Obama is a Canon shooter - DPChallenge Forums

08/09/2008 10:28:46 PM · #76

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Stolen money? Who's stealing? If you mean your taxes, it's not stealing, it's the price you pay for the society that makes your prosperity possible. You're free to find another society that will let you prosper for less and take your business there. You'll likely find that the US is a pretty good deal.

Sure it is. Just because it is some guy in a suit and tie with the title IRS next to his name doesn't make him any less of a theif.

Don't get me wrong. I don't mind paying taxes. They pay for our highway system, they pay for our military (thank God)..they pay for alot of things.

But a great percentage is also used for 'social programs' that are used and abused by people that could get by without them. They are also used for billions in pork projects. Sorry...but my paycheck getting hundreds taken out of it just for a 'bridge to nowhere' is a theft of the highest order.

ALSO..there is no justification for taxing the rich anymore than anyone else. The most fair system..would be an obliteration of the IRS and any income tax....and just put in a National Sales Tax. (exclude food)People would be taxed on what they buy. BUT, I guess that would make too much sense. Why not just tax the hell out of people for making money and not give them the opportunity to spend the fruits of their labor. Right?

Message edited by author 2008-08-09 22:31:49.

08/09/2008 10:31:32 PM · #77

Originally posted by egamble:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

And what about those who can't pull themselves out of poverty? The single mother who's husband is long gone, working full time at the best job she can get, making minimum wage and caring for her children. You'd just toss her and her kids out like rubbish to die so you can pad the balance on your savings account, maybe buy a new SUV?

You obviously know nothing about me. Just for your information, I probably contribute more to society in one year than you ever will. And that is just with my full-time job.

Do I do it for the money? No. I do it (public school teacher) to help people make something with their life and not have the humiliation of relying on the government just to get into the next month. I probably make alot less than you do in a single year...but I make enough to take care of myself. How did I do it? I put myself into debt with student loans to make a better life for myself....do I complain? No. I just pay my bills and keep on working each month. It isn't your job to make sure that I can buy a new LCD TV...instead of spending my cash on food. It is my job to provide for myself and my family. Just like it is the job of that single mother.

If we a had 4-5 or even add a couple years onto that...of governmetn assistance..where the person was giving food, medical, college and a place to live...there would be no excuse for that woman to bust her ass for minimum wage. And it would cost alot less in the long run...to actually help her..instead of just making ourselves feel good about giving her a few hundred bucks a month to buy groceries while she comes home exhuasted every night and doesn't have enough time to spend loving her kids.

Don't pretend like you care about these people. If you did...you would want a better life for them. Instead, you want to pacify them until they die and pass on more deadbeats to our society.

Give a man a fish....you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish...you feed him for a lifetime.

Stolen money? Who's stealing? If you mean your taxes, it's not stealing, it's the price you pay for the society that makes your prosperity possible. You're free to find another society that will let you prosper for less and take your business there. You'll likely find that the US is a pretty good deal.

[/quote]

If you're anything like your posts, I don't want to know you. I just hope you keep your sick attitudes away from the kids you teach, if not, I feel sorry for them too.

Sure, I'd love for them to have a better life, but that doesn't mean kicking them out in the cold because they can't make it better. What about those who can't do college, not everyone's as "bright" as you are. Do you think that starving them and their family is going to help them get ahead? Maybe it will because when they're dead, they won't be taking anymore of your money.

08/09/2008 10:33:16 PM · #78

Originally posted by egamble:

ALSO..there is no justification for taxing the rich anymore than anyone else. The most fair system..would be an obliteration of the IRS and any income tax....and just put in a National Sales Tax. (exclude food)People would be taxed on what they buy. BUT, I guess that would make too much sense. Why not just tax the hell out of people for making money and not give them the opportunity to spend the fruits of their labor. Right?

I never said anything about how people are taxed, rich or otherwise.

08/09/2008 10:36:19 PM · #79

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

If you're anything like your posts, I don't want to know you. I just hope you keep your sick attitudes away from the kids you teach, if not, I feel sorry for them too.

Sure, I'd love for them to have a better life, but that doesn't mean kicking them out in the cold because they can't make it better. What about those who can't do college, not everyone's as "bright" as you are. Do you think that starving them and their family is going to help them get ahead? Maybe it will because when they're dead, they won't be taking anymore of your money.

1.) A good teacher doesn't teach their politics. I leave that up to the Democrats in the Universities.

2.) If you want them to have a better life...you would help put in a plan that allows that to happen. Instead, you just want to pacify them.

3.) College isn't an option for everyone. That is true...that is why there are vocational schools. These schools teach professions that also offer higher paying jobs than your local Burger King or Wal-Mart.

4.) The fact of the matter, is that almost everyone (myself included) live above their means. Many of these programs simply allow people to buy extra WANTS instead of paying for their own needs. If the government stepped out of the way...maybe the churches could stop buying 300 feet television screens and 30,000 seat auditoriums and get back to taking care of the poor...like Christ told them to do.
Again, it isn't the government's job.

08/09/2008 10:46:05 PM · #80

Originally posted by egamble:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

If you're anything like your posts, I don't want to know you. I just hope you keep your sick attitudes away from the kids you teach, if not, I feel sorry for them too.

Sure, I'd love for them to have a better life, but that doesn't mean kicking them out in the cold because they can't make it better. What about those who can't do college, not everyone's as "bright" as you are. Do you think that starving them and their family is going to help them get ahead? Maybe it will because when they're dead, they won't be taking anymore of your money.

1.) A good teacher doesn't teach their politics. I leave that up to the Democrats in the Universities.

2.) If you want them to have a better life...you would help put in a plan that allows that to happen. Instead, you just want to pacify them.

3.) College isn't an option for everyone. That is true...that is why there are vocational schools. These schools teach professions that also offer higher paying jobs than your local Burger King or Wal-Mart.

4.) The fact of the matter, is that almost everyone (myself included) live above their means. Many of these programs simply allow people to buy extra WANTS instead of paying for their own needs. If the government stepped out of the way...maybe the churches could stop buying 300 feet television screens and 30,000 seat auditoriums and get back to taking care of the poor...like Christ told them to do.
Again, it isn't the government's job.

I'd say it is the government's job as the leaders to provide assistance to those people who need it. Probably more so than invading third-world countries and blowing up the place.

If you want to fantasize about a world where people give willingly to their churches and the churches have enough from that to help the downtrodden all by themselves, go ahead. The world's not that way and it wouldn't be even if people didn't have to pay taxes for social programs.

Again, I suggest you try feeding yourself on the amount food stamps provides. You'll learn why lots of kids on food stamps still come to school hungry.

As for the churches, I have no idea what you're talking about. I've only seen churches like that on TV flipping channels. The churches around here work hard to serve their community, but they'd go broke if they had to do it alone.

I can think of numerous scenarios why a woman driving a fancy car would be getting food stamps, not all of them involve gaming the system.

Message edited by author 2008-08-09 22:55:23.

08/10/2008 12:18:34 AM · #81

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

I'd say it is the government's job as the leaders to provide assistance to those people who need it. Probably more so than invading third-world countries and blowing up the place.

Again. Instead of answering the question...you change the topic to Iraq. If you would use that brain that God gave you..and actually PAY ATTENTION, as I supported of Ron Paul, I support pulling out and never supported our initial invasion

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

If you want to fantasize about a world where people give willingly to their churches and the churches have enough from that to help the downtrodden all by themselves, go ahead. The world's not that way and it wouldn't be even if people didn't have to pay taxes for social programs.

Maybe not...your church. Some churches actually follow the tithing process advocated in the Bible and do a great deal for the poor and needy. Of course, we are also demonized by most of the country as evidence with Mitt Romney's political assasination because of his religion.

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Again, I suggest you try feeding yourself on the amount food stamps provides. You'll learn why lots of kids on food stamps still come to school hungry.

Don't be silly. Once again, you are NOT paying attention. I WAS on foodstamps..when I was in college. My wife and I recieved well over $300 a month just for the two of us. Show me a family of three that can't live off that...and I will show you a family of three that are living abover their means. (turkey instead of bologna, soda instead of water...etc...etc) Not to mention the fact that anyone who is on food stamps almost always qualifies for free breakfast and lunch at the public schools. When you add that into the equation..the kids are fed for 10 of their meals throughout the week before they even invade the house pantry.

You keep proving that you don't give a damn about these people. Why? Because you keep making excuses for them.

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

As for the churches, I have no idea what you're talking about. I've only seen churches like that on TV flipping channels. The churches around here work hard to serve their community, but they'd go broke if they had to do it alone.

Come to the south. Just in my medium sized town..we have several 'hundred thousand dollar churches' within a one mile radius...the only difference is small changes in doctrine. Also...churches don't work alone...remember? All things are possible with God.

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

I can think of numerous scenarios why a woman driving a fancy car would be getting food stamps, not all of them involve gaming the system.

Yeah. Ok. Name one.... remember a BRAND NEW CAR.
Think of how much those payments are. She could easily just buy a 2-3k used car and still get where she needs to go without milking the government every month for a few hundred bucks of food stamps. Instead, she lives ABOVE HER MEANS because the government is willing to pick up the tab for her groceries while she pays the huge car and insurance payment for her car every month.

Again, instead of offering answers ...you offer excuses.

Message edited by author 2008-08-10 00:21:33.

08/10/2008 12:34:17 AM · #82

Let me clarify a small part.
I don't support LONG TERM Support. Like...food and housing. But I do support us taking care of people in medical need when it is dire or life threatening (or if it involves children or pregnant women.

These costs have nothing to do with living above your means. They are out of the person's control...and thus need the slack taken up for them to make sure their lives are spared.

I am not heartless, I am just wanting people to pick themselves up...and the current system keeps a foot on the back of each family preventing them from making a better life for themselves. If each family was given the opportunity to attend college and leave without any debt..(with their tuition, housing and food paid during their college stay) they could begin a productive life without any major economic burdens.

Message edited by author 2008-08-10 00:35:03.

08/10/2008 01:29:57 AM · #83

Originally posted by egamble:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

I'd say it is the government's job as the leaders to provide assistance to those people who need it. Probably more so than invading third-world countries and blowing up the place.

Again. Instead of answering the question...you change the topic to Iraq. If you would use that brain that God gave you..and actually PAY ATTENTION, as I supported of Ron Paul, I support pulling out and never supported our initial invasion

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

If you want to fantasize about a world where people give willingly to their churches and the churches have enough from that to help the downtrodden all by themselves, go ahead. The world's not that way and it wouldn't be even if people didn't have to pay taxes for social programs.

Maybe not...your church. Some churches actually follow the tithing process advocated in the Bible and do a great deal for the poor and needy. Of course, we are also demonized by most of the country as evidence with Mitt Romney's political assasination because of his religion.

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Again, I suggest you try feeding yourself on the amount food stamps provides. You'll learn why lots of kids on food stamps still come to school hungry.

Don't be silly. Once again, you are NOT paying attention. I WAS on foodstamps..when I was in college. My wife and I recieved well over $300 a month just for the two of us. Show me a family of three that can't live off that...and I will show you a family of three that are living abover their means. (turkey instead of bologna, soda instead of water...etc...etc) Not to mention the fact that anyone who is on food stamps almost always qualifies for free breakfast and lunch at the public schools. When you add that into the equation..the kids are fed for 10 of their meals throughout the week before they even invade the house pantry.

You keep proving that you don't give a damn about these people. Why? Because you keep making excuses for them.

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

As for the churches, I have no idea what you're talking about. I've only seen churches like that on TV flipping channels. The churches around here work hard to serve their community, but they'd go broke if they had to do it alone.

Come to the south. Just in my medium sized town..we have several 'hundred thousand dollar churches' within a one mile radius...the only difference is small changes in doctrine. Also...churches don't work alone...remember? All things are possible with God.

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

I can think of numerous scenarios why a woman driving a fancy car would be getting food stamps, not all of them involve gaming the system.

Yeah. Ok. Name one.... remember a BRAND NEW CAR.
Think of how much those payments are. She could easily just buy a 2-3k used car and still get where she needs to go without milking the government every month for a few hundred bucks of food stamps. Instead, she lives ABOVE HER MEANS because the government is willing to pick up the tab for her groceries while she pays the huge car and insurance payment for her car every month.

Again, instead of offering answers ...you offer excuses.

I offer sympathy and help, not cruelty.

As for coming to the South, no thanks.

Mitt Romney lost because he didn't get the votes in the primary, not because he's Mormon.

As for the scenario, sure.

Wife and husband are married, they buy a new car for her to drive. Husband starts a divorce, empties the house and empties the bank accounts and runs off with his honey for a few weeks of vacation. She's stuck with the kids, no money. She'll wind up getting half the assets, child support and maybe alimony, but that will take months, if not years, and the kids are hungry now. Right now she has nothing. I suppose she could try prostitution, maybe her getting beaten by her pimp would satisfy your need for cruelty. Happens all the time.

All things are possible with who? God? If you want to believe in that fairy tale, that's up to you.

Of course, you supported Ron Paul. He's the Ross Perot for the new generation.

Message edited by author 2008-08-10 01:30:56.

08/10/2008 01:31:58 AM · #84

Originally posted by egamble:

I am not heartless, ...

You just act that way on the internet.

08/10/2008 01:38:16 AM · #85

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

As for the scenario, sure.

Wife and husband are married, they buy a new car for her to drive. Husband starts a divorce, empties the house and empties the bank accounts and runs off with his honey for a few weeks of vacation. She's stuck with the kids, no money. She'll wind up getting half the assets, child support and maybe alimony, but that will take months, if not years, and the kids are hungry now. Right now she has nothing. I suppose she could try prostitution, maybe her getting beaten by her pimp would satisfy your need for cruelty. Happens all the time.

All things are possible with who? God? If you want to believe in that fairy tale, that's up to you.

Of course, you supported Ron Paul. He's the Ross Perot for the new generation.

yeah...right. Jump from a woman driving a BRAND NEW NIZSAN 350Z to her being a desitute mother forced into prostitution because of my views on social welfare.

Wow.. you really are a piece of work.

Good story. Do you really think this is the story for the countless stories of people milking the system?

Thanks for disregarding the rest of what I said. Usual tactic of the wannabe political 'intellectuals'. Gloss over what you don't understand or can't rebut and just keep making excuses for the fleecing of our welfare system.

08/10/2008 01:39:54 AM · #86

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by egamble:

I am not heartless, ...

You just act that way on the internet.

Asking for accountability and personal responsibility is not cruelty.
I hope you never have children...you will be like 1/2 of the parents that walk into my classroom. Wanting the grade GIVEN to their student instead of having their kids work for their grades.

That is the problem with our society...we don't want to work or actually pay for anything. We want it handed to us on a silver platter with Xbox Controller Handles.

08/10/2008 01:45:57 AM · #87

Spazmo99

Instead of you bringing up a topic. Then completely ignoring my response before you carry on with another rant. Answer these four questions/statements of mine in a meaningful and thought out way.

1.) Give a constitutional mandate for the welfare system..as is. Unending support with no repercussions?

2.) If the Mormon Church can do as much good around the world as we do...with our inferior number of members...why is it so 'impossible and 'fairy tale' like to expect other churches to do so?

3.) Answer the question. How can a family of four...STARVE..when they get over 300 in food stamps PLUS free breakfast and lunch at school? (except that they live above their means)

4.) Give an answer...why should we give them unlimited support with no repercussions for milking the system? Why is it bad to ask for personal responsibility?

Sam94720

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

08/10/2008 03:45:07 AM · #88

Originally posted by egamble:

Originally posted by Sam94720:

Originally posted by egamble:
Yes, social programs are a good idea in THEORY...but people take advantage way too much. There should be a 4-5 year minimum of social programs to get you on your feet..if you are in college or lose your job...after that we should cut you off and let you fend for yourself.

Two questions:

1) What would people do who have been "cut off"?

2) What would Jesus think of your policy?

1.) They would either live or die..
2.) Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. Render unto God that which is God's. If YOU feel that Jesus want's you to take care of people that take advantage of goodwill..then by all means..do so. But don't push your Jesus beliefs onto MINE or anybody's checkbook.

Did you just advocate letting poor people die to reduce your tax burden? I'm impressed by your Christian values and compassion.

From your posts I get the impression that you feel you had to work hard to keep yourself above water and therefore you want everybody else to have at least as difficult a time as you had. They don't deserve any better than you! Again the good Christian values of self-righteousness, enviousness and mercilessness.

coronamv

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 IF EX DG HSM for Canon

08/10/2008 11:19:50 AM · #89

Nope Wrong again actual death total of US Soldiers from the Vietnam War was 58,209 the number you quoted was total dead and wounded.

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by JEM:
For Sam Braendle -- Digital camera courses were not taught in the Hanoi prison where
Lt. John McCain spent 6-1/2 years, only torture, which he endured with great courage
and honor in the military service of his country.
Perhaps you will tell us about your contribution while you were learning which button
to push on your digital camera, while you were flying combat missions.
J. E. Masquelier

What does that have to do with anything?

153,303 other servicemen went to Vietnam and came back in a box. Another 2,489 are still unaccounted for. Those guys have an excuse for not understanding technology.

John McCain sacrificed for his country there is no doubt about that, but that's not an excuse for being ignorant about technology.

My Dad is older than McCain and he's very proficient at using his computer.

08/10/2008 11:20:17 AM · #90

Originally posted by Sam94720:

No, I advocated making people responsible for themselves. Again, you people are SO COMPASSIONATE that you fail to realize that my plan actually makes more sense than unending support.

Did I ever say just to throw them on the street and let them die? No.

Instead of being ignorant...lets look back at the past discussion. There are two sides.

1.) Spazmo, and apparently you, think the current system is peachy and we should offer unending support to people without any responsibility being asked. (This creates a recycling of poor people, they never lift themselves out of their status....neither do their children or their grand children...why? Because you are so compassionate)

2.) I support a system that actually helps people. Instead of just allowing them to continually milk the system and creating generations of Social Welfare baggage....my plan actually allows the person the opportunity to lift themselves out of their current situation. Instead of unending support they get between 4-7 (I said a 2 year extension would be fine in a later post) system that pays for college, housing, and food would allow these people to stop working minimum wage jobs and obtain higher pay and not need the unending help of the government. This would also allow their children a better chance because their parents would be able to provide a better life without relying solely on the government. Apparently, you don't like this...why? Because it asks people to be responsible for themselves.

3.) I never said that I had to 'work hard' to keep myself above water. I DID say that I used the food stamp program during college. That is all. But thanks for making an assumption...you know what they say about assumptions...right?

Why do you make excuses for people?

Why can't any of you people answer a simple question about personal accountablility and responsibility?

Message edited by author 2008-08-10 11:22:33.

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

08/10/2008 11:27:20 AM · #91

Originally posted by Sam94720:

Again the good Christian values of self-righteousness, enviousness and mercilessness.

The bible never advocates that we should run our government like we run our church.

What I do with my own money...or what my church does with my tithing is a COMPLETELY different subject than if the government steals my money and then allows people to milk the system till the end of time.

But hey, if you can't actually answer why our current system shuns personal accountability...and would rather attack Christianity....keep on trucking!

You people keep making my point for me...you change the subject instead of answering the question. Can't come up with a good reason for why we should be a nanny state? ATTACK THE PERSON. Classic Logical Fallacy. (argumentum ad hominem)

Message edited by author 2008-08-10 11:30:09.

Kelli

Canon EOS-D60

08/10/2008 12:39:31 PM · #92

Originally posted by egamble:

Originally posted by Sam94720:
Again the good Christian values of self-righteousness, enviousness and mercilessness.

The bible never advocates that we should run our government like we run our church.

What I do with my own money...or what my church does with my tithing is a COMPLETELY different subject than if the government steals my money and then allows people to milk the system till the end of time.

But hey, if you can't actually answer why our current system shuns personal accountability...and would rather attack Christianity....keep on trucking!

You people keep making my point for me...you change the subject instead of answering the question. Can't come up with a good reason for why we should be a nanny state? ATTACK THE PERSON. Classic Logical Fallacy. (argumentum ad hominem)

Actually I think we've had this conversation before. The government does not give an unlimited hand to anyone. Welfare reforms took care of that years ago. There is a time limit! And, it's a lifetime limit. People who receive welfare are required to work or go to school in order to receive any benefits. If you don't believe me, look it up. It no where near the utopia you seem to believe it is. They will pay for school, but you have to complete your studies in under a year. That pretty much rules out college, trade schools seem to be their answer. They will also only pay for school for "in demand" occupations, usually low paying.

Sam94720

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

08/10/2008 12:55:00 PM · #93

I agree that there should be incentives for people to start working again and finance themselves (and I think there are some). In some countries (in Germany, for example) you have the situation that some people get more money from social programs than they would make if they worked. So of course they stay at home. Not very clever incentives.

Cutting everyone off after a few years and letting them "live or die" is not a good solution either. There are always people who will never be able to fend for themselves (again) because they are handicapped or mentally ill, for example. There are many other factors (which may be beyond their control) that could make it difficult for them to obtain a job.

Now what do we, as a society, do with these people? I see three basic alternatives:

1) We kill them all to get rid of the problem.
2) We leave them to their own fate.
3) We support them and make sure their basic needs are met.

Alternative 1) is certainly the best option from an economic point of view. However, I assume that nobody here wants to seriously promote this solution.

People preferring 2) think they can change one parameter in the equation (reducing their tax burden, cutting social programs accordingly) and assume this won't have an effect on anything else. Unfortunately, it does. What will those people do? They will live in the streets. Some of them will steal. Some of them will rob people. Some of them will start taking drugs. Some of them will kill. etc. I can imagine that you'll answer "If they become criminal, we punish them and put them in jail!" Yeah, right. And who pays for that? You.

I hope you realize you will pay for those people in any case. The question is whether you pay a small amount of money to provide for their basic needs or a large amount of money to pay for law enforcement, prisons, etc. And the additional price of potentially having your home invaded, being injured or being killed (there are tons of other side effects: You don't feel comfortable going to the movies anymore because of the junkies in the street, property is damaged and needs to be replaced/repaired, etc.).

So even if you are a complete egoist, you should go for option 3) (if we rule out 1)...).

And as an additional comment: You seem to assume that everyone is fully responsible for their own fate. However, this is simply not the case. There are many factors that are beyond our control that affect our lives. Other people might not have been as lucky as you and it's not necessarily their fault. (And yes, of course there are lazy bastards who are milking the system. But again: This problem can be solved by adjusting incentives. If they don't have work, have them do community service, for example, and reduce the money they get if they don't show up.)

And as a general rule: You are not better off if you make other people miserable. Or as Bertrand Russell said: "If there were in the world today any large number of people who desired their own happiness more than they desired the unhappiness of others, we could have paradise in a few years."

08/10/2008 02:22:17 PM · #94

Originally posted by Kelli:

Actually, that is wrong.

I know people...in my 'in laws' extended family who ARE NOT HANDICAPPED in any form...yet recieve foodstamps...and have done so for over 2years

By the way, neither the wife or husband work.

Message edited by author 2008-08-10 14:32:56.

08/10/2008 02:24:19 PM · #95

Originally posted by Sam94720:

Cutting everyone off after a few years and letting them "live or die" is not a good solution either. There are always people who will never be able to fend for themselves (again) because they are handicapped or mentally ill, for example. There are many other factors (which may be beyond their control) that could make it difficult for them to obtain a job.

I think our definitions are also flawed.

Remember the 'permanently handicapped' NY Firefighter that was recently caught in a body building competition?

Just because people claim disability...doesn't make it true.

In fact, the crappy thing...is that IF they do get a job...they are 'punished' with a reduction in Food Stamps. The current system rewards those that do nothing...and punishes those that try to help themselves.

Message edited by author 2008-08-10 14:34:14.

08/10/2008 02:32:34 PM · #96

Originally posted by Sam94720:

And as an additional comment: You seem to assume that everyone is fully responsible for their own fate. However, this is simply not the case. There are many factors that are beyond our control that affect our lives. Other people might not have been as lucky as you and it's not necessarily their fault. (And yes, of course there are lazy bastards who are milking the system. But again: This problem can be solved by adjusting incentives. If they don't have work, have them do community service, for example, and reduce the money they get if they don't show up.)

And as a general rule: You are not better off if you make other people miserable. Or as Bertrand Russell said: "If there were in the world today any large number of people who desired their own happiness more than they desired the unhappiness of others, we could have paradise in a few years."

-I am not assuming anything. Which is why I say that some people will need complete help while they get started and complete college. My wife and I are over 80k in debt from student loans. This means we are going to pay 1k a month for 10 years. Not exactly the best way to start off my post-school life. BUT...I made it...and Now I can afford that and I can afford to pay the bils and put food on the table...so it was worth it. My plan would , at least, open up new possibilities for these people. The current system doesn't offer any help...just handouts.

-My point isn't to 'make other people miserable'. If accountablility and personal responsibility makes them miserable....then so be it. We must start taking our lives into our own hands.You just don't understand the true depth of the problem...

even if we didn't reduce taxes..I would rather the money be spent on improving the highway system HERE in Arkansas than on paying for some deadbeats housing or foodstamps. Hell, I would rather pick up the tab...for the person's DAYCARE...(as long as they were going to work)....than pay their food bill. Because at least, they would be accountable...and would have to have a job and work...etc.

Message edited by author 2008-08-10 14:35:04.

Matthew

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

08/10/2008 05:29:32 PM · #97

Originally posted by egamble:

2.) I support a system that actually helps people. Instead of just allowing them to continually milk the system and creating generations of Social Welfare baggage....my plan actually allows the person the opportunity to lift themselves out of their current situation. .... Apparently, you don't like this...why? Because it asks people to be responsible for themselves.

...

Why do you make excuses for people?

Why can't any of you people answer a simple question about personal accountablility and responsibility?

This is naieve in the extreme.

Human nature and the benefits system are hardly "broken": a small number of people break the rules and milk the system. But unemployment is low - there is no widespread rush to get on benefits and people generally want to work.

You propose to fix the unbroken system by removing or severely limiting it. And you think that the law-breakers will be reformed as a consequence? This is nonsense - the law-breakers will find new ways to milk the system and only the genuinely needy will suffer.

You propose to save "stolen" taxes by forcing people already on the edge of poverty out of the benefits system. Your version of tough love might kill a few hundred or thousand people, but you think that this brand of "compassionate" approach would be worth it. And you ignore the fact that people forced into desperate measures would cost the poor tax payer far more in crime and health costs than the marginal amount saved (presumably the tax costs that your proposal generates are "necessary" rather than "stolen"?).

Originally posted by Sam94720:

This problem can be solved by adjusting incentives. If they don't have work, have them do community service, for example, and reduce the money they get if they don't show up.

I agree with much of your post but bear in mind that supervising community service costs money - such a proposal involves more expenditure on the umemployed, not less. Investment returns on community service type work is questionable. This would be a social program, not a costs savings measure.

Sam94720

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

08/10/2008 06:12:42 PM · #98

Originally posted by Matthew:

You propose to save "stolen" taxes by forcing people already on the edge of poverty out of the benefits system. Your version of tough love might kill a few hundred or thousand people, but you think that this brand of "compassionate" approach would be worth it.

Short question for

egamble: You are concerned that you are paying too much taxes which benefit the poor and you propose to let them fend for themselves after a few years and to let them "live or die". This will reduce your taxes. How much do you expect to save per year for each dead poor person? Would it be ok to let a person die so that you could save a dollar? Or a few cents? How much would it have to be for it to be "worth" it?

Originally posted by Matthew:

And you ignore the fact that people forced into desperate measures would cost the poor tax payer far more in crime and health costs than the marginal amount saved (presumably the tax costs that your proposal generates are "necessary" rather than "stolen"?).

Exactly.

egamble, did you understand this point? You will have to pay for the poor people in any case. I illustrated this with examples in my last post.

Originally posted by Matthew:

Yes, this was probably not the best of examples. My main point is that you will always have people who try to take advantage of the system and you can adjust the incentives to make it harder for them and thereby reduce their number. However, there will always be a few left who get benefits they don't deserve (like the bodybuilder mentioned). What could we do about it?

1) Cut benefits for everyone.
2) Surveillance measures.
3) Live with it.

Option 1) is not a good idea because all the poor people legitimately claiming support would suffer. It would also bring about all the nasty side effects and cost the society more in the end.

Option 2) would probably allow us to catch some of the cheaters. However, the surveillance would cost more than the money saved. So costs for the society rise.

Option 3) is therefore probably the best one. Yes, it's unfair. Some people get money they don't deserve. But unfortunately, every other option would be worse for the society as a whole.

One step we could take to improve 3) is to impose harsh penalties for people caught exploiting the system. However, we would again have to make sure that these penalties do not raise overall costs. So "Cut all payments and throw the guy in the gutter!" is not a good idea...

08/10/2008 06:15:15 PM · #99

Originally posted by Matthew:

Human nature and the benefits system are hardly "broken": a small number of people break the rules and milk the system. But unemployment is low - there is no widespread rush to get on benefits and people generally want to work.

You propose to fix the unbroken system by removing or severely limiting it. And you think that the law-breakers will be reformed as a consequence? This is nonsense - the law-breakers will find new ways to milk the system and only the genuinely needy will suffer.

You propose to save "stolen" taxes by forcing people already on the edge of poverty out of the benefits system. Your version of tough love might kill a few hundred or thousand people, but you think that this brand of "compassionate" approach would be worth it. And you ignore the fact that people forced into desperate measures would cost the poor tax payer far more in crime and health costs than the marginal amount saved (presumably the tax costs that your proposal generates are "necessary" rather than "stolen"?).

-Human nature is broken. That is why ,currently, the government has to steal my money to take care of the needy. If human nature wasn't broken....their would be no problem because we would take care of it without the governments interference. We don't...so the government tries...they just do a crappy job.

- You say that there is a 'small problem' but that we should leave things the way they are because we 'wont teach the lawbreakers a lesson anyways'. Nonsense. If that was the outlook of society..why punish murderers? Theifs? Gangbangers? They won't learn their lesson anyways...they will find a way around it anyways..might as well let them be. COMPLETE and utter nonsense. If there is a problem, even a small one, it deserves to be fixed. Maybe my plan isn't the ultimate fix...but neither is the status quo.

-You can look at it from the emotional side...I will look at it from the logical side. In this life, there are limited resources. If you artificially help out a segment of the population, then you allow their numbers to grow (the poor people will have sex and make even MORE poor people...which will increase the problem) If you give these type of people...unlimited help with no expectation of responsibility or giving them a way to help themselves in the long run...you are only increasing the burden on the welfare system in the future.

Let me put it this way.

These people are in a hole.

The status quo throws down shovels....and asks them to dig themselves in deeper.

We need something that will help pull them out of the hole. If we don't...we will just have an even deeper hole filled with even more people in the future.