The deal is, you want to take from me and not give back. Everyone here sees it but you.
This appears to be a common rightwing misperception. They seem to think that because liberals advocate pooling some of our collective resources to provide a social safety net for those in need, what it really means is that liberals want to take money away from conservatives for their own use.They assume that liberals are all poor people on welfare and conservatives are all rich folk. Well, it just ain't true, and this should be obvious. I think the reason righties make this assumption is that self-interest is the only motivation they are able to comprehend. Anything nobler than that is simply beyond them. I think this is partly psychological and partly the result of an acquired world view that holds that life is a zero sum game, a dog-eat-dog situation in which everyone competes for limited resources and for which personal material gain is the be-all and end-all of human existence. (What always amazes me is that many of these same people also consider themselves to be Christians.)
Crabgrass, I seriously doubt that you will have much success in changing these people's basic psychology and fundamental outlook on life. Because it seems like you're trying to give them an epiphany about the interconnectedness of all things and the interdependence of human life and the fundamental kinship of all God's children (pardon to atheists, etc. for expressing it this way) that only life or a religious experience or luck can teach them. Furthermore, I do not believe that they have the slightest notion of what you're trying to tell them. But if you do succeed...well...more power to you. Jesus tried, and look what they did to him.
Sorry, crabs, but I don't want to be forced into being "us." And that is what it would take, force.
Jethro, in this statment are you going back to Lance's old dictum that the rule of law = force?
I think the reason righties make this assumption is that self-interest is the only motivation they are able to comprehend.
Well as long as you aren't generalizing. LOL
Anything nobler than that is simply beyond them.
Sure Susan, if you say so.
I think this is partly psychological and partly the result of an acquired world view that holds that life is a zero sum game, a dog-eat-dog situation in which everyone competes for limited resources and for which personal material gain is the be-all and end-all of hulman existence. (What always amazes me is that many of these same people also consider themselves Christians.)
Nope, not at all, they want to give it to whom they wish as you do. The difference is, I'm not asking for you to also contribute to causes, charities, etc.
But you are more noble by taking that money and giving it to whom you see fit ? It's easy to be noble and generous with others money. I think your biggest error in your summation is the assumption that conservatives don't want a safety net. They do, it all comes down to a matter of degrees. Or to what point. Most would agree that a social safety net is nessecary absolutely. I don't mind paying taxes at all. When the average American has to work until May just to pay taxes people tend to look and question where that money goes. Almost half a year to pay for those programs is proof that people left and right do value those things. It's a matter of when is enough enough ? When is it tyranical ? 7months ? 8 months ? It's making sure that it's spent wisely as you do in your family budget. Welfare reform which was actually passed by Clinton has shown itself to have proved the machinations and doomsday theories false. In most cases it's worked and worked well.
In many different ways Rick. Rolls are down. In many cases people have gotten out of a system that they were trapped in. My sister in-law has been a case worker for the last 15 years. She's seen many people able to get out of the system. Some she never thought would thrive have done 180's. Because of the time limits and restrictions. They found a bit of dignity and the pride that comes from working for a paycheck. She has told me many times how she sees how their lives have changed for the better in most cases and that their attitudes, outlooks etc. have improved which have intangible effects such as improved relationships. Not all are success stories of course but the majority of what she's seen has been positive. It's not perfect by any means but it's alot better than what it was.
Let's see rolls are down, people hae some pride and dignity improved personal relationships, yea, that's one. I'll have to buy you a calculator for Christmas.
I'm for everyone finding dignity and pride, But neither puts food on the table and a single parent in the home to take care of the kids.
I agree, what do you propose ?
And neither dignity nor pride pays very well. Let's hope their employers do.
You're right, but with that pride and dignity comes the desire to do better, to strive to make a better life. There isn't a program you can imagine that will do that.
I remember the hours my parents worked. My Dad at one point worked 3 jobs. He eventually got promoted after he found a better company and he went to 2 jobs and finally 1 at around age 45.
what I have been waiting for is for someone to tell me WHY we can't be "us", and there was only one really correct answer given that I can see, and it wasn't mine. The answer was "would I have to eat boring food?".
there is a level where there is no "us", it's called the individual.
Now, the individual is a good thing. It means freedom. Do whatever you like, you are an individual, just don't mess up some other individual's ability to be an individual too.
Now, I hope that being an individual is all you who were saying I was wrong were defending. I too think we need to protect the ability to be individuals.
However, as individuals we also need to live in a world with others. Not just need though, but want and greatly benefit from it. Think of your family. It's an "us" system. Got any insurance? It too is an "us" system. Can you, as an individual, build a million miles of paved road? Of course not. We all rely on "us" systems. I'm gonna bet that everyone here works with someone else in some sort of "us" relationship. Now, the question is, do "we" want "us" to have health care? Will it interfere with people's ability to be individuals. I don't think so. It will just provide them health care. Will individuals still want to pay for health care? Maybe some wealthy ones will, but this is no reason to not allow our "us" to go without it.
If the health insurance I get from where I work is incentive for me to do better, than why can't we, as a whole nation, decide that everyone gets this incentive to be healthier Americans, and healthier Americans are good for "us".
The really great thing about the experiment that is (was?) America is that we set it up to protect the individual's rights, and because of this we were able to have the freedom to form strong "us" ties without interfering with the individual and all it's wonder.
To be a good American you have to find a way to do both. The founders set it up so we might just have a chance to do that.
So, you want to go eat a steak and not get me one? Okay.
But how about our nation decide that it really is good for us as a nation to have health care and we all chip in to make it happen. Maybe just disarm a little like we are demanding other countries to do.
This appears to be a common rightwing misperception.
I take it you consider me Rightwing?
Jethro, do you believe me yet that I'm not a Liberal?
They seem to think that because liberals advocate pooling some of our collective resources to provide a social safety net for those in need,..
You already have the ability to pool your resources, why get me (the taxpayer) involved?
Besides, we have a safety net for those in need. National healthcare is a totally different monster than a 'safety net".
what it really means is that liberals want to take money away from conservatives for their own use.
Let me rephrase that for you. What it really means is you want to take money away from me to use for your own use.
I'd be happy to share the costs of health care as long as you're willing to help pay my bills. Now, where can I send you my life insurance premium notice and my children's tuition bill?
They assume that liberals are all poor people on welfare and conservatives are all rich folk.
You gotta be kidding? The richest people in Washington are Democrats. I know you like to think us Conservatives are unenlightened, ignorant goofs but, we've got you're number.
Well, it just ain't true, and this should be obvious.
You're right, it isn't true and it is obvious.
I think the reason righties make this assumption is that self-interest is the only motivation they are able to comprehend.
Yes, Liberals are so enlightened and Conservatives are just self serving ignorant rednecks.
Anything nobler than that is simply beyond them.
Yes, it's so noble to take my hard earned money and use for charity, via taxation. Much more noble than me wanting to provide for my own family.
I think this is partly psychological and partly the result of an acquired world view that holds that life is a zero sum game, a dog-eat-dog situation in which everyone competes for limited resources and for which personal material gain is the be-all and end-all of human existence. (What always amazes me is that many of these same people also consider themselves to be Christians.)
::slams head on desk::
Crabgrass, I seriously doubt that you will have much success in changing these people's basic psychology and fundamental outlook on life. Because it seems like you're trying to give them an epiphany about the interconnectedness of all things and the interdependence of human life and the fundamental kinship of all God's children (pardon to atheists, etc. for expressing it this way)
When did you have your epiphany? When did you realize your way was so much wiser and productive than everyone elses? When did you realize it was ok to use God as a tool, then apologize in the same sentence for doing so?
that only life or a religious experience or luck can teach them.
Furthermore, I do not believe that they have the slightest notion of what you're trying to tell them.
I know exactly what he's trying to tell me. I'm just not buying what he's sellling.
But if you do succeed...well...more power to you. Jesus tried, and look what they did to him.
Yes, Jesus was all for a national health care system.
you going back to Lance's old dictum that the rule of law = force?
"Rule of law" doesn't make it right. Rule of law at one time was you could own slaves and women couldn't vote.
The point being, just because it's "rule of law", doesn't mean it doesn't infringe upon others rights.
I'd be happy to share the costs of health care as long as you're willing to help pay my bills.
If you share the cost of everyone's health care, I will pay your health care bill, because there won't be one. I will be helping just the same as you.
Now, where can I send you my life insurance premium notice
You send it to someone else who also pays them and now needs it.
and my children's tuition bill?
Public school. If we all pay for it together, both our kids can go to public school together. It's something we as a country have been doing for years now.
if you buy insurance, every one else who also buys that insurance is accomplishing insuring you all with you ("we")
you do "we" all the time.
I mean, when someone else uses some of your insurance payment to pay for a claim (and that's the way it works), you don't go to them and tell them to give "your" money back, do you?
If someone robs "your" bank, "we" have insured your money so you don't go hungry.
Or do you keep "your" money under your mattress and pay your own way without the insurances our country (private or public) provides?
I mean, when someone else uses some of your insurance payment to pay for a claim (and that's the way it works), you don't go to them and tell them to give "your" money back, do you?
There's a difference, everyone contributes in an insurance plan. Under a national health care system, that wouldn't be the case. You would have some people subsidising others.
It goes back to you paying $0.00 for dinner, me paying the full $100, yet we both got $50 meals.
No we didn't have it good. Back then I really didn't know it though. My Dad worked usually 2 jobs. Sometimes 3 and my Mom did odd jobs here and there, sewing, cleaning etc. On top of raising her kids. They were not only taking care of my Grandmother who lived with us but also my sister was very sick as well and medical expenses etc for them both were alot of money. I don't know what programs were availible but I know that years later I found out how many months and weeks were very tight. We never did go hungry and had what we needed. My Mom told me not that long ago that when I was a kid we qualified for assistance. My Dad would have none of it. My parents did a great job with what they had and worked their butts off. They also made sure we had great childhoods and we did. Not every kid has that and they were full of love. My Dad though was too tired understandibly most of the time to do much with us. He went back to school in his 40's and got his electrician liscence and worked his way up. And is doing well. He made alot of sacrifices to give us a better life. I look back now and am sometimes ashamed at all the crap we have now as consumers and what we put importance on sometimes.
My parents still live in the same house and it looks so small. I think we've perhaps needed bigger houses just because of the crap we buy. Speaking of old T.V's . Most people here when they were kids WERE the remote LOL. I can still hear my Dad. Move the antenna, change it to channel 11. O.K good, right there. No No back, hold it! LOL.
My point was that I realize all situations are different. I realize everyone has there own story. And I certainly am not complaining about our situation, I had a great childhood and a great family. What I was getting at is that it can be done. It's not easy by any means but it can be and you have to start somewhere.
Which kind of brings me back to what I was saying to Susan. I absolutely believe a safety net should be there. Spendign for social programs is part of the deal and I have no problem with it at all. It ususally just comes down to a point of disagreeing on how much or what levels we fund things and therefore increasing the burden on those working to pay for it. The predictions for welfare refrom didn't come true. There's nothing inhumane or impassionate to expecting an able bodied, able minded person to find a job in 5 years.
I'm in favor of a safety net, too. But the problem is that things get out of hand. A temporary safety net, until you get back on your feet, is the compassionate thing to do. Giving a pregnant teenager her own apartment and the means to live there, or paying for welfare recipients to receive fertility treatments, make me feel personally ripped off.
In 1950, taxes were 3% of income. That's my idea of limited government.
Under a national health care system, that wouldn't be the case. You would have some people subsidising others.
under YOUR "us" and "them" system, sure. You can't even seem to imagine a system that only used an "us" model.
There's a difference, everyone contributes in an insurance plan. Under a national health care system, that wouldn't be the case. You would have some people subsidising others.
there is no "some" and "others"...just "us".
"we" do it.
not "you", not "me"..."we"
if some of the "we" were to have health care, don't you suppose there is a better chance that they too could contribute to the "us"?
and if a few didn't contribute, that is NO REASON to not provide all of "us" (everyone) with something like health care.
your petty "mine" and "yours" thinking is holding up a chance to make "our" (yours, mine, everyones) society a better place.
if YOUR child was sick, are you gonna make him pony up the cash before you take him to the hospital? Are you gonna present him with the bill after he gets out?
of course not.
why can't, in the case of something as basic and necessary as health care, we think in terms of "us" and not "me" and "them"?
because someONE might get something without contributing to "us"?
that's no reason. that's just petty.
if "us" takes care of all of "us", there is a much better chance that "we" will ALL contribute and WE will ALL be better off because of it.
so THX? have you paid back your parents all that money they spent to take care of you? for all that food of theirs that you ate? all the clothes they bought for you?
so THX? have you paid back your parents all that money they spent to take care of you? for all that food of theirs that you ate? all the clothes they bought for you?
I don't know..this "us" idea is a simple one and yet THX can't seem to comprehend even the most basic ideas of cooperation and doing things as a group.
He probably makes his kids work to pay for their diapers.
I am assuming you understood that you were the one being ignorant, crabs
saying it doesn't make it so, bodine.
"am not" or "are so" does not make for an intelligent rebuttal
THX wants it to be "me" without any group cooperation, without any sort of "us" involved...and yet I'm willing to bet that his family is an "us" unit to some extent.
THX wants it to be "me" without any group cooperation, without any sort of "us" involved...and yet I'm willing to bet that his family is an "us" unit to some extent.
Family or government? There sure is a lot of similarity there. You are one bright little boy, crabs.
The idea of being forced is absurd to me...it's our government...are we "forcing" ourself to do something?
Is it really "our" government, crabs? Everytime I turn around I see the government taking decsions out of "our" hands. The government says it knows what is good for us. I don't buy it.
Look, if you can't grasp the difference between family and government give it up.
crabs wrote: you agree with me after all.
No I can't recall that I have ever agreed with you on anything. If we did it is because you somehow got something right for a change. Even a blind dog occasionally finds a bone.
"We the people," yes I remember that. I also remember the concepts of limited government and states rights. It seems all those concepts have long ago lost their meaning.
You already have the ability to pool your resources, why get me (the taxpayer) involved?
AFIK, we're all taxpayers around here.
Let me rephrase that for you. What it really means is you want to take money away from me to use for your own use.
Unlikely that I would be the recipient of any social safety net money (knock on wood), although, like all of us, I benefit every day in numerous ways from the use of our (mine, yours, theirs) taxes for the maintenance of our local, state, and national infrastructures.
Crab says:
in concept, absolutely
family community state nation all basically the same idea on different scales
Bodine replies:
Not.
This is troubling. You are a part of this country, aren't you, Jethro?
It goes like this, Jethro:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
.
THX wants it to be "me" without any group cooperation, without any sort of "us" involved
I actually think THX just wants the "us"'s to be formed by mutual, voluntary interpersonal agreement.
For instance, he clearly is interested in creating an "us" in this here folder-- he has put many hours of work into doing just that, and so have many others in the "us". All have done so because their own drive led them to, all have done so 100% willingly and voluntarily, and all have done so without any artificial social construct managing or leading them to do so.
I don't know anyone who is opposed to sharing or helping. But nonvoluntary redistribution of wealth is not "sharing". If Kid A has two toys and Kid B has none, and Kid A won't let Kid B have a toy to play with, and then an adult comes in and pulls a toy from Kid A and gives it to Kid B, Kid A did not share. He had something taken from him and given to someone else. The transaction doesn't form an "us" between the two kids, it forms an oppositional A vs. B arrangement. Not because of some fault of Kid A, but because of the nature of the transaction.
However, if the parent came in and convinced, through persuasion, Kid A to give a toy to Kid B voluntarily,that is sharing. That is a real "us". And I can't imagine even the coldest-hearted conservative objecting to such a situation.
There is a big, big, big difference between those two scenarios, and the same difference exists between governmental redistribution of wealth and voluntary compassion/charity.
I benefit every day in numerous ways from the use of our (mine, yours, theirs) taxes for the maintenance of our local, state, and national infrastructures.
does what, Lance?
tries to get people to think about things differently?
Face it JT. YOU will never make a good little Socialist...Will YOU?
We don't know how exactly to describe what we do.
That's part of it. Of course, that sets up an it and them scenario.
well spit it out
sure it does
we are, after all, individuals
it's all about you, isn't it?
No, It's actually about you, and how you're unwilling to reciprocate.
WE should pay $100
No, I should pay $50 & you should pay $50.
Isn't that fair?
Why should I pay $100 and you pay $0.00?
you really can't get your mind around the concept of "us", can you?
do you go dutch when you take your family out to dine as well?
So by US you mean "Whoever has more money"?
you really can't get your mind around the concept of "us", can you?
Once again, it is you that is unwilling to reciprocate sharing the burden.
The deal is, you want to take from me and not give back. Everyone here sees it but you.
So by US you mean "Whoever has more money"?
Exactly
if there is only "us", there isn't a "more" or "less"
Sorry, crabs, but I don't want to be forced into being "us." And that is what it would take, force.
This appears to be a common rightwing misperception. They seem to think that because liberals advocate pooling some of our collective resources to provide a social safety net for those in need, what it really means is that liberals want to take money away from conservatives for their own use.They assume that liberals are all poor people on welfare and conservatives are all rich folk. Well, it just ain't true, and this should be obvious. I think the reason righties make this assumption is that self-interest is the only motivation they are able to comprehend. Anything nobler than that is simply beyond them. I think this is partly psychological and partly the result of an acquired world view that holds that life is a zero sum game, a dog-eat-dog situation in which everyone competes for limited resources and for which personal material gain is the be-all and end-all of human existence. (What always amazes me is that many of these same people also consider themselves to be Christians.)
Crabgrass, I seriously doubt that you will have much success in changing these people's basic psychology and fundamental outlook on life. Because it seems like you're trying to give them an epiphany about the interconnectedness of all things and the interdependence of human life and the fundamental kinship of all God's children (pardon to atheists, etc. for expressing it this way) that only life or a religious experience or luck can teach them. Furthermore, I do not believe that they have the slightest notion of what you're trying to tell them. But if you do succeed...well...more power to you. Jesus tried, and look what they did to him.
Jethro, in this statment are you going back to Lance's old dictum that the rule of law = force?
Susan,
Well as long as you aren't generalizing. LOL
Sure Susan, if you say so.
Nope, not at all, they want to give it to whom they wish as you do. The difference is, I'm not asking for you to also contribute to causes, charities, etc.
But you are more noble by taking that money and giving it to whom you see fit ? It's easy to be noble and generous with others money. I think your biggest error in your summation is the assumption that conservatives don't want a safety net. They do, it all comes down to a matter of degrees. Or to what point. Most would agree that a social safety net is nessecary absolutely. I don't mind paying taxes at all. When the average American has to work until May just to pay taxes people tend to look and question where that money goes. Almost half a year to pay for those programs is proof that people left and right do value those things. It's a matter of when is enough enough ? When is it tyranical ? 7months ? 8 months ? It's making sure that it's spent wisely as you do in your family budget. Welfare reform which was actually passed by Clinton has shown itself to have proved the machinations and doomsday theories false. In most cases it's worked and worked well.
By what measures do you define the success of welfare reform, Rob?
Rick 3/18/03 5:35pm
In many different ways Rick. Rolls are down. In many cases people have gotten out of a system that they were trapped in. My sister in-law has been a case worker for the last 15 years. She's seen many people able to get out of the system. Some she never thought would thrive have done 180's. Because of the time limits and restrictions. They found a bit of dignity and the pride that comes from working for a paycheck. She has told me many times how she sees how their lives have changed for the better in most cases and that their attitudes, outlooks etc. have improved which have intangible effects such as improved relationships. Not all are success stories of course but the majority of what she's seen has been positive. It's not perfect by any means but it's alot better than what it was.
"In many different ways Rick. Rolls are down."
It seems to be ONE way.
I'm for everyone finding dignity and pride, But neither puts food on the table and a single parent in the home to take care of the kids.
And neither dignity nor pride pays very well. Let's hope their employers do.
Let's see rolls are down, people hae some pride and dignity improved personal relationships, yea, that's one. I'll have to buy you a calculator for Christmas.
I agree, what do you propose ?
You're right, but with that pride and dignity comes the desire to do better, to strive to make a better life. There isn't a program you can imagine that will do that.
I remember the hours my parents worked. My Dad at one point worked 3 jobs. He eventually got promoted after he found a better company and he went to 2 jobs and finally 1 at around age 45.
what I have been waiting for is for someone to tell me WHY we can't be "us", and there was only one really correct answer given that I can see, and it wasn't mine. The answer was "would I have to eat boring food?".
there is a level where there is no "us", it's called the individual.
Now, the individual is a good thing. It means freedom. Do whatever you like, you are an individual, just don't mess up some other individual's ability to be an individual too.
Now, I hope that being an individual is all you who were saying I was wrong were defending. I too think we need to protect the ability to be individuals.
However, as individuals we also need to live in a world with others. Not just need though, but want and greatly benefit from it. Think of your family. It's an "us" system. Got any insurance? It too is an "us" system. Can you, as an individual, build a million miles of paved road? Of course not. We all rely on "us" systems. I'm gonna bet that everyone here works with someone else in some sort of "us" relationship. Now, the question is, do "we" want "us" to have health care? Will it interfere with people's ability to be individuals. I don't think so. It will just provide them health care. Will individuals still want to pay for health care? Maybe some wealthy ones will, but this is no reason to not allow our "us" to go without it.
If the health insurance I get from where I work is incentive for me to do better, than why can't we, as a whole nation, decide that everyone gets this incentive to be healthier Americans, and healthier Americans are good for "us".
The really great thing about the experiment that is (was?) America is that we set it up to protect the individual's rights, and because of this we were able to have the freedom to form strong "us" ties without interfering with the individual and all it's wonder.
To be a good American you have to find a way to do both. The founders set it up so we might just have a chance to do that.
So, you want to go eat a steak and not get me one? Okay.
But how about our nation decide that it really is good for us as a nation to have health care and we all chip in to make it happen. Maybe just disarm a little like we are demanding other countries to do.
This appears to be a common rightwing misperception.
I take it you consider me Rightwing?
Jethro, do you believe me yet that I'm not a Liberal?
They seem to think that because liberals advocate pooling some of our collective resources to provide a social safety net for those in need,..
You already have the ability to pool your resources, why get me (the taxpayer) involved?
Besides, we have a safety net for those in need. National healthcare is a totally different monster than a 'safety net".
what it really means is that liberals want to take money away from conservatives for their own use.
Let me rephrase that for you. What it really means is you want to take money away from me to use for your own use.
I'd be happy to share the costs of health care as long as you're willing to help pay my bills. Now, where can I send you my life insurance premium notice and my children's tuition bill?
They assume that liberals are all poor people on welfare and conservatives are all rich folk.
You gotta be kidding? The richest people in Washington are Democrats. I know you like to think us Conservatives are unenlightened, ignorant goofs but, we've got you're number.
Well, it just ain't true, and this should be obvious.
You're right, it isn't true and it is obvious.
I think the reason righties make this assumption is that self-interest is the only motivation they are able to comprehend.
Yes, Liberals are so enlightened and Conservatives are just self serving ignorant rednecks.
Anything nobler than that is simply beyond them.
Yes, it's so noble to take my hard earned money and use for charity, via taxation. Much more noble than me wanting to provide for my own family.
I think this is partly psychological and partly the result of an acquired world view that holds that life is a zero sum game, a dog-eat-dog situation in which everyone competes for limited resources and for which personal material gain is the be-all and end-all of human existence. (What always amazes me is that many of these same people also consider themselves to be Christians.)
::slams head on desk::
Crabgrass, I seriously doubt that you will have much success in changing these people's basic psychology and fundamental outlook on life. Because it seems like you're trying to give them an epiphany about the interconnectedness of all things and the interdependence of human life and the fundamental kinship of all God's children (pardon to atheists, etc. for expressing it this way)
When did you have your epiphany? When did you realize your way was so much wiser and productive than everyone elses? When did you realize it was ok to use God as a tool, then apologize in the same sentence for doing so?
that only life or a religious experience or luck can teach them.
Furthermore, I do not believe that they have the slightest notion of what you're trying to tell them.
I know exactly what he's trying to tell me. I'm just not buying what he's sellling.
But if you do succeed...well...more power to you. Jesus tried, and look what they did to him.
Yes, Jesus was all for a national health care system.
you going back to Lance's old dictum that the rule of law = force?
"Rule of law" doesn't make it right. Rule of law at one time was you could own slaves and women couldn't vote.
The point being, just because it's "rule of law", doesn't mean it doesn't infringe upon others rights.
what I have been waiting for is for someone to tell me WHY we can't be "us"
I told you, let's get together and pay "our" bills.
It will be good fun.
I'll bring the calculator & checkbook. You bring the cash and deposit slips.
When we're done, we can hug and feel real good about what "we" have accomplished.
If you share the cost of everyone's health care, I will pay your health care bill, because there won't be one. I will be helping just the same as you.
You send it to someone else who also pays them and now needs it.
Public school. If we all pay for it together, both our kids can go to public school together. It's something we as a country have been doing for years now.
if you buy insurance, every one else who also buys that insurance is accomplishing insuring you all with you ("we")
you do "we" all the time.
I mean, when someone else uses some of your insurance payment to pay for a claim (and that's the way it works), you don't go to them and tell them to give "your" money back, do you?
If someone robs "your" bank, "we" have insured your money so you don't go hungry.
Or do you keep "your" money under your mattress and pay your own way without the insurances our country (private or public) provides?
Public school?
Pfffft!
My kids deserve better than public school, don't ya think?
I think ALL kids deserve the same chance for a good education
your kid doesn't "deserve" any more of a chance to be educated that any other kid, does it?
and if you think it does, why do you think it does?
Oh, that 's too easy, crabgrass.
Dare I say, because it's hiskid?
your kid doesn't "deserve" any more of a chance to be educated that any other kid, does it?
No, all children deserve to be educated as their parents see fit.
Dare I say, because it's his kid?
Damn straight!
I won't apologize for taking care of MY child.
Only a Liberal would find fault in that.
Which school do your kids go to JT, and how do they compare against the PS's?
I've given up discussing that issue with you.
I mean, when someone else uses some of your insurance payment to pay for a claim (and that's the way it works), you don't go to them and tell them to give "your" money back, do you?
There's a difference, everyone contributes in an insurance plan. Under a national health care system, that wouldn't be the case. You would have some people subsidising others.
It goes back to you paying $0.00 for dinner, me paying the full $100, yet we both got $50 meals.
Bill,
'Bill - Fold' 3/19/03 3:05am
No we didn't have it good. Back then I really didn't know it though. My Dad worked usually 2 jobs. Sometimes 3 and my Mom did odd jobs here and there, sewing, cleaning etc. On top of raising her kids. They were not only taking care of my Grandmother who lived with us but also my sister was very sick as well and medical expenses etc for them both were alot of money. I don't know what programs were availible but I know that years later I found out how many months and weeks were very tight. We never did go hungry and had what we needed. My Mom told me not that long ago that when I was a kid we qualified for assistance. My Dad would have none of it. My parents did a great job with what they had and worked their butts off. They also made sure we had great childhoods and we did. Not every kid has that and they were full of love. My Dad though was too tired understandibly most of the time to do much with us. He went back to school in his 40's and got his electrician liscence and worked his way up. And is doing well. He made alot of sacrifices to give us a better life. I look back now and am sometimes ashamed at all the crap we have now as consumers and what we put importance on sometimes.
My parents still live in the same house and it looks so small. I think we've perhaps needed bigger houses just because of the crap we buy. Speaking of old T.V's . Most people here when they were kids WERE the remote LOL. I can still hear my Dad. Move the antenna, change it to channel 11. O.K good, right there. No No back, hold it! LOL.
My point was that I realize all situations are different. I realize everyone has there own story. And I certainly am not complaining about our situation, I had a great childhood and a great family. What I was getting at is that it can be done. It's not easy by any means but it can be and you have to start somewhere.
Which kind of brings me back to what I was saying to Susan. I absolutely believe a safety net should be there. Spendign for social programs is part of the deal and I have no problem with it at all. It ususally just comes down to a point of disagreeing on how much or what levels we fund things and therefore increasing the burden on those working to pay for it. The predictions for welfare refrom didn't come true. There's nothing inhumane or impassionate to expecting an able bodied, able minded person to find a job in 5 years.
I'm in favor of a safety net, too. But the problem is that things get out of hand. A temporary safety net, until you get back on your feet, is the compassionate thing to do. Giving a pregnant teenager her own apartment and the means to live there, or paying for welfare recipients to receive fertility treatments, make me feel personally ripped off.
In 1950, taxes were 3% of income. That's my idea of limited government.
under YOUR "us" and "them" system, sure. You can't even seem to imagine a system that only used an "us" model.
there is no "some" and "others"...just "us".
"we" do it.
not "you", not "me"..."we"
if some of the "we" were to have health care, don't you suppose there is a better chance that they too could contribute to the "us"?
and if a few didn't contribute, that is NO REASON to not provide all of "us" (everyone) with something like health care.
your petty "mine" and "yours" thinking is holding up a chance to make "our" (yours, mine, everyones) society a better place.
if YOUR child was sick, are you gonna make him pony up the cash before you take him to the hospital? Are you gonna present him with the bill after he gets out?
of course not.
why can't, in the case of something as basic and necessary as health care, we think in terms of "us" and not "me" and "them"?
because someONE might get something without contributing to "us"?
that's no reason. that's just petty.
if "us" takes care of all of "us", there is a much better chance that "we" will ALL contribute and WE will ALL be better off because of it.
so THX? have you paid back your parents all that money they spent to take care of you? for all that food of theirs that you ate? all the clothes they bought for you?
have you?
so THX? have you paid back your parents all that money they spent to take care of you? for all that food of theirs that you ate? all the clothes they bought for you?
have you?
How ignorant can a person be?
I don't know..this "us" idea is a simple one and yet THX can't seem to comprehend even the most basic ideas of cooperation and doing things as a group.
He probably makes his kids work to pay for their diapers.
and another thing...how about you stop paying taxes, but you can only use roads you made and own yourself...and stay off the public property.
okay?
I am assuming you understood that you were the one being ignorant, crabs. I guess I expected too much!
As long as one is being FORCED to pay for the roads and parks then they should be used. Same goes for the roads.
saying it doesn't make it so, bodine.
"am not" or "are so" does not make for an intelligent rebuttal
THX wants it to be "me" without any group cooperation, without any sort of "us" involved...and yet I'm willing to bet that his family is an "us" unit to some extent.
so, you want to stop paying taxes and not use the roads?
or you want to be a part of the "us"?
as long as you think in terms of "us and "them", you will see it as "force"
The idea of being forced is absurd to me...it's our government...are we "forcing" ourself to do something?
THX wants it to be "me" without any group cooperation, without any sort of "us" involved...and yet I'm willing to bet that his family is an "us" unit to some extent.
Family or government? There sure is a lot of similarity there. You are one bright little boy, crabs.
in concept, absolutely
family
community
state
nation
all basically the same idea on different scales
The idea of being forced is absurd to me...it's our government...are we "forcing" ourself to do something?
Is it really "our" government, crabs? Everytime I turn around I see the government taking decsions out of "our" hands. The government says it knows what is good for us. I don't buy it.
in concept, absolutely
Not.
not a rebuttal. say why not or say you are wrong.
so, when our government behaves in an "us" vs "them" manner, you don't like it?
you agree with me after all.
We
Look, if you can't grasp the difference between family and government give it up.
crabs wrote: you agree with me after all.
No I can't recall that I have ever agreed with you on anything. If we did it is because you somehow got something right for a change. Even a blind dog occasionally finds a bone.
"We the people," yes I remember that. I also remember the concepts of limited government and states rights. It seems all those concepts have long ago lost their meaning.
THX --
AFIK, we're all taxpayers around here.
Unlikely that I would be the recipient of any social safety net money (knock on wood), although, like all of us, I benefit every day in numerous ways from the use of our (mine, yours, theirs) taxes for the maintenance of our local, state, and national infrastructures.
Crab says:
in concept, absolutely
family
community
state
nation
all basically the same idea on different scales
Bodine replies:
This is troubling. You are a part of this country, aren't you, Jethro?
It goes like this, Jethro:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
.
Welcome to America.
I actually think THX just wants the "us"'s to be formed by mutual, voluntary interpersonal agreement.
For instance, he clearly is interested in creating an "us" in this here folder-- he has put many hours of work into doing just that, and so have many others in the "us". All have done so because their own drive led them to, all have done so 100% willingly and voluntarily, and all have done so without any artificial social construct managing or leading them to do so.
I don't know anyone who is opposed to sharing or helping. But nonvoluntary redistribution of wealth is not "sharing". If Kid A has two toys and Kid B has none, and Kid A won't let Kid B have a toy to play with, and then an adult comes in and pulls a toy from Kid A and gives it to Kid B, Kid A did not share. He had something taken from him and given to someone else. The transaction doesn't form an "us" between the two kids, it forms an oppositional A vs. B arrangement. Not because of some fault of Kid A, but because of the nature of the transaction.
However, if the parent came in and convinced, through persuasion, Kid A to give a toy to Kid B voluntarily,that is sharing. That is a real "us". And I can't imagine even the coldest-hearted conservative objecting to such a situation.
There is a big, big, big difference between those two scenarios, and the same difference exists between governmental redistribution of wealth and voluntary compassion/charity.
I benefit every day in numerous ways from the use of our (mine, yours, theirs) taxes for the maintenance of our local, state, and national infrastructures.
But at what cost? That is the key issue.