of control regulation and Obamacare are killing the free market right now and declare "the free market is dead".
You Liberals have created the ultimate self licking ice cream cone and then claim innocence and deny your own complicity when the free market struggles under the weight of what you've wrought...all to promote Big Government as the only way.
:hi5:
He claims to be a lawyer in Macon, GA.
:whatever:
Thank you for this thoughtful response.
Hmm ... schools are locally controlled (or state controlled, as is the case with Texas). (......)
-Laelth
Uh, huh.....back to deliberately obtuse.
-
I see he didn't answer.
He claims to be a lawyer in Macon, GA.
.
Well that explains his infant wisdom.
-
Uh, huh.....back to deliberately obtuse.
It's what disruptive trash does best.
-
Just to help the DUmbass out a little...
https://www.google.com/search?q=selling+health+insurance+across+state+lines+bad+idea&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
Seems leftists have been hell bent to kill free market competition.
What say you Laelth?
Thanks for quoting me, Carl. At least the disruptive pant load gets to see what he so badly wants to ignore. :-)
-
Nothing is "free" in this society, as you well know. Not sure what you're driving at.
-Laelth
But damned if Obama didn't try to paint it as a freebie. Right up to the last second.
-
Switzerland is going to be broke.
-
I know the disruptive troll has plonked me to the iggy list, but I wonder if it has seen this latest about the victorious Venezuelan socialist "revolution"? (I'm leaving this out of the normal "quote" function for poster quoting ease).
As socialist dream crumbles, Venezuelans find Nicolas Maduro 'a bad copy' of Chavez
The army has been sent into toilet paper factories, fights for basic foodstuffs have resulted in several deaths and new, multi-million dollar oil tankers are sitting idle in dock. And, despite sitting on the world’s largest oil reserves, Venezuela’s socialist government can’t quite manage to keep the lights on.
Now many in Venezuela are wondering how much longer President Nicolas Maduro, the anointed successor of the country’s firebrand Leftist leader Hugo Chavez, can keep hold of the reins of its crumbling socialist revolution.
Last week Mr Maduro was forced to turn to a well-worn answer for his country’s woes, blaming a US plot to “sabotage the electrical system and the Venezuelan economy†and kicking out Washington’s envoy to the South American country. “Out of Venezuela!†he railed on state television, adding in English: “Yankees go home!â€
By the time of Chavez’s death, economic mismanagement and corruption - Venezuela is the most corrupt country in the Americas, according to Transparency International - had already crippled the socialist project he dreamed of. Under Mr Maduro, it has entered an advanced state of decay.
Official inflation has soared above 45 per cent - 55 per cent for groceries - basic product shortages leave entire families without food and widespread power outages are commonplace. Meanwhile the South American country is witnessing an average of 71 homicides every day, one of the highest murder rates in the world.
“This country is a thousand times worse than it was six months agoâ€, said Pedro Sosa, a Chavez supporter who voted for Mr Maduro but now regrets having done so.
...his excuses - he has in six months alleged 13 conspiracies against his government and four assassination plots against himself - are starting to ring hollow.
“Maduro uses the idea of economic war to blame others for his own shortcomings,†said Jesus Perez, the head of the Caracas School of Economics. “Actually, the war on Venezuela is being waged by our own government.â€
“The government expropriates Venezuelan businesses which then don’t produce because the socialist state doesn’t run them effectively,†he added.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/venezuela/10359267/As-socialist-dream-crumbles-Venezuelans-find-Nicolas-Maduro-a-bad-copy-of-Chavez.html
There you have it, the inevitable outcome of collectivist doctrine every single time it is enacted: Corruption, stagnation, suffering, debauching of the currency, misery, runaway inflation... All of this should sound real familiar, if you're not some paid hack for a democrat leech.
I would hate to be in the shoes of any "Chavista" when the shit finally hits the fan. I would equally hate being in the shoes of any mind numbed American leftist when the same happens here...
-
Nothing is "free" in this society, as you well know. Not sure what you're driving at.
-Laelth
On that, we will never agree. The "free market" has had plenty of time to insure that all Americans have adequate and reasonable access to health care, and it has failed. I am not interested in giving it more time. Government needed to do something, and it did. Not sure what government intrusion you think was preventing the free market from solving this problem, but Congress ran out of patience in 2010 and decided to do something. Thus the ACA.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_jQiLBLhdULM/SAo7DzT5xvI/AAAAAAAAAoY/Fjf4zyliuxU/s400/Stump.no.jpeg)
^
You land squarely here, Dumbass
-
Not surprisingly your answer is more government and regulations on all levels.
TRG was 100% correct in his assessment.
I am not surprised to see that the standard, conservative "state sovereignty" argument is pure B.S.
When it comes to enriching corporations (like the insurance companies that want to force Delaware law on all 50 states, thereby circumventing the will of the people in those states and forcing some national, pro-business laws on all the people), yes, under those circumstances state sovereignty is meaningless.
I do understand where you're coming from. I just don't like it.
-Laelth
-
I am not surprised to see that the standard, conservative "state sovereignty" argument is pure B.S.
When it comes to enriching corporations (like the insurance companies that want to force Delaware law on all 50 states, thereby circumventing the will of the people in those states and forcing some national, pro-business laws on all the people), yes, under those circumstances state sovereignty is meaningless.
I do understand where you're coming from. I just don't like it.
-Laelth
No dipshit,you have no idea what the will of the people is in the situation.
-
On that, we will never agree. The "free market" has had plenty of time to insure that all Americans have adequate and reasonable access to health care, and it has failed. I am not interested in giving it more time. Government needed to do something, and it did. Not sure what government intrusion you think was preventing the free market from solving this problem,
The ONLY thing Government "needed" to do was get the hell out of the way. But you Liberal masterminds can never EVER do that.
but Congress ran out of patience in 2010 and decided to do something. Thus the ACA.
Congress didn't run out of patience...Liberals seized on the opportunity to ram this down the collective American throat during a brief two year period when they controlled the House...the Senate and the White House. A temporary Congress passed a bad bill that wasn't even completely written when it was passed that will have permanent long term detrimental ramifications on this country if it's allowed to stand.
Perhaps. We'll see after the ACA has been operational for a few years exactly whom it serves and how well it does so. We won't know until we try it.
That sounds like "we have to pass it to know what's in it" and it's equally as dangerous.
Spot on. I am on record saying that nobody needs health insurance. What people need is health care, and, as you rightly note, those are very different things. Sadly, it appears we can't guarantee health care to all Americans. Instead, as a compromise, Democrats decided to try the Heritage Foundation's plan from the 1990s to guarantee health insurance for all Americans. I think that was a stupid move, and I have said so. I'd much rather we guaranteed and insured that all Americans have access to health care.
We already DO guarantee healthcare to all Americans whether they are insured or not. It's Federal law.
-
We'll see after the ACA FCA vhas been operational for a few years exactly whom it serves and how well it does so. We won't know until we try it.
That kind of thinking got us the Ponzi schemes of social security and medicaid (may FDR burn in hell: "Freedom from want" is communism).
There is nothing so permanent as a really bad government program. The "war on poverty" has drained trillions of American treasure and has resulted in... MORE POVERTY. Systemic poverty. Permanent poverty.
Had we used our money wisely instead of subsidizing sloth, we would have a much more robust economy with MANY MORE productive participants.
You liberals are so stupid in so many ways.
Now you want everyone to be stupid AGAIN -- in the FACE of liberal failure!
-
I am not surprised to see that the standard, conservative "state sovereignty" argument is pure B.S.
When it comes to enriching corporations (like the insurance companies that want to force Delaware law on all 50 states, thereby circumventing the will of the people in those states and forcing some national, pro-business laws on all the people), yes, under those circumstances state sovereignty is meaningless.
I do understand where you're coming from. I just don't like it.
-Laelth
You solution is exactly what. Answer that, I have more questions.
-
If the free market and the private sector had already solved these problems, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
The United States has not had a free market for 100 years.
"It [the State] has taken on a vast mass of new duties and responsibilities; it has spread out its
powers until they penetrate to every act of the citizen, however secret; it has begun to throw
around its operations the high dignity and impeccability of a State religion; its agents become a
separate and superior caste, with authority to bind and loose, and their thumbs in every pot. But it
still remains, as it was in the beginning, the common enemy of all well-disposed, industrious and
decent men."
-HL Mencken, 1926.
-
Government has always been a tool for private citizens to use, collectively, to improve the lot of all of us.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
-C. S. Lewis
-
I don't intend to respond to any personal questions.
-Laelth
Then let me do it for you.
You are an attorney from Georgia. You graduated in the bottom half of your law school class, which qualifies you to chase ambulances, judge traffic court, or get a Democrat patronage job. Given your slavish devotion to big government, your pay comes from the public treasury. You post during business hours, so you are most likely furloughed right now.
-
Then let me do it for you.
You are an attorney from Georgia. You graduated in the bottom half of your law school class, which qualifies you to chase ambulances, judge traffic court, or get a Democrat patronage job. Given your slavish devotion to big government, your pay comes from the public treasury. You post during business hours, so you are most likely furloughed right now.
As disgusting as it is to log on here and find the stench of a DUmmy all over the place, you have to give DUmmy Laelth some tiny measure of respect.
He has enough balls to use his DUmp name here, unlike DUmmy NYC_SKP.
-
As disgusting as it is to log on here and find the stench of a DUmmy all over the place, you have to give DUmmy Laelth some tiny measure of respect.
He has enough balls to use his DUmp name here, unlike DUmmy NYC_SKIP.
I've yet to see a sleeze-ball lawyer with...balls.
-
I've yet to see a sleeze-ball lawyer with...balls.
Or a spine.
-
I've yet to see a sleeze-ball lawyer with...balls.
Or a spine.
Or morals.
-
I've yet to see a sleeze-ball lawyer with...balls.
But they'll rock the **** out of some facial hair and a tube of hair grease, won't they?
-
On that, we will never agree. The "free market" has had plenty of time to insure that all Americans have adequate and reasonable access to health care, and it has failed. I am not interested in giving it more time. Government needed to do something, and it did. Not sure what government intrusion you think was preventing the free market from solving this problem, but Congress Chairman Maobama and his slobbering knob-gobblers ran out of patience in 2010 and decided to do something. Thus the ACA.
Perhaps. We'll see after the ACA has been operational for a few years exactly whom it serves and how well it does so. We won't know until we try it.
Spot on. I am on record saying that nobody needs health insurance. What people need is health care, and, as you rightly note, those are very different things. Sadly, it appears we can't guarantee health care to all Americans. Instead, as a compromise, Democrats decided to try the Heritage Foundation's plan from the 1990s to guarantee health insurance for all Americans. I think that was a stupid move, and I have said so. I'd much rather we guaranteed and insured that all Americans have access to health care.
-Laelth
"Health care" is a collection of commodities- goods and services. It is impossible to guarantee access for all Americans to those commodities- the person who lives 3 hours from the nearest community hospital certainly has no guaranteed access.
In order to guarantee medical care to every person, the government would have to seize every hospital, clinic, and pharmaceutical manufacturer, and enslave every doctor, nurse, and technician.
Your red stripe is showing, Comrade.
-
:lmao: ...to late, that cow has already been milked.
Speaking of which-
Lilith, you've been lookin' for love (in all the wrong places). Why don't you go out to Tucson and rescue Amber from her life under the bridge? She believes in the redistribution of wealth, too, but she actually practices it.
I'm sure she'd be suitably appreciative- after all, she screwed Dave in exchange for half of his refrigerator box. Imagine what she'd let you do!
-
Then let me do it for you.
You are an attorney from Georgia. You graduated in the bottom half of your law school class, which qualifies you to chase ambulances, judge traffic court, or get a Democrat patronage job. Given your slavish devotion to big government, your pay comes from the public treasury. You post during business hours, so you are most likely furloughed right now.
As long as we're playing psychic. I'd would cast doubt on his attorney credentials. If he ever did pass law school it was by the skin of his teeth. Further, my crystal ball says he never landed a job as a lawyer-not even the state would touch him.
So that leaves one option open for Laelth...an activist.
I would say he is a drug user as well. Never married or divorced. No kids thank goodness (can you imagine a guy like that verbally abusing his own children?).
He is a socialist, so Laelth is also an atheist, but not the cool kind, no he is the type who would outlaw Christianity and Judaism if he had the power. His god is govt, and he brooks no competition.
He considers himself a genius, far above us mere mortal conservatives. His trolling here is just mental masturbation for him. He depends on a law degree to make him better than everyone else.
That means he is compensating for something. Something he was picked on when he was little. Obama ears of something like that. I'm guessing his manhood is nicknamed Wee Willie, far to undersized to get a real woman.
Hence Laelth is bitter and alone. He is miserable, and attempting to bring an oppressive govt down to bear on free people is his ultimate goal...with himself in a prominent position by virtue of his magnificent law degree.
But the ultimate truth to socialists like Laelth is they are all Fabian socialists...plotting to kill in a bloody purge those they deem unsuited to live in their perfect society.
--modern socialists know better than to speak their goals out loud.
[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3lBdyFvPps[/youtube]
-
HEHE I wonder what the far left thing the far right think about them as far as useful beings on the planet? :rotf: they probably don't want to know.
-
HEHE I wonder what the far left thing the far right think about them as far as useful beings on the planet? :rotf: they probably don't want to know.
They're too busy floating in their cloud of smug self-satisfaction, completely oblivious to the disconnect of their failed worldview and reality. Without the, US as the US, their Eurosocialist fantasy collapses. We've been funding it for years and it's why they are ....getting "very concerned" ....about US debt lately coming right out and saying we must raise the debt ceiling.
Oh, really?
How's this :bird: assmunchers.
-
Speaking of which-
Lilith, you've been lookin' for love (in all the wrong places). Why don't you go out to Tucson and rescue Amber from her life under the bridge? She believes in the redistribution of wealth, too, but she actually practices it.
I'm sure she'd be suitably appreciative- after all, she screwed Dave in exchange for half of his refrigerator box. Imagine what she'd let you do!
Um ... no, thank you. :censored:
-Laelth
-
Um ... no, thank you. :censored:
-Laelth
Not into the wimmins huh?
-
"Health care" is a collection of commodities- goods and services. It is impossible to guarantee access for all Americans to those commodities- the person who lives 3 hours from the nearest community hospital certainly has no guaranteed access.
True, I suppose. Depends upon how one defines "guarantee." My point was that people need health care, not health insurance. That's all I was trying to say.
Your red stripe is showing, Comrade.
That's funny, I admit, but these days in the United States those of us on the left, to the extent we identify with the Democratic Party, are coded "blue." So, perhaps, I have a blue stripe showing?
:???:
-Laelth
-
Um ... no, thank you. :censored:
-Laelth
Uh, dude--beggars can't be choosers. Either one of you.
-
True, I suppose. Depends upon how one defines "guarantee." My point was that people need health care, not health insurance. That's all I was trying to say.
That's funny, I admit, but these days in the United States those of us on the left, to the extent we identify with the Democratic Party, are coded "blue." So, perhaps, I have a blue stripe showing?
:???:
-Laelth
Funny but no. And you might want to consider the genesis of how we got to where we are, starting around the 1940's, taking a breather in the 60's/70's, and then up to the present day. In each and every instance, the "solutions" provided by DEMOCRATS have made the situation WORSE, meaning the liberals AGAIN come up with some bullshit ideas and make the situation worse still.
I had an Economics professor in college who taught me one very sage lesson--that if you paid him $50K/year (at that time decent money) to solve a problem, the ONE thing he could guarantee with certainty is that the problem would NEVER be solved. Congress and politicians are much the same.
-
As long as we're playing psychic. I'd would cast doubt on his attorney credentials. If he ever did pass law school it was by the skin of his teeth. Further, my crystal ball says he never landed a job as a lawyer-not even the state would touch him.
So that leaves one option open for Laelth...an activist.
I would say he is a drug user as well. Never married or divorced. No kids thank goodness (can you imagine a guy like that verbally abusing his own children?).
He is a socialist, so Laelth is also an atheist, but not the cool kind, no he is the type who would outlaw Christianity and Judaism if he had the power. His god is govt, and he brooks no competition.
He considers himself a genius, far above us mere mortal conservatives. His trolling here is just mental masturbation for him. He depends on a law degree to make him better than everyone else.
That means he is compensating for something. Something he was picked on when he was little. Obama ears of something like that. I'm guessing his manhood is nicknamed Wee Willie, far to undersized to get a real woman.
Hence Laelth is bitter and alone. He is miserable, and attempting to bring an oppressive govt down to bear on free people is his ultimate goal...with himself in a prominent position by virtue of his magnificent law degree.
But the ultimate truth to socialists like Laelth is they are all Fabian socialists...plotting to kill in a bloody purge those they deem unsuited to live in their perfect society.
--modern socialists know better than to speak their goals out loud.
[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3lBdyFvPps[/youtube]
Wow! You have a remarkable imagination! Keep chewing, if you find it useful and entertaining. :popcorn:
-
Funny but no. And you might want to consider the genesis of how we got to where we are, starting around the 1940's, taking a breather in the 60's/70's, and then up to the present day. In each and every instance, the "solutions" provided by DEMOCRATS have made the situation WORSE, meaning the liberals AGAIN come up with some bullshit ideas and make the situation worse still.
I had an Economics professor in college who taught me one very sage lesson--that if you paid him $50K/year (at that time decent money) to solve a problem, the ONE thing he could guarantee with certainty is that the problem would NEVER be solved. Congress and politicians are much the same.
You know, if the right could come up with a better solution to any of our problems other than more tax cuts and less regulation, I might give this argument some credence, but, for as long as I have been politically sentient, the right's answer to everything has been more tax cuts and less regulation, and we have been doing that, in fact, for forty years, or so. To date it hasn't worked.
-Laelth
-
Uh, dude--beggars can't be choosers. Either one of you.
LOL. That's funny, but I am not a beggar.
-Laelth
-
You know, if the right could come up with a better solution to any of our problems other than more tax cuts and less regulation, I might give this argument some credence, but, for as long as I have been politically sentient, the right's answer to everything has been more tax cuts and less regulation, and we have been doing that, in fact, for forty years, or so. To date it hasn't worked.
-Laelth
Guess you were too busy playing video games to have been aware of the 80s.
-
Guess you were too busy playing video games to have been aware of the 80s.
No he thinks that:
Ronald Reagan's shadow is very long. I thought he was wrong then, and I think he is wrong now.
He's fully aware of the 80's...he just thinks what happened during that time was wrong and somehow a failure.
-
He's fully aware of the 80's...he just thinks what happened during that time was wrong and somehow a failure.
It was- for Gorbachev.
That is what made Lilith's butt hurt so badly.
-
I am disappointed that Lilith got himself banned today. I was looking forward to another evening of smacking him around, like a bitch.
(http://files.sharenator.com/slap_bitch_demotivational_poster_Back_Hand-s440x352-57691-580.jpg)
-
Um ... no, thank you. :censored:
-Laelth
The late, unlamented leftist Lilith didn't want Amber. How superficial. When word gets back to the DUmp, PhDD will have the long knives out.
The DUmmy fails to realize that in Obama's Amerika, what he wants doesn't matter. I don't want to support a gaggle of welfare mooches and Democrats (BIRM), but I do with every paycheck.
"From each according to his ability" - Lilith is a one percenter- all law skool grads are, right? He has the ability to financially support a smelly hobo, so he must do his duty as a Leftist.
"To each according to his her need." Amber needs a short obnoxious leftist to help her forget Dave, and Dennis Kucinich is taken. She also needs someone to pick the scorpions from her hair, and to insulate her from the inevitable pain of losing her imaginary Indian.
Enter Lilith.
-
I am disappointed that Lilith got himself banned today. I was looking forward to another evening of smacking him around, like a bitch.
(http://files.sharenator.com/slap_bitch_demotivational_poster_Back_Hand-s440x352-57691-580.jpg)
Why did he get banned?
-
Why did he get banned?
This, for one...
Good point. Nothing is final. I suppose, if conservatives had their way, we'd could go back to factories filled with child laborers. Conservatives might even want to bring back slavery. Indeed. Nothing is final, and even on those issues the "left" has not necessarily "won."
-
It will give Alan more time to haunt the gamer and singles websites anyways. :)
-
It will give Alan more time to haunt the gamer and singles websites anyways. :)
His wife would be surprised to see his dating profiles.
-
Good point. Nothing is final. I suppose, if conservatives had their way, we'd could go back to factories filled with child laborers. Conservatives might even want to bring back slavery. Indeed. Nothing is final, and even on those issues the "left" has not necessarily "won."
You really have to be thick to even repeat that crap.
-
for as long as I have been politically sentient.....you might have been lucky enough to have had a politically sentient moment if you had not been born addicted to cocaine. Yo momma voted for Obama before you were born.