Originally posted by bbarr You claimed above that the government discourages savings by providing health care. That is a quote. My response was that the government does not provide health care or insurance, but mandates that people buy it privately. Do you see the difference between what you claimed and what is the truth? If your actual problem with the health care bill is that the g being shown wrong. Try to say true things, and everything will go easier for you.
Cheers!
Tisk tisk, and I didn't cross my t's and dot my i's on an internet post, oh the shame, oh the indignation, when clearly you assumed too much and attacked me on items that I am basically right about, which admitedly had to have some i's dotted and t's crossed, but you the same as any reader gets the point, China's weak social safety net encourages greater savings than the US and our Federal government's healthcare reforms with its higher taxes (or call them fines, and/or milking the young and healthy) also discourages savings both due to its taxations and due to its provision of services for more people whether they wanted the services or not.
Those concepts are true, and you are wasting your time arguing techincalities when the concept is more important. I don't see you arguing against the concepts, so quit wasting so much time on the technicalities, if you want to argue the concepts, bring it on.
Originally posted by whodey Do you belong to a local church? I know where I live there are outreaches such as a free medical clinic and legal clinic etc.
As for finding work, you can try such avenues as the unemployment offices, but from previous experience let me tell you that this is not a very good way to find work. I know my church recently took up a collection for those hurt b ...[text shortened]... financial crisis and have formed a job placement group which has helped a great many find work.
If the government was providing a free medical clinic and legal clinic, you'd be ranting on about "statism" and about the way the powers that be were seeking to consolidate their control over the citizens. Does it never occur to you that the church is also trying to consolidate its power over individuals? It provides these services in order to encourage dependency on its bounty and thus to promote unquestioning acceptance of its doctrine. In the developing world, they call this "rice bowl evangelism".
Originally posted by Teinosuke If the government was providing a free medical clinic and legal clinic, you'd be ranting on about "statism" and about the way the powers that be were seeking to consolidate their control over the citizens. Does it never occur to you that the church is also trying to consolidate its power over individuals? It provides these services in order to encourage de ...[text shortened]... acceptance of its doctrine. In the developing world, they call this "rice bowl evangelism".
There is no getting around the fact that giving to people give you a certain degree of power over them. For the state, these come in the form of entitlements. The money is collected from the taxpayers whether they like it or not and then given to people who expect hand outs. So in this process the giver is robbed of the spirit of giving and those that receive are robbed of the spirit of gratitude. In fact, what you give is NEVER enough.
As for myself, I prefer to let people CHOOSE to do the right thing rather than force them to do the right thing if at all possible. It is the only process that allows for people feeling good about giving and people being grateful for the gift. In short, this enhances our humanity towards our fellow man.
So let me ask you, if you were on the verge of bankruptcy would you take out a loan to give to the poor? Of course not, so why then do we expect the US government to continue to shell out trillions in entitlements when it is such dire financial condition? The US government is close to spending $1 trillion in interest on the debt a year. So tell me, if the US did not have such a massive debt how much good could they do with $1 trillion?
So in this process the giver is robbed of the spirit of giving and those that receive are robbed of the spirit of gratitude.
Even if the state catered for every material want, we'd still be obliged to help our fellow human beings in trying emotional circumstances. So I don't think the spirit of giving or the spirit of gratitude is under threat from state.
So tell me, if the US did not have such a massive debt how much good could they do with $1 trillion?
An awful lot. Must be time to raise taxes to pay it off.
Originally posted by whodey The money is collected from the taxpayers whether they like it or not and then given to people who expect hand outs. So in this process the giver is robbed of the spirit of giving and those that receive are robbed of the spirit of gratitude.
I disagree. I have often heard people speak very proudly about what good their taxes do - especially Europeans.
Originally posted by whodey As for myself, I prefer to let people CHOOSE to do the right thing rather than force them to do the right thing if at all possible. It is the only process that allows for people feeling good...
I agree! I think the poor should be allowed to CHOOSE not to be thieves and murderers, not FORCED by statist police!
Originally posted by Teinosuke [b]So in this process the giver is robbed of the spirit of giving and those that receive are robbed of the spirit of gratitude.
Even if the state catered for every material want, we'd still be obliged to help our fellow human beings in trying emotional circumstances. So I don't think the spirit of giving or the spirit of gratitude is under threat fr ...[text shortened]... ould they do with $1 trillion?[/b]
An awful lot. Must be time to raise taxes to pay it off.[/b]
Apparently you missed an earlier thread of mine in which Obama appointed a bipartisan group to study the debt. One of their dire warnings was that simply raising taxes would not be enough. What is needed is to slash spending drastically in addition to raising revenue. According to the committee, there was not choice in the matter or dire circumstances would arise.
Originally posted by AThousandYoung I agree! I think the poor should be allowed to CHOOSE not to be thieves and murderers, not FORCED by statist police!
Originally posted by twhitehead I disagree. I have often heard people speak very proudly about what good their taxes do - especially Europeans.
All I can tell you is what I have seen in the states. People whine about higher taxes and those who receive entitlement whine about how little they are getting.
Originally posted by Teinosuke [b]So in this process the giver is robbed of the spirit of giving and those that receive are robbed of the spirit of gratitude.
Even if the state catered for every material want, we'd still be obliged to help our fellow human beings in trying emotional circumstances. So I don't think the spirit of giving or the spirit of gratitude is under threat from state.
Obliged? You mean legislate your morality on the masses?
Of course, I would agree that we are obliged to help the poor, where the disagreement comes is that I favor choosing to do the right thing. I also am against much of the waste in public assistance as well as abuse in the system coupled by run away deficits.
Originally posted by whodey All I can tell you is what I have seen in the states. People whine about higher taxes and those who receive entitlement whine about how little they are getting.
Perhaps the amount of whining is inversely proportional to the height of the taxes.
All I can add to this now, is the following information....
They were taken to court today, and the Judge said that the lack of a job, and an illness does not excuse their inability to paytheir rent. They have 7 days to vacate, or the local Sherrif will come and change locks. An inventory of their stuff will be made, and it will be hauled to a storage place.
So perhaps they should have prepared better. saved more. But one really doesn't expect a chronic disease like mS to walk into your life..in fact odds are 1 in 450,000 chances.. I was very fortunate to have long term disability in place, and would highly recommend that for anyone,, because you can't see tomorrow, and the path you will be on.
namaste everyone,,
Originally posted by whodey Obliged? You mean legislate your morality on the masses?
Of course, I would agree that we are obliged to help the poor, where the disagreement comes is that I favor choosing to do the right thing. I also am against much of the waste in public assistance as well as abuse in the system coupled by run away deficits.
I meant "morally obliged" - of course not through legislation. I meant, fairly clearly, that even if the state made provision for every issue of physical need (health, unemployment benefit, pensions, transport, education), individuals are still going to need to care for each other emotionally.
As I mentioned in a previous thread, I judge the morality of an action by its consequences. In other words, it doesn't matter to me whether the poor are fed and clothed through charity or through state intervention, as long as what's needed is done.
Originally posted by Hugh Glass All I can add to this now, is the following information....
They were taken to court today, and the Judge said that the lack of a job, and an illness does not excuse their inability to paytheir rent. They have 7 days to vacate, or the local Sherrif will come and change locks. An inventory of their stuff will be made, and it will be hauled to a storage pl ...[text shortened]... for anyone,, because you can't see tomorrow, and the path you will be on.
namaste everyone,,
Anyone remember that old lady who lost her house, shot herself (attempted suicide), survived, and they forgave her debt?
I've also heard of police refusing to obey orders to kick people out of their homes.
MS/forum/what can I say??
04 Aug '10 06:211 edit
Back to Top