Page 2 of 13 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 187
  1. #16
    Boisterously Confused
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    9,470

    Default

    Re: "Leeches." Do we also get to apply that term to people whose wealth is supported by public infrastructure (roads and power plants), governmental policy (excessive plant property tax receipt waivers, IP protections), and public security apparatus (the local and federal police and military) that chose to conceal their wealth in tax-haven countries and who push for continual tax reductions that benefit only their class, while pushing for permission to impose poverty conditions on those whose work creates their wealth?

  2. #17
    Extraordinary Member PaulBullion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    8,390

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DrNewGod View Post
    Re: "Leeches." Do we also get to apply that term to people whose wealth is supported by public infrastructure (roads and power plants), governmental policy (excessive plant property tax receipt waivers, IP protections), and public security apparatus (the local and federal police and military) that chose to conceal their wealth in tax-haven countries and who push for continual tax reductions that benefit only their class, while pushing for permission to impose poverty conditions on those whose work creates their wealth?
    ... and the money those fat cat leeches often leaves the US economy by being hidden in accounts in Switzerland or the Caymans, while the money a welfare recipient gets who maybe, possibly could find a job if he tries harder goes right back into the economy, providing employment for other people.
    "How does the Green Goblin have anything to do with Herpes?" - The Dying Detective

    Hillary was right!

  3. #18
    Astonishing Member Kusanagi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    2,988

    Default

    On the left, the refusal to broach the subject on cutting military spending. Sure they might quietly entertain the idea, but no one seems to have the guts to actually make it an issue and too often they just act as a rubber stamp on whatever military budget is proposed.
    Last edited by Kusanagi; 08-04-2018 at 11:15 AM.
    Current Pull: Amazing Spider-Man and Domino

    Bunn for Deadpool's Main Book!

  4. #19
    Ultimate Member Gray Lensman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    15,164

    Default

    I'm registered as a Libertarian, although I count myself as a moderate and closer to the left wing of the party. I do want government smaller, and I do believe in the free market - although I am convinced that what we currently have is crony capitalism rather than a free market.

    But I disagree with the hard line that all taxation is theft, and also disagree with the belief that the free market can handle health care. There is no such thing as the free market in our current health care system. Prices are hidden, monopolies and oligopolies are rampant, competition is hampered under the guise of 'consumer protection', and even if all that is taken care of, two big things will remain that will always exist and prevent any real free market from appearing in the field of health care.

    One - outside of major cities, there is no competition. Smaller cities tend to have one single hospital, and few independent doctors even as general practitioners.

    Two - since the product is basically your life and well-being, there is almost no ability to walk away. You are a captive customer who can pay the provider's price or, well, you can just die.

    The free market, even under 100% ideal circumstances, will not solve health care.
    Last edited by Gray Lensman; 08-04-2018 at 10:56 AM.

  5. #20
    Astonishing Member CellarDweller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    Essex County, NJ
    Posts
    2,972

    Default

    I definitely am on the left politically, but there are some things that annoy me.

    One is how some things that make sense can suddenly become an "attack on civil rights".

    Perfect example, I am not against welfare, if someone needs a hand up, they should get it, and I don't mind being taxed for it. However, I am NOT against people being drug tested before they are allowed to access welfare.

    I don't think that all welfare recipients are drug users. My feelings are, every job I've ever had in my 50 years, I've had to submit to a drug test. If it's not against my civil rights to have to pass that test to have employment, why is it against theirs to have to take it for welfare aid?

  6. #21
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    18,566

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CellarDweller View Post
    ...every job I've ever had in my 50 years, I've had to submit to a drug test. If it's not against my civil rights...
    Ah, but it is against your civil rights.

    Do mandatory drug tests for employees really go that far back in America? Damn.

    They're mostly illegal here.
    Last edited by Carabas; 08-04-2018 at 11:34 AM.

  7. #22
    Ultimate Member Gray Lensman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    15,164

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CellarDweller View Post
    I definitely am on the left politically, but there are some things that annoy me.

    One is how some things that make sense can suddenly become an "attack on civil rights".

    Perfect example, I am not against welfare, if someone needs a hand up, they should get it, and I don't mind being taxed for it. However, I am NOT against people being drug tested before they are allowed to access welfare.

    I don't think that all welfare recipients are drug users. My feelings are, every job I've ever had in my 50 years, I've had to submit to a drug test. If it's not against my civil rights to have to pass that test to have employment, why is it against theirs to have to take it for welfare aid?
    I understand the sentiment, but you need to look at two things. First, who is pushing it? Right now, people who want to elimate the programs entirely, so I don't consider the push to drug test welfare recipients to be intellectually honest. It's just a way to demonize the poor.

    Second, how much does this cost? If you spend $10 million to eliminate $1 million in fraud, you've just wasted $9 million tax dollars. As a taxpayer, I demand my money be spent wisely.

    Additionally, jobs do drug testing for insurance reasons. I used to work at a factory that didn't do any drug testing until the savings on insurance forced the owner's hand. I know this is the case because a friend who worked in the front office dealt with the paperwork.
    Last edited by Gray Lensman; 08-04-2018 at 11:36 AM.

  8. #23
    MXAAGVNIEETRO IS RIGHT MyriVerse's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,113

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Carabas View Post
    Ah, but it is against your civil rights.

    Do mandatory drug tests for employees really go that far back in America? Damn.

    They're mostly illegal here.
    Well, "in his 50 years" meaning he's been working for around 30 or so. It was 30 years almost exactly that the US government passed its huge Anti-Drug policy (1988). The government started testing in the early/mid 80s, and concern for this sort of thing started with soldiers returning from 'Nam in the 70s. There was that Nimitz incident where some of the people involved tested positive for marijuana. The public was "outraged."

    It's not as big a deal as it used to be. Less than half of employers test anymore, because they realized how big a joke it was.
    Last edited by MyriVerse; 08-05-2018 at 06:37 AM.
    f/k/a The Black Guardian
    COEXIST | NOEXIST
    ShadowcatMagikДаякѕтая Sto☈mDustMercury MonetRachelSage
    MagnetoNightcrawlerColossusRockslideBeastXavier

  9. #24
    Boisterously Confused
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    9,470

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MyriVerse View Post
    Well, "in his 50 years" meaning he's been working for around 30 or so. It was 30 years almost exactly that the US government passed its huge Anti-Drug policy (1988). The government started testing in the early/mid 80s, and concern for this sort of thing started with soldiers returning from 'Nam in the 70s. There was that Nimitz incident where some of the people involved tested positive for marijuana. The public was "outraged."

    It's not as big a deal as it used to be. Less than half of employers test anymore, because they realized how big a joke it was.
    Still a thing for jobs that involve transportation or operating heavy machinery.

  10. #25
    My Face Is Up Here Powerboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    7,730

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kusanagi View Post
    On the left, the refusal to broach the subject on cutting military spending. Sure they might quietly entertain the idea, but no one seems to have the guts to actually make it an issue and too often they just act as a rubber stamp on whatever military budget is proposed.
    That was at one time starting to be an issue I think. I don't know if it's still true but at one point in our history we spent more on our military than either the rest of the world combined or certainly more than all of the other major nations combined while all but ignoring our economic problems. But then came 9/11/2001 and the Republicans immediately and ever since have fanned the flames of fear to push the military budget as if having a reasonable budget or one that is ridiculously high would really make any difference.
    Power with Girl is better.

  11. #26
    Mighty Member 4saken1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,188

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tendrin View Post
    Arrrrrrrrrrrrrgh.


    The notion that need to 'hunt for welfare leeches', who are actually vanishingly small in number, leads to results like drug testing welfare recipients and 'project 100%'.


    I'm not gonna say people never flout rules to try to maximize what the government will do for them, but instead of making people dance through hoops, we could just help.
    For the record, I don't agree with mandatory drug testing. It proves nothing. I think we should provide everything to welfare recipients that they need to survive.

    I delivered mail in low income housing on and off for the better part of 10 years, however. Seeing a multitude of cars parked in the lots which were much nicer than the one I drive, satellite dishes attached to the outside of apartments, people sitting around getting high, and countless times seeing a three year old outside watching their 18 month old sibling out near the road while their parent is nowhere to be seen, these things have led me to believe that we are doing things wrong in this country. A huge percent of these people are content to live in the system for as long as they can. Welfare should be designed to try to get people off public assistance, not as a lifestyle choice.

    I would actually like for us to spend MORE money on welfare, though, because I think the payoff of investing in people would yield huge returns and end the cycle of dependence. Free schooling, job training, childcare, and public transportation. Heck, I think if we could get some of the welfare recipients certified in childcare, they could get paid to watch the children of others in the system who are going to school and/or working.

    On the other hand, I don't really agree with giving welfare recipients cash, but instead think we should provide them all the goods and services they need to survive. Food stamps should be limited to staples and not include soda or junk food. Clothing allowances should be allotted, which could be used at any second hand or uniform store. Public transportation should be expanded, as required, to accommodate those who need to get to school or work. Preferential hiring in certain government jobs would help get many into the workforce, etc.

    I just don't get the line of thinking wherein even trying to get individuals to be fiscally responsible for the upbringing of their offspring in the slightest is met with "OH THE HUMANITY!!!"

    Quote Originally Posted by DrNewGod View Post
    Re: "Leeches." Do we also get to apply that term to people whose wealth is supported by public infrastructure (roads and power plants), governmental policy (excessive plant property tax receipt waivers, IP protections), and public security apparatus (the local and federal police and military) that chose to conceal their wealth in tax-haven countries and who push for continual tax reductions that benefit only their class, while pushing for permission to impose poverty conditions on those whose work creates their wealth?
    Absolutely! As I alluded to in my last post, I see these as an even bigger financial burden than welfare. Pretty sure we can walk and chew bubblegum at the same time, though. Many farm subsidies, especially corn and wheat, make these crops cheap to buy. As a result, Americans consume them at an alarming rate, causing us to have a exorbitant number of cases of obesity, diabetes, heart disease, etc. We end up paying for this in medical costs anyways, so I don't see any reason why these products should be cheaper. Pretty sure we could at least half our military spending without seeing any catastrophic results.
    Last edited by 4saken1; 08-05-2018 at 10:42 AM.
    Pull List: Barbaric,DC Black Label,Dept. of Truth,Fire Power,Hellboy,Saga,Something is Killing the Children,Terryverse,Usagi Yojimbo.

  12. #27
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,550

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Carabas View Post
    Ah, but it is against your civil rights.

    Do mandatory drug tests for employees really go that far back in America? Damn.

    They're mostly illegal here.
    I don't know the exact percentages, but it is still pretty common. Drog by testing in welfare should be linked to treatment, because being broke and addicted to drugs it going to make one's life miserable in a grand variety of ways, and it's going to effect other people too, that shouldn't be ignored because it's 'mean.' Same reasoning behind healthcare, 'society' will end up paying for it eventually anyway, why not get in front of the problem.

  13. #28
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,550

    Default

    Ughhh... dp
    Last edited by anyajenkins; 08-05-2018 at 09:38 AM.

  14. #29
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Global
    Posts
    6,779

    Default

    I'm for a second vote/discussion on Brexit and the deal, but I'm massively opposed to the idea that we keep on doing it until we overwhelmingly vote to remain. We can't accept democracy only when it suits a particular side.

  15. #30
    Ultimate Member Gray Lensman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    15,164

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DebkoX View Post
    I'm for a second vote/discussion on Brexit and the deal, but I'm massively opposed to the idea that we keep on doing it until we overwhelmingly vote to remain. We can't accept democracy only when it suits a particular side.
    I understand that, although (as an outsider looking in) the first vote was marred by 3 things. Lack of understanding as to the costs of leaving, overstatement (to outright lies) of the benefits of doing so, and outside propaganda - Russian skullduggery isn't limited to the US and former Soviet states. So, I think one do over is easily justified.
    Last edited by Gray Lensman; 08-05-2018 at 02:51 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •