pa2a.org


Share Thread:  
Tea Party Candidate has TEN KIDS on MEDICAID
#51
Emoticon;122632 Wrote:Actually, in a truly free society (anarchism) those kids would either die or the caretakers would be forced to put them up for adoption if a person did something as stupid and irresponsible as take on a responsibility such as having kids they are unable to fulfill.

Wow, I never knew an anarchistic society would result in everyone becoming geniuses who never made poor decisions or had poor decisions thrust upon them. Just think--all these crack whores will stop spreading their legs, rapes will end and teenagers will suddenly discover abstinence!

But you forget one key aspect regarding an anarchistic society--everyone wants to build them, but nobody wants to live in them because someone always ends up having to call the shots, or they wind up as a socialistic society in order to have true 'equality'.
Vampire pig man since September 2012
Reply
#52
If it were up to me, there wouldn't be any Federal Welfare programs. Likewise, there wouldn't be any Federal income taxes either. Nothing smacks of stupid quite like penalizing productivity. Unfortunately, it's not up to me; it's not up to the Tea Party either despite what MSNBC may say.
"As I lay rubber down the street I pray for traction I can keep, but if I spin and begin to slide, please dear God, protect my sweet ride."
Reply
#53
Isn't the tea party agenda the reduction of the size of government, as well as social programs and taxes?

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
MiniDevil, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Sep 2012.
Reply
#54
MiniDevil;122709 Wrote:Isn't the tea party agenda the reduction of the size of government, as well as social programs and taxes?

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

Yes.
"As I lay rubber down the street I pray for traction I can keep, but if I spin and begin to slide, please dear God, protect my sweet ride."
Reply
#55
Camper,

Lets suppose I work for you; if you make me work for you under some kind of specific threat against my person even if you're paying me, but it keeps me working for you under duress because of that threat you are committing a crime, even if the consequence of your threat isn't immediate. Another point is that the United States did not have a real income tax until after the war of 1812 and even then the early income taxes actually were voluntary. So in effect the income tax came about after the US government started doing shit they weren't supposed to like making social programs, funding imperialism in the Philippines during the Philippine-American war, and creating standing armies. Even then most people were not paying income taxes until after WW2.

For shits and giggles here's a government sponsored propaganda Donald Duck cartoon trying to sell people on the income tax before it was required for everyone from 1943 and trying to tell people that paying taxes was their patriotic duty:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00u6qUelp6c

Funny thing is after the war ended do you think those taxes went away? Of course not. BTW Octomom just basically told the people fuck you I'm having these kids anyway. She didn't try to backpedal and play it off like this clown.

Income taxes were not required in our framer's rendition of the government.

I also find it interesting that you will sit there and claim that in a society where people have to pay for the consequences of their actions without government intervention that people will not suddenly start to act more responsibly in response. Yet you will go on to then argue that state sponsored proliferation of birth control and abortions will make people run hog wild with sex and having babies out of wedlock. So which do you want, a society with personal responsibility or a society with social programs and government intervention? Or is it just whichever viewpoint happens to be convenient for the discussion?

There are many countries around the world where there is no medicaid, there is no form of welfare of any kind unless you have some kind of severe physical or mental ailment. I have traveled to some of them and from what I've seen their rates of homelessness are lower than here in the US. You rarely see people laying on a piece of cardboard like you see on every other block in Philly. In places where personal responsibility still exists and the dependency state is non-existent when people have issues it's shameful to the family in the eyes of the community to let their blood relative live on the street so the family pitches in and helps that person get back on their feet rather than scream about what their government can do for them.

Like I said you guys are just letting this slide because he claims to be on our side. If it were anyone else the discussion would be entirely flipped.
The forum poster formerly known as Emoticon...
Reply
#56
Emoticon;122758 Wrote:Camper,

Lets suppose I work for you; if you make me work for you under some kind of specific threat against my person even if you're paying me, but it keeps me working for you because of that threat you are committing a crime, even if the consequence of your threat isn't immediate. Another point is that the United States did not have a real income tax until after the war of 1812 and even then the early income taxes actually were voluntary. So in effect the income tax came about after the US government started doing shit they weren't supposed to like making social programs, funding imperialism in the Philippines during the Philippine-American war, and creating standing armies. Even then most people were not paying income taxes until after WW2.

For shits and giggles here's a government sponsored propaganda Donald Duck cartoon trying to sell people on the income tax before it was required for everyone from 1943 and trying to tell people that paying taxes was their patriotic duty:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00u6qUelp6c

Funny thing is after the war ended do you think those taxes went away? Of course not. BTW Octomom just basically told the people fuck you I'm having these kids anyway. She didn't try to backpedal and play it off like this clown.

Income taxes were not required in our framer's rendition of the government.

I also find it interesting that you will sit there and claim that in a society where people have to pay for the consequences of their actions without government intervention that people will not suddenly start to act more responsibly in response. Yet you will go on to then argue that state sponsored proliferation of birth control and abortions will make people run hog wild with sex and having babies out of wedlock. So which do you want a society with personal responsibility or a society with social programs and government intervention? Or is it just whichever viewpoint happens to be convenient for the discussion?

There are many countries around the world where there is no medicaid, there is no form of welfare of any kind unless you have some kind of severe physical or mental ailment. I have traveled to some of them and from what I've seen their rates of homelessness are lower than here in the US. You rarely see people laying on a piece of cardboard like you see on every other block in Philly. In places where personal responsibility still exists and the dependency state is non-existent when people have issues it's shameful to the family in the eyes of the community to let their blood relative live on the street so the family pitches in and helps that person get back on their feet rather than scream about what their government can do for them.

Like I said you guys are just letting this slide because he claims to be on our side. If it were anyone else the discussion would be entirely flipped.

Nope. Shrug
"As I lay rubber down the street I pray for traction I can keep, but if I spin and begin to slide, please dear God, protect my sweet ride."
Reply
#57
Emoticon;122758 Wrote:Lets suppose I work for you; if you make me work for you under some kind of specific threat against my person even if you're paying me, but it keeps me working for you under duress because of that threat you are committing a crime, even if the consequence of your threat isn't immediate.

Fair point. Yet is it still a crime if you willingly comply, and if you are only willing to repeat the mantra "Liberty or Death" do you really mean what you say?

Quote:Another point is that the United States did not have a real income tax until after the war of 1812 and even then the early income taxes actually were voluntary.

What was doesn't matter. That has changed. What it is now does matter. There is a litany of things that are vastly different today than in 1812. This comes up often in various speeches and whatnot, and it's somewhat annoying to me. Not by you mind you, just in general. You're wanting to cherry pick a policy from 1812, when the world is nothing like it was in 1812. America is nothing like it was in 1812. And relating to your earlier point as proof, in 1812 I could have owned your ass and not paid you shit, and there was not a damn thing you could have done about it and it was perfectly legal and not considered a crime whatsoever.

And that takes none of the other differences from 1812 to 2013 into consideration, and there is a LOT to consider.

Quote:Income taxes were not required in our framer's rendition of the government.

There were a lot of things in our framers rendition of the government that were not required at the time because they were not necessary.


Quote:I also find it interesting that you will sit there and claim that in a society where people have to pay for the consequences of their actions without government intervention that people will not suddenly start to act more responsibly in response.

There is historical proof that they will not. Remember, social programs were created by the government in response to people's irresponsibility and the perceived need to do something about it. A more lackadaisical attitudes towards irresponsible behavior certainly can be blamed in part to government intervention, but it is certainly not the cause.

Quote:Yet you will go on to then argue that state sponsored proliferation of birth control and abortions will make people run hog wild with sex and having babies out of wedlock.

It is not the proliferation, it is the mindset which excuses said proliferation and therefore creates a general acceptance of behaviors which result in more proliferation.

I personally know someone who was a slut in the 1950s even by todays standards, and had a couple kids with a couple random guys. Back then, when she was a teenager, she was 'sent off' to have her children and she gave them up for adoption because that type of behavior was shameful. Today, 60 years later, you get a TV show in MTV if you're enough of a trashy 'hot mess' and couples will have children together but not get married because they don't want to "make such a big commitment" with each other.

Quote:So which do you want, a society with personal responsibility or a society with social programs and government intervention? Or is it just whichever viewpoint happens to be convenient for the discussion?

Who says you can't have both??? A person can be personally responsible, do everything right, and then still fall on hard times or have events thrust upon them which require help and assistance well beyond what a church or social organization is able to provide.

Our system, in the name of political correctness and political posturing, has become one in which it is "wrong" to require a person to justify that they truly need the help they do.

Quote:There are many countries around the world where there is no medicaid, there is no form of welfare of any kind unless you have some kind of severe physical or mental ailment. I have traveled to some of them and from what I've seen their rates of homelessness are lower than here in the US. You rarely see people laying on a piece of cardboard like you see on every other block in Philly.

Go to India. Go to the Dominican. Go to Haiti. Go to Africa. Got to Brazil. Go to Columbia. Go to the UK. Go to Italy. Go to France.

Look at the statistics, not the location you happen to visit. I see nobody living in the streets here in Gettysburg, but I can tell you for a fact there is a homeless population here. You can not gauge what is by what you see during a limited duration visit, especially if you stick to the more popular locations.

Quote:In places where personal responsibility still exists and the dependency state is non-existent when people have issues it's shameful to the family in the eyes of the community to let their blood relative live on the street so the family pitches in and helps that person get back on their feet rather than scream about what their government can do for them.

Prove it, show me where. Japan? That tends to be the go to example, but they have an extensive social welfare program in the form of 100% FREE medical care to the poor, along with free childcare. Their poverty level in Japan is also extremely high.

Oh yeah, and the nation is broke.

But that's a moot point, the US will never be like Japan.

Quote:Like I said you guys are just letting this slide because he claims to be on our side. If it were anyone else the discussion would be entirely flipped.

Oh no, I said from the start that this is essentially a non-issue. Wanting to end a program while collecting it is hypocritical no matter what, but over all I have no issue with someone collecting from a program that they are eligible for that they themselves have been paying into.

And like I said, you'll do it too. I guarantee it. And saying "You can take it away today, and let me put it where I want and I'll be OK with that" is trying to jutsify your future collection, because even if your comment is true, you know as well as I they won't dissolve SS or Meidcare/caid and you'll fill out the form as soon as you get it...just like the rest of us.
Vampire pig man since September 2012
Reply
#58
Camper;122797 Wrote:Oh no, I said from the start that this is essentially a non-issue. Wanting to end a program while collecting it is hypocritical no matter what, but over all I have no issue with someone collecting from a program that they are eligible for that they themselves have been paying into.

I don't find it hypocritical to collect on a benefit that you wish to end, if you are eligible. At least not in reference to the things we are talking about, like SS and Medicare/Medicaid. We are forced to pay for these programs and don't have a choice in the matter. Legally we are bound to do so if we have income. It would be nice to be ideological and refrain, but that is most likely not an option for the majority of Americans, unless we are willing to go live on the streets in a cardboard box behind a dumpster. That's the trick of the whole thing. If not today, tomorrow we will be dependent on government if things don't change.

Camper;122797 Wrote:And like I said, you'll do it too. I guarantee it. And saying "You can take it away today, and let me put it where I want and I'll be OK with that" is trying to jutsify your future collection, because even if your comment is true, you know as well as I they won't dissolve SS or Meidcare/caid and you'll fill out the form as soon as you get it...just like the rest of us.

I completely agree. I know if SS is still around when I retire, and I need it to help cover my expenses, I'm going to fill out those forms and collect that check. I don't feel entitled to it, but I did pay into the program, and if I need it and its available, I will draw on it out of need. Same goes for Medicare/caid for health care. If I'm smart enough and lucky maybe I won't need it, and that would be ideal. Wouldn't that be nice!

Culturally we need to start tilting the scale in the other direction, away from government dependence (at all stages of life) and towards personal responsibility. I think that comes with individual accomplishment and prosperity, which is something I would like to see cultivated more in our society.
LostCyborg, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Jun 2013.

You wouldn't be able to run as many people over with that car if it didn't drive as far. It should only have a 10 gallon fuel tank.
Reply
#59
Furthermore, look at it this way. I pay upwards of $300 a check in Taxes of the money I earn. The vast majority of it goes to wasteful programs that I totally disagree with. I'll be damned if I was given an option to have my health insurance costs included in that already ridiculous income reduction and choose not to take it. Why would I want to fork out an additional (however much 10 kids cost) in health insurance every check when I'm already paying $300 involuntarily in to a health insurance program? I won't blame anyone who takes that. It's nothing but getting a portion of your own damned income back.

As for the principal of the whole thing. In Agenda 21 the citizens are given "nourishment cubes" to live off of in replacement of having actual food. Generally, the citizens dislike and disagree with this program. However, you won't find any citizens willfully starving themselves to death on principal for not taking the nourishment cubes. The old saying "Cut off your nose to spite your face." comes in to pay here. If you're already being involuntarily involved in a health insurance plan, you mind as well get the insurance you're paying for instead of paying double on principal.

The facts of the matter is, like education costs, health insurance costs wouldn't be so high in the first place if not for Federal Government involvement. If they're going to use our money to drive up costs, let them use our same money to pay our costs.

If you want something to be done about Government entitlement programs, vote for and elect more Tea Party politicians (or whatever groups else exist) instead of finding things to scrutinize them about.
"As I lay rubber down the street I pray for traction I can keep, but if I spin and begin to slide, please dear God, protect my sweet ride."
Reply






Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Charlie Rangel: Tea Party = Hamas das 4 1,083 06-20-2014, 08:55 AM
Last Post: billamj
  GOP House candidate shoots down drone in campaign ad das 0 664 04-15-2014, 09:20 PM
Last Post: das
  70 Members of congress belong to the socalist party nomad 11 1,953 02-11-2014, 01:27 PM
Last Post: gascolator
  Nancy Pelosi Rebrands Democrat Party kadar 2 908 12-13-2013, 09:45 PM
Last Post: Camper
  BB gun control: In New Jersey, kids’ rite of passage could mean felony Philadelphia Patriot 5 3,775 12-12-2013, 09:53 AM
Last Post: Rik Bitter



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Software by MyBB, © 2002-2015 MyBB Group.
Template by Modogodo Design.