The Conservative Cave
Current Events => General Discussion => Topic started by: mrclose on March 28, 2014, 06:48:21 PM
-
Does the government subsidize little league ball games?
Roller skating?
Wind surfing?
How about picnics?
What I am getting at is this: If a man and a woman aren't having sex to reproduce .. wouldn't it then be considered a form of recreation? :???:
-
If someone wants the government to provide them birth control, I'm all for it. A onetime neutering for anyone that thinks it isn't their own responsibility.
-
Does the government subsidize little league ball games?
Roller skating?
Wind surfing?
How about picnics?
What I am getting at is this: If a man and a woman aren't having sex to reproduce .. wouldn't it then be considered a form of recreation? :???:
The problem with that argument is, the taxpayers do involuntarily subsidize recreation:
(http://hawkcentral.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/uspw_5681852.jpg)
(http://www.palmspringsca.gov/Modules/ShowImage.aspx?imageid=325)
(http://www.boeing.com/assets/images/defense-space/military/af1/images/af1_d4c-122582-1_375X300.jpg)
(http://www.teaparty.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/obama-golfing.jpg)
-
The problem with that argument is, the taxpayers do involuntarily subsidize recreation:
But .. Are the taxpayers forced to pay or face a penalty?
What about those who don't attend the games?
-
But .. Are the taxpayers forced to pay or face a penalty?
Yes. Don't pay your taxes, and you'll go to jail.
What about those who don't attend the games?
State university and pro football stadiums (stadia?) are subsidized with taxpayer money, and many cities with teams also have hotel room taxes (which are not just paid by people attending games).
-
But .. Are the taxpayers forced to pay or face a penalty?
What about those who don't attend the games?
If this is a serious question perhaps you could provide a little more context.
As it stands this question is easily answered. Have you had a professional sports stadium built within your....what...city, county, part of your state that you pay taxes for.
Examples would be Conseco Fieldhouse and Lucas Oil Stadium.
I don't go to the games but my tax dollars went to both of those buildings.
-
If this is a serious question perhaps you could provide a little more context.
As it stands this question is easily answered. Have you had a professional sports stadium built within your....what...city, county, part of your state that you pay taxes for.
Examples would be Conseco Fieldhouse and Lucas Oil Stadium.
I don't go to the games but my tax dollars went to both of those buildings.
The flaw in these answers are .. when a stadium or school or whatever is built for public use, the taxpayer usually has a vote on it.
(At least here in Virginia they do)
And yes, It is meant to be a serious question.
-
The flaw in these answers are .. when a stadium or school or whatever is built for public use, the taxpayer usually has a vote on it.
(At least here in Virginia they do)
And yes, It is meant to be a serious question.
I read this post and I cannot tease out the meaning of the question...I'm sorry.
-
The flaw in these answers are .. when a stadium or school or whatever is built for public use, the taxpayer usually has a vote on it.
"Usually" voted on (an unproved assertion) = a "flaw" on my part?
Check your premises.
You asked if the government should subsidize recreation; I pointed out that taxpayers (not the government) already subsidize recreation in several ways.
In order to show my argument is flawed, you must prove that taxpayers don't subsidize sports arenas, skateboard parks, or King Hussein's golf trips through taxes; not that taxpayers may have voted in favor of such recreation subsidies in the past.
My answer to your original question is "No, taxpayers should not involuntarily subsidize recreation - ever. Recreation is not an essential function of government, and is not found in any Constitution."
-
The question should be is this, "If what goes on in your bedroom is none of my business then why do I or a Business or any entity, have to pay for the resulting pregnancy or abortion if I am not the cause of it?"
-
The question should be is this, "If what goes on in your bedroom is none of my business then why do I or a Business or any entity, have to pay for the resulting pregnancy or abortion if I am not the cause of it?"
:clap:
-
The question should be is this, "If what goes on in your bedroom is none of my business then why do I or a Business or any entity, have to pay for the resulting pregnancy or abortion if I am not the cause of it?"
But to carry that a step further, what if you're working in your yard at home and fall and break your leg? It didn't happen in your workplace.
However, some employers DON'T offer insurance, only covering employees while actually on the job. Okay, fine. Cheap, but fine. The issue here is the government MANDATING what coverage employers must provide to their employees. As an employer, I should be free to offer as much or as little benefits as I see fit, and conversely, as an employee, I should be free to pay (or not pay) for said benefits, or to seek employment elsewhere if I don't like the benefit my employer provides.
-
But to carry that a step further, what if you're working in your yard at home and fall and break your leg? It didn't happen in your workplace.
However, some employers DON'T offer insurance, only covering employees while actually on the job. Okay, fine. Cheap, but fine. The issue here is the government MANDATING what coverage employers must provide to their employees. As an employer, I should be free to offer as much or as little benefits as I see fit, and conversely, as an employee, I should be free to pay (or not pay) for said benefits, or to seek employment elsewhere if I don't like the benefit my employer provides.
Well that kind of thinking leaves out those with no personal responsibility. We've now got to take care of them also since the government is passing laws to see what's in them.
-
But to carry that a step further, what if you're working in your yard at home and fall and break your leg? It didn't happen in your workplace.
However, some employers DON'T offer insurance, only covering employees while actually on the job. Okay, fine. Cheap, but fine. The issue here is the government MANDATING what coverage employers must provide to their employees. As an employer, I should be free to offer as much or as little benefits as I see fit, and conversely, as an employee, I should be free to pay (or not pay) for said benefits, or to seek employment elsewhere if I don't like the benefit my employer provides.
Ohh that would be a fun explanation for covering a pregnancy. :lol:
-
Well that kind of thinking leaves out those with no personal responsibility. We've now got to take care of them also since the government is passing laws to see what's in them.
That's been the case pretty much since forever. Time was, charity was for those who through no fault of their own fell on hard times or had urgent need.
That morphed into the nanny state's, "Everybody needs to be carried cradle to grave" mentality for simply the wanting. Sorry, but I've never been one to sit on my ass and stick my hand out.
And while that attitude hopefully will never change, I am getting closer each day to "going Galt" and letting the moochers and looters fend for themselves. It won't be pretty, but by God, it'll certainly be an eye-opener for a lot of people.
-
We can`t lose sight of the fact that this is really not a medical issue at all.
Now that the nightmare of Ocare is unfolding just remember that the the freebies and up front goodies were political calculations designed to buy votes from two key blocs...18-26 year olds and the politically ignorant women of child bearing age.
They could have just as easily declared insurance had to provide "healthy" food.
-
We can`t lose sight of the fact that this is really not a medical issue at all.
+1 and ^5. It's never been about healthcare. That's just the tool they use to gain control.
-
Let us not forget that Obamacare was touted as a way to control healthcare costs...costs which have greatly increased due to government regulations. The spend decades writing stupid regulations that have really no benefit, then use the resulting costs as an excuse to seize control of the entire field.
Our dialysis clinic was inspected a few months ago...but because a couple of us spend time reading AAMI and Medicare regs, we were in fairly good shape. Some of the things the Medicare inspectors insisted were:
Staff cannot have drinks at the nurse stations. Even something like a pop bottle, with a sealed top. All drinks must be kept in a kitchen area or some other location "off the floor."
Staff cannot apply chap stick on the floor or at the nurse station, they have to go the the bathroom or kitchen to apply chap stick or other lip sticks.
Staff responding to an alarm in the RO room or going to the lobby for any reason must stop and remove their booties and jackets, then replace their booties with new and put their jackets back on before coming back onto the floor. Now, that would make sense if the floor were covered with blood...or if they worked in a sterile operating room. But an area where the patients walk in and out, carry bags and blankets in and out, bring their own food and drink in??? :mental:
But some government yahoo justified his/her job by writing stupid crap like that...and you can bet this kind of stuff is everywhere in healthcare.
-
But to carry that a step further, what if you're working in your yard at home and fall and break your leg? It didn't happen in your workplace.
However, some employers DON'T offer insurance, only covering employees while actually on the job. Okay, fine. Cheap, but fine. The issue here is the government MANDATING what coverage employers must provide to their employees. As an employer, I should be free to offer as much or as little benefits as I see fit, and conversely, as an employee, I should be free to pay (or not pay) for said benefits, or to seek employment elsewhere if I don't like the benefit my employer provides.
Good point but the real problem is that no employer HAS to provide insurance to anyone . As far as I know outside of contracts to employees as part of Unions or as a condition of employment no one has to be forced (Until Nobamacare) to give anyone coverage and maybe that is what it will finally become the end to all this Gimme gimme crap. You as a person are the sole entity responsible for providing your own security and healthcare. If your are asking others to provide it and pay for it then you are a leech.
-
You as a person are the sole entity responsible for providing your own security and healthcare. If your are asking others to provide it and pay for it then you are a leech.
Yes and no. Healthcare (or at least the cost of it) is part of an overall compensation package, and has been for the better part of a century. How that came to be is a discussion for another time, however.
I AM responsible for my healthcare and security, you are correct in saying that. But ask yourself a question--would you accept a job making $10/hour when you know the same job exists that would pay you $15/hour? Of course not. And if an employer offers better benefits--as many do as an enticement to work for their company--you balance that with the wage they pay to decide if working for them would provide the best benefit to you and your family.
It's when government takes that employer/employee balance away and foists choices or programs neither party wants onto both, at incredibly inflated costs, that is a first hand exposure to what most Americans DON'T see--how government intrudes into virtually every aspect of business in this country.
So yeah--maybe it's not so bad that we're seeing it now. People are having their eyes opened to what big government is all about. And they don't like it. One. Little. Bit.
-
And if an employer offers better benefits--as many do as an enticement to work for their company--you balance that with the wage they pay to decide if working for them would provide the best benefit to you and your family.
It's when government takes that employer/employee balance away and foists choices or programs neither party wants onto both,
To liberals that is a big selling point. They want to take the employer advantage away of offering health insurance as an added benefit. They have said as much by claiming that people won't be tied to one job just for insurance.
Of course they neglect to mention that companies that drop insurance and kick people on to the exchanges won't be paying those people more money per hour.
-
To liberals that is a big selling point. They want to take the employer advantage away of offering health insurance as an added benefit. They have said as much by claiming that people won't be tied to one job just for insurance.
Of course they neglect to mention that companies that drop insurance and kick people on to the exchanges won't be paying those people more money per hour.
It has been my observation that most simply want free and unlimited doctor visits until they can gin up some form of permanent disability.
-
It has been my observation that most simply want free and unlimited doctor visits until they can gin up some form of permanent disability.
They also love their drugs.
-
Yes and no. Healthcare (or at least the cost of it) is part of an overall compensation package, and has been for the better part of a century. How that came to be is a discussion for another time, however.
I AM responsible for my healthcare and security, you are correct in saying that. But ask yourself a question--would you accept a job making $10/hour when you know the same job exists that would pay you $15/hour? Of course not. And if an employer offers better benefits--as many do as an enticement to work for their company--you balance that with the wage they pay to decide if working for them would provide the best benefit to you and your family.
It's when government takes that employer/employee balance away and foists choices or programs neither party wants onto both, at incredibly inflated costs, that is a first hand exposure to what most Americans DON'T see--how government intrudes into virtually every aspect of business in this country.
So yeah--maybe it's not so bad that we're seeing it now. People are having their eyes opened to what big government is all about. And they don't like it. One. Little. Bit.
Thanks for making that point better then I could.