Swiss to vote on $2,800 monthly income for all adults - DUmmies drool

[Carl]

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:



-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.

[lastparker]

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. 

[Laelth]

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

[lastparker]

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.

[Bad Dog]

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.

[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. 

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.



-Laelth

[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.

-Laelth

[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?

 

-Laelth

[Carl]

-Laelth

Show me in the Constitution where the government was tasked with the direct care of individuals.

[txradioguy]

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.

[txradioguy]

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.

[JohnnyReb]

Show me in the Constitution where the government was tasked with the direct care of individuals.

Here comes "The General Welfare" Bull Shit.E

[Carl]

Here comes "The General Welfare" Bull Shit.E

Yep,and anything that actually does that,leftists hate.

[Laelth]

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?



-Laelth

[Bad Dog]

Seriously.  What am I supposed to do with that?



-Laelth

Toss prevents me from responding to your question so, I see no point in responding further.

[JohnnyReb]

Y'all are losing the discussion to Laelth's infant wisdom.

[Laelth]

Toss prevents me from responding to your question so, I see no point in responding further.

That's funny.

 

-Laelth

[Laelth]

Y'all are losing the discussion to Laelth's infant wisdom.

So's that.

 

-Laelth

[txradioguy]

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?



-Laelth

Do you really want me to answer that?

[Laelth]

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.

 

-Laelth

[Carl]

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.

 

-Laelth

What if the "fix" is more harmful to those who don`t need it then it is helpful for the few that might?

[txradioguy]

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.

[Laelth]

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

[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

[Carl]

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.