Welfare is supposed to be there for people who cannot afford to live on there income, and would end up homeless in the street, and possibly dead without aid. Are you saying we should just let these people suffer and die? What happens when someone is too sick to work and loses there job and they have to live with there family that hardly makes any money as it is? Being able to apply for welfare can help a family like that a lot. And there are literally thousands of other examples. What do you think is the effect on the society if you do not help these people? Would it not cause crime to increase if all of a sudden you have a ton of homeless people on the street who are sick? this is dumb, a government does need to help it's citizens to a certain extent and welfare is hard to get and usually you don't get much money (unlike most conservatives believe) so I don't see the problem. You want to stop abuse of it fine, but dont kock the whole system and call it stealing. Its true the found fathers did not want a lot of taxes, but they still put in SOME tax did they not? Tax is not stealing, if so the founding fathers are thieves as well right?...I'd say libertarianism is better, but that doesn't mean liberalism is evil. Â Many liberals are good people who simply have inconsistent morals and values. Â Take this girl in one of my classes for example. Â She has no problem using government to enforce her values in the name of equality, but as soon as someone else wants to use government to enforce their own values she gets all pissy.
I am personally anti-drug, anti-smoking, anti-drink, anti-abortion, pro-abstinence, and pro-church, but I wouldn't use government to force other people to behave or think the same way as I do, whereas a liberal would. Â Take welfare for example. Â Many liberals think it is ok to steal money from one person and give it to another, but they would never personally steal from someone. Â They wouldn't go into someones house and steal the cash sitting in the dresser, but they are totally fine with government requiring taxes from people to pay for welfare. Â What is the main moral difference here? Â There isn't one. Â Liberals have a view of government that is inconsistent with their personal values. Â "ok for government to enforce my beliefs, not ok for me to enforce my beliefs." Â And religious nuts fall into this category too, it isn't just a Democrat thing. Â
hoola
bookwormwizard's forum posts
seems like the same thing as always, dont know why people are so excited about it. I could care less about the new battlefield but Its good for console players though, they have tons of ram this time around so they will be able to play much bigger games with alot more people like the pc has been doing. But remember, its EA.
[QUOTE="bookwormwizard"][QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]
and yet the pay a lower percentage of their income in total taxes than the middle class.
Mafiree
well there are two ways to solve this problem. You can raise the taxes on the rich, or you can lower the taxes on the middle class so that the rich really are paying more. I hear alot of people for the first one, not much for the second. I like the second option though, it puts more money directly into the hands of the middle class and it forces the goverment to cut back a little in spending. Sounds good to me.
The second option is what happened with the fiscal cliff deal...........If it did the middle class would be paying a lower percentage then the rich but they are not, correct?
In 2009 the top 1% of income earners made 16.9% of the total income for the country but paid 36.7% of all income taxes. They obviously have a greater burden.[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="Yusuke420"]
Yes the ones that have benefited the most from the economy shoulder a greater burden to keep it afloat. Makes perfect sense.
Guybrush_3
and yet the pay a lower percentage of their income in total taxes than the middle class.
well there are two ways to solve this problem. You can raise the taxes on the rich, or you can lower the taxes on the middle class so that the rich really are paying more. I hear alot of people for the first one, not much for the second. I like the second option though, it puts more money directly into the hands of the middle class and it forces the goverment to cut back a little in spending. Sounds good to me.
[QUOTE="bookwormwizard"]This is all correct but people who should not have kids, DO have kids, so what is to be done if they cannot afford to take care of them?DrasonakWho shouldn't have kids again? The people you don't like, which just so happen to be racial minorities?
are you nuts? So if I think people should not have a kid if they cant afford to take care of a kid , I'ts cause I dont lke them? and it seems your implying I'm a racist as well because of that, your a fool, it has nothing to do with not liking people, it has everything to do with responsiblity. You don't buy a car if you can't afford one, you don't go and have a kid if you can not provide the basic needs for a child to survive and not die from starvation. Its very simple, how this concept went right over your head I will never understand.
[QUOTE="Yusuke420"]What is wrong is that the responsibility of providing a meal is being forced onto another person without his consent. If a person cannot find work without an education, then he should not drop out of school. If a person cannot afford to raise children, then he should not have them. People should not be punished and forced to accept responsibility for the mistakes of others. Being in need does not entitle one to something. A man is only entitled to what he earns for himself.The people I know that recieve welfare (are we talking food stamp and cash benefits?) struggle with things day to day. Most of them work a part-time job because they are either high school dropouts with multiple children or someone with a felony or two in the past which makes it tough to find quality employment. That being said these people may have their own apartments and might even have there own vehicles, but the payments for those things eats all of their actual income from their jobs, so the food stamps actually put food on the table that otherwise wouldn't be there. That program keeps millions from starving and I can't see how that can be considered a bad thing.
Laihendi
This is all correct but people who should not have kids, DO have kids, so what is to be done if they cannot afford to take care of them?
[QUOTE="MrPraline"][QUOTE="AcidThunder"] "Permission (to fight) is given to those upon whom war is made because they are oppressed, and most surely Allaah is well able to assist them." [Quran 22: 39]AcidThunderlove how you take single lines etc love that sh*t works both ways am i right http://www.islamforpeace.org/quran.html try reading this it will surely help you to understand a little bit better about the Quran, Islam and the topic at hand This is from the site you posted "Quran: {The infidels are your sworn enemies Sura 4:101} Quran {Prophet, make war on the infidels Sura 66: 9 Quran {Never be a helper to the disbelievers Sura 28:86} The exact Arabic expression in these verses - indeed, in every verse that talks of the non-believer - is "Al-Kaferrin" or "Al-la-dhina Kafaru." The use of "Al-" or "Al-la-dhina" limits the verse (and thus commandment) to 1) a specific time and place in historyand 2) a specific group of people who were obstacles to the establishment of Islam in its nascent phase. It is these two factors that caused these verses to be revealed. Had the intentions of the Quran been to extend the application of these verses in perpetuity, it would have used the expression "Man Kafar," rather than "Al-Kafereen" or "Al-La-dhina Kafaru". The former, "Man Kafar," literally means any one who does not believe in God; while the latter, "Al-Kafereen," - the infidels - denotes a specific group of people: THEY WHO FOUGHT Prophet Mohamed in the early stages of Islam." Mohamed was going around forcing his religion on people telling them to convert or die, thats why they fought him. So the Quran is telling Muslims to fight those who did not wish to convert, and they still do, thank you for proving our point.
[QUOTE="bookwormwizard"]Now this was an incredible situation, and I hate to judge the man, he was just a kid, but to say this (now that he's older) saying in a funny way its like the markets...Yea, if someone does not do it, someone else will, so you can do whatever? What on earth...And to feel no guilt, I know I would, at least a little, even if its not directly my fault. If anyone has a lack of empathy its him.Ace6301I don't really see why he should feel guilt for that. He couldn't have done anything and if he had he would have been probably been thrown in a concentration camp. He fully admits there that what was going on was evil so he obviously felt bad about what was happening. I feel as if you're also misunderstanding what he's saying. It doesn't seem like he's saying anything like what your claiming it seems more that he's saying if it wasn't that particular man he was with confiscating those things then it would have been someone else so why bother the distinction that he was there. Also I have like almost no clue who this is so my entire judgement of his character is from what you posted. Well lets just say he has less empthy or more "psychopathic traits" then Bill Gates (thats what I was kind of getting at), but yeah, what you said made sense. Geore Soros I beleive has done ALOT of questionable things in terms of the market but I'm not well versed enough in that stuff to be able to explain it, I only know some of the things I heard and thats not good enough to post on it. But Lots of people do questionable things in the market and thats why loop holes need to be closed. This is both republicans and democrats fault. There is no reason why loop holes should not be closed, how can either side be agianst that? Why are they spending so much time arguing about things that they probably will never agree on when there is stuff they agree on that they can pass now.
Log in to comment