[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
As I have stated before, if we keep welfare but tell everyone on it that they have to be on birth control, we could add to the bennies to help get back on their feet AND it would weed itself out within about 2 generations.
mike[/quote]
The more taxes you pay, the more votes you get.
If you receive wellfare you get no votes.
[quote]orion wrote:
vroom wrote:
orion wrote:
We are allready on that path. This is not a future worst case scenario, this is what is happening right now.
Probably not to Suisse but they never had to deal with war-driven socialism either.
Sure, and the sky is falling too.
I know that debt is a way to blow up society, but hopefully we’ll adjust before we run off the rails.
I strongly suspect, as is usually the case, that when a true emergency does arise that the resilience of people and society will then emerge. This is especially true if one country fails and serves as a warning to the rest. Who will be the warning canary?
However, while I’m perfectly willing to recognize the ability of debt to create a dire situation, I’m not willing to roll over and declare defeat as of yet.
you do not have to.
It is the end of the welfare state and probably democracy in a lot of countries though.
Where you are wrong is that the sky is, indeed, allready falling, just because it does so too slow for you to notice makes no difference.
You are reacting like someone that has grown up with a falling sky and thinks that this is how things ought to be, but no, that bitch is coming down and this is not a good thing.
Personally, I plan to be deeeep in dollar an euro debt when that happens, with a fixed interest rate of course, and smiling.
[/quote]
I see where you are coming from.
I still want to know what system you think is going to be the solution or successor to these many soon to end welfare state type democracies.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
What was it that thought up everything you just wrote?
I wouldn’t have written it had you not asked the question. Individual conversations are fruitless–unless you’re some sort of wackjob.
As far as brain function, yes that is an individual process, just like eating, breathing, and sleeping. But to say the ideas that come to fruition in my brain are completely original and insular to the outside world is false. The concept of originality is flawed. Everything is learned from experience.[/quote]
Your idea of ‘originality’ is a magical view of reality. Something is ‘original’ only if it comes from nothing? Is this akin to saying that nothing new is ever invented, it’s already been invented before?
You are attempting to ignore and/or denigrate man’s mind. The fact that someone improves on something, such as lighting our homes, is regarded by you as somehow of no meaning. Hmmm…next time you or a loved one has to have surgery in the middle of the night, tell THEM how Edison really did nothing for humanity.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Some of you people disgust me. Life is about people, not ideologies. Shoot, I’m incredibly pro citizens rights and anti-tax, but I still know that people are what matters. It’s not all about cash or right vs left ideologies.[/quote]
Your concern for your fellow man is laudatory. Does it include giving them the freedom to make mistakes and choices with their own money? Does it include concern for those who produce, or is it just for those who consume more than they produce?
[quote]Heliotrope wrote:
I still want to know what system you think is going to be the solution or successor to these many soon to end welfare state type democracies.
[/quote]
Its simple. Let everyone contribute voluntarily whatever they want. The government collects the cash and disburses it as directed by the citizenry on the donation form. For ex, 20% to national defense, 30% to educational funding, and so on. Wouldn’t that be better than letting politicians, like Jefferson in NOLA, run your life? Jeeezzzz…
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
vroom wrote:
Some of you people disgust me. Life is about people, not ideologies. Shoot, I’m incredibly pro citizens rights and anti-tax, but I still know that people are what matters. It’s not all about cash or right vs left ideologies.
Your concern for your fellow man is laudatory. Does it include giving them the freedom to make mistakes and choices with their own money? Does it include concern for those who produce, or is it just for those who consume more than they produce?
[/quote]
You should know the answer to this question already. If you had of been paying attention over the years you’d know.
For example, I would prefer a consumption tax instead of an income tax. This very much places control of my money in my own hands, up until the point I choose to make purchasing choices at least. More control is better, though of course it still isn’t perfect.
In particular, I’d have ALL my money for investment choices and I’d be able to spend all of the income on any successful investments as well.
And, yes, I know you really want to get into how immoral it is to tax people and so forth, and yes, I agree that it is troublesome and should be minimized. I like to call it percentage financial slavery, so I imagine you can figure out that I don’t like taxes.
However, creating a wider tax base, and removing a lot of the causes of poverty and crime (perhaps via education) creates a more highly skilled workplace, a more vibrant and powerful economy, less policing and prison costs, and a lower burden on everybody in terms of total tax load per person.
Seriously, I doubt we are going to find ourselves living in something other than a lawful society during our lifetimes. As such, there are realities we are going to face, and things all of us have to give up, such as the right to drive without a seatbelt, or to drink and drive, or to live without externally imposed laws - whether we like it or not.
Instead of shooting for the elimination of taxation, which is probably a pure pipe dream, how about starting with that which is available. Minimize waste, maximize the tax base, and otherwise work to eliminate corruption and excesses.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Wouldn’t that be better than letting politicians, like Jefferson in NOLA, run your life? Jeeezzzz…
[/quote]
Come on. This guy is on his way to jail already…
Wasn’t it republicans that were expressing confidence in “the system” as republicans were being indicted on corruption charges?
Simply get rid of corruption first… whether of left or right origin!
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Sloth wrote:
It was a general statement, and you took it as a specific one to create an argument. Nice.
Joke is this: Conservatives get angry at poor people who have babies we must support. Conservatives get angry when we try to teach them how to not have babies. Conservatives get angry when we try to prevent babies from being born into a terrible situation.
It’s called irony. And yes, it deserves the term pwnage.
This girl (and the fathers) knew sex can lead to pregnancy.
You can’t convince me this girl (and the fathers), in this day and age, were completely unaware of the concept of birth control.
A lack of condoms, birth control, and sex ed., is not the problem. Catholicism, nor conservatism created this mess.
If anything did, it was the liberal ideals of the sexual revolution. Look at the decline in status marriage has experienced in our society. Then, factor in the decline of shame, guilt, sexual mores, and self-restraint we see running rampant in our society and media.
Ah, then there’s that wonderful welfare system. That brilliant system which rewards the most self destructive behaviors…
Those interested might want to look at illegitimate births from 1965 and prior. Then, look from 1965 to the present. Do some googling.
1965: 7.7% of births are out of wedlock
2006: 37%…Nearly 4 out of 10 babies folks…That is not a healthy figure.
Conservatism, religion, and prudishness isn’t to blame. Or, the years and numbers above would be reversed. Sadly, they aren’t.
No, the blame falls on the liberalization of cultural norms and morals. And now taxpayers are stuck paying for the bloated consequences.
Your joking, right? PLENTY of people don’t know JACK about birth control and baby making. A good portion of my highschool thinks pulling out is an effective form of birth control. STI’s still spread like wildfire in High schools.
And we still have concepts of abstinence only education in many areas.
Wtf?
I’m not BLAMING religion or lack of sex ed for the babies. I’m just saying it’s ironic that conservatives don’t want the babies, but refuse to do anything to educate people so they WON’T have the goddamn kid.
[/quote]
And one more time, I’m demonstrating to you that this crap wasn’t anywhere near as abundant under our more conservative past! You want to ridicule my conservative Catholic beliefs? Than I’ll damn sure point out the irony of the statements which touched this off.
One more time, look at out of wedlock births from 1965 and prior. Are you going to tell me those low numbers are due to better sex education and availability of BC? 1965 and prior? I’ll call you a liar if you try.
Now, look at 1965 to the present. Look at the numbers jump. Are you going to tell me that this happened because of a decline in sex education and some kind mass conversion to Catholicism?
But hey, keep trying to make the “well, we know you’re just going to ‘fuck’, here’s how to wear a condom” approach work. Oh, and then there’s “Since we know you’re going to ‘fuck,’ and forget the condom we just taught you to wear, we’ll have an entitlement ready to take care of everything,” approach.
Maybe your folks can get us up to 50% of babies born out of wedlock.
Oh, hahaha, just a joke!
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
You are attempting to ignore and/or denigrate man’s mind. The fact that someone improves on something, such as lighting our homes, is regarded by you as somehow of no meaning. Hmmm…next time you or a loved one has to have surgery in the middle of the night, tell THEM how Edison really did nothing for humanity.
[/quote]
You have a valid point but you also make the assumption that the idea of lighting with electricity was conceived by Thomas Edison. His lab was the first to successfully make lighting available to homes and businesses, however, it wasn’t Thomas Edison who flipped the switch, so to speak:
“Most of Edison’s patents were utility patents, which were protected for a 17 year period and included inventions or processes that are electrical, mechanical, or chemical in nature. About a dozen were design patents, which protect an ornamental design for up to a 14 year period. Like most patents, the inventions he described were improvements over prior art. The phonograph patent, on the other hand, was unprecedented as the first device to record and reproduce sounds.[12] Edison did not invent the first electric light bulb, but instead invented the first commercially practical incandescent light. Several designs had already been developed by earlier inventors including the patent he purchased from Henry Woodward and Mathew Evans, Moses G. Farmer,[13] Joseph Swan, James Bowman Lindsay, William Sawyer, Sir Humphry Davy, and Heinrich G?bel. Some of these early bulbs had such flaws as extremely short life, high expense to produce, and high current draw, making them difficult to apply on a large scale commercially. In 1878, Edison applied the term filament to the element of glowing wire carrying the current, although English inventor Joseph Swan had used the term prior to this. Edison took the features of these earlier designs and set his workers to the task of creating longer-lasting bulbs. By 1879, he had produced a new concept: a high resistance lamp in a very high vacuum, which would burn for hundreds of hours. While the earlier inventors had produced electric lighting in laboratory conditions dating back to a demonstration of a glowing wire by Alessandro Volta in 1800, Edison concentrated on commercial application and was able to sell the concept to homes and businesses by mass-producing relatively long-lasting light bulbs and creating a complete system for the generation and distribution of electricity.”
A little research goes a long way. Thomas Edison, in fact, purchased the bulk of his patents and reworked them. I am not saying “his” innovations are any less important but giving him all the credit is like giving Napoleon all the credit for defeating European monarch rule.
When I see someone say that originality doesn’t exist or individuality is a myth, I shake my head in wonder.
Its like saying there’s no difference between an Einstein or a Pascal, and a fat welfare crook cashing in food stamps at a liquor store for 75 cents on the dollar.
Those who make such assertions have a true hatred for the best among us.
[quote]Heliotrope wrote:
I see where you are coming from.
I still want to know what system you think is going to be the solution or successor to these many soon to end welfare state type democracies.
[/quote]
I would say a revolution of the collectivist type, i.e Chavez or Pinochet, after that another liberal revolution, writing a constitution that ensures that a federal government knows its boundaries and that income taxes are practically illegal and then it will all fall apart again of course.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
When I see someone say that originality doesn’t exist or individuality is a myth, I shake my head in wonder.
Its like saying there’s no difference between an Einstein or a Pascal, and a fat welfare crook cashing in food stamps at a liquor store for 75 cents on the dollar.
Those who make such assertions have a true hatred for the best among us.[/quote]
HH, I understand your skepticism, however, you must not mistake genius with individuality. Even Einstein did not work in a vacuum.
His first wife actually helped him with the math he used to develop relativity (this is still a point of contention with science historians). Just because an individual person has the ability to conceptualize on their own does not mean he has the ability to carry out his ideas to fruition on his own.
Einstein was like no other genius, that is for sure, and his genius is much further reaching than most can comprehend; however, his genius means nothing on an individual level. Einstein would have had to develop the entire field of physics up to general relativity on his own in order to get that kind of credit. The fact of the matter is he used the ideas of Planck and others like him that came before.
My opinions line up with this woman’s. I do not mind things like welfare if it went to people try to get out of the poor hellhole. What I do mind is when people piss my money away by having 5 kids when they can’t afford 1.
Alright, so basically your point is that people who accomplish a lot are great and all…but they wouldn’t have done it without being raised, having food readily available by other people, learning from teachers…yadda yadda yadda.
OK, point taken…but who cares?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
When I see someone say that originality doesn’t exist or individuality is a myth, I shake my head in wonder.
Its like saying there’s no difference between an Einstein or a Pascal, and a fat welfare crook cashing in food stamps at a liquor store for 75 cents on the dollar.
Those who make such assertions have a true hatred for the best among us.
HH, I understand your skepticism, however, you must not mistake genius with individuality. Even Einstein did not work in a vacuum.
His first wife actually helped him with the math he used to develop relativity (this is still a point of contention with science historians). Just because an individual person has the ability to conceptualize on their own does not mean he has the ability to carry out his ideas to fruition on his own.
Einstein was like no other genius, that is for sure, and his genius is much further reaching than most can comprehend; however, his genius means nothing on an individual level. Einstein would have had to develop the entire field of physics up to general relativity on his own in order to get that kind of credit. The fact of the matter is he used the ideas of Planck and others like him that came before.[/quote]
My god that article got me pissed off…
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Sloth wrote:
It was a general statement, and you took it as a specific one to create an argument. Nice.
Joke is this: Conservatives get angry at poor people who have babies we must support. Conservatives get angry when we try to teach them how to not have babies. Conservatives get angry when we try to prevent babies from being born into a terrible situation.
It’s called irony. And yes, it deserves the term pwnage.
This girl (and the fathers) knew sex can lead to pregnancy.
You can’t convince me this girl (and the fathers), in this day and age, were completely unaware of the concept of birth control.
A lack of condoms, birth control, and sex ed., is not the problem. Catholicism, nor conservatism created this mess.
If anything did, it was the liberal ideals of the sexual revolution. Look at the decline in status marriage has experienced in our society. Then, factor in the decline of shame, guilt, sexual mores, and self-restraint we see running rampant in our society and media.
Ah, then there’s that wonderful welfare system. That brilliant system which rewards the most self destructive behaviors…
Those interested might want to look at illegitimate births from 1965 and prior. Then, look from 1965 to the present. Do some googling.
1965: 7.7% of births are out of wedlock
2006: 37%…Nearly 4 out of 10 babies folks…That is not a healthy figure.
Conservatism, religion, and prudishness isn’t to blame. Or, the years and numbers above would be reversed. Sadly, they aren’t.
No, the blame falls on the liberalization of cultural norms and morals. And now taxpayers are stuck paying for the bloated consequences.
Your joking, right? PLENTY of people don’t know JACK about birth control and baby making. A good portion of my highschool thinks pulling out is an effective form of birth control. STI’s still spread like wildfire in High schools.
And we still have concepts of abstinence only education in many areas.
Wtf?
I’m not BLAMING religion or lack of sex ed for the babies. I’m just saying it’s ironic that conservatives don’t want the babies, but refuse to do anything to educate people so they WON’T have the goddamn kid.
And one more time, I’m demonstrating to you that this crap wasn’t anywhere near as abundant under our more conservative past! You want to ridicule my conservative Catholic beliefs? Than I’ll damn sure point out the irony of the statements which touched this off.
One more time, look at out of wedlock births from 1965 and prior. Are you going to tell me those low numbers are due to better sex education and availability of BC? 1965 and prior? I’ll call you a liar if you try.
Now, look at 1965 to the present. Look at the numbers jump. Are you going to tell me that this happened because of a decline in sex education and some kind mass conversion to Catholicism?
But hey, keep trying to make the “well, we know you’re just going to ‘fuck’, here’s how to wear a condom” approach work. Oh, and then there’s “Since we know you’re going to ‘fuck,’ and forget the condom we just taught you to wear, we’ll have an entitlement ready to take care of everything,” approach.
Maybe your folks can get us up to 50% of babies born out of wedlock.
Oh, hahaha, just a joke![/quote]
So you’d like to return to the days when women were expected to not have sex until marriage, and just sit around popping out babies?
I’m not mocking catholicism. I just think EDUCATION, something the church does not advocate, would certainly help the churches problems.
If people weren’t rushing to get married (so they can have sex), they might create longer lasting relationships. Relationships based on an actual connection, and not some promise they made to an imaginary being they both happen to believe in.
People have changed. The world has changed. It’s not just the lack of religion that is fucking us up. Religion limited us for so long. We may have swung a bit to far the other way, but when the pendulum swings the other way (as it is now) it’s starting to look like it’ll swing to far.
Increased sex ed. Recognizing homosexuality as a part of the human condition, and not a disease. Stem cell research. Abortion. Birth control. Freedom of religion even! So many of these things are put into jeopardy by this reactionary swing.
A balance must be found.
It’s either:
“We don’t think you should have sex, but if you do, this is how you should do it safely.”
OR
“Don’t have sex. Remember, if it’s pleasurable, God kills a kitten every time you do it.”
I happen to think the first item is better. More moral? Based on whose morals?
Based on MY morals, the first option is one helluva lot better. The second option, to me, seems not only stupid, but irresponsible.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Sloth wrote:
It was a general statement, and you took it as a specific one to create an argument. Nice.
Joke is this: Conservatives get angry at poor people who have babies we must support. Conservatives get angry when we try to teach them how to not have babies. Conservatives get angry when we try to prevent babies from being born into a terrible situation.
It’s called irony. And yes, it deserves the term pwnage.
This girl (and the fathers) knew sex can lead to pregnancy.
You can’t convince me this girl (and the fathers), in this day and age, were completely unaware of the concept of birth control.
A lack of condoms, birth control, and sex ed., is not the problem. Catholicism, nor conservatism created this mess.
If anything did, it was the liberal ideals of the sexual revolution. Look at the decline in status marriage has experienced in our society. Then, factor in the decline of shame, guilt, sexual mores, and self-restraint we see running rampant in our society and media.
Ah, then there’s that wonderful welfare system. That brilliant system which rewards the most self destructive behaviors…
Those interested might want to look at illegitimate births from 1965 and prior. Then, look from 1965 to the present. Do some googling.
1965: 7.7% of births are out of wedlock
2006: 37%…Nearly 4 out of 10 babies folks…That is not a healthy figure.
Conservatism, religion, and prudishness isn’t to blame. Or, the years and numbers above would be reversed. Sadly, they aren’t.
No, the blame falls on the liberalization of cultural norms and morals. And now taxpayers are stuck paying for the bloated consequences.
Your joking, right? PLENTY of people don’t know JACK about birth control and baby making. A good portion of my highschool thinks pulling out is an effective form of birth control. STI’s still spread like wildfire in High schools.
And we still have concepts of abstinence only education in many areas.
Wtf?
I’m not BLAMING religion or lack of sex ed for the babies. I’m just saying it’s ironic that conservatives don’t want the babies, but refuse to do anything to educate people so they WON’T have the goddamn kid.
And one more time, I’m demonstrating to you that this crap wasn’t anywhere near as abundant under our more conservative past! You want to ridicule my conservative Catholic beliefs? Than I’ll damn sure point out the irony of the statements which touched this off.
One more time, look at out of wedlock births from 1965 and prior. Are you going to tell me those low numbers are due to better sex education and availability of BC? 1965 and prior? I’ll call you a liar if you try.
Now, look at 1965 to the present. Look at the numbers jump. Are you going to tell me that this happened because of a decline in sex education and some kind mass conversion to Catholicism?
But hey, keep trying to make the “well, we know you’re just going to ‘fuck’, here’s how to wear a condom” approach work. Oh, and then there’s “Since we know you’re going to ‘fuck,’ and forget the condom we just taught you to wear, we’ll have an entitlement ready to take care of everything,” approach.
Maybe your folks can get us up to 50% of babies born out of wedlock.
Oh, hahaha, just a joke!
So you’d like to return to the days when women were expected to not have sex until marriage, and just sit around popping out babies?
I’m not mocking catholicism. I just think EDUCATION, something the church does not advocate, would certainly help the churches problems.
If people weren’t rushing to get married (so they can have sex), they might create longer lasting relationships. Relationships based on an actual connection, and not some promise they made to an imaginary being they both happen to believe in.
People have changed. The world has changed. It’s not just the lack of religion that is fucking us up. Religion limited us for so long. We may have swung a bit to far the other way, but when the pendulum swings the other way (as it is now) it’s starting to look like it’ll swing to far.
Increased sex ed. Recognizing homosexuality as a part of the human condition, and not a disease. Stem cell research. Abortion. Birth control. Freedom of religion even! So many of these things are put into jeopardy by this reactionary swing.
A balance must be found.
It’s either:
“We don’t think you should have sex, but if you do, this is how you should do it safely.”
OR
“Don’t have sex. Remember, if it’s pleasurable, God kills a kitten every time you do it.”
I happen to think the first item is better. More moral? Based on whose morals?
Based on MY morals, the first option is one helluva lot better. The second option, to me, seems not only stupid, but irresponsible. [/quote]
Yet, look at divorce rates, out of wedlock birth rates, etc. Morals are a must in a free society. Especially in a society that subsidizes other people’s bad behavior.
By the way, I’m not advocating government enforced morality. It’s the people of this country that need to wake up. Make fun of the ‘prudes’ all you want, but it’s not their lifestyles causing this crap.
Sloth,
One of the major changes, which is not a morality issue, is that women now have the ability to be self-sufficient and chase their own careers.
Now, we have double the number of people who can easily choose to leave an unhappy relationship without facing utter destitution.
Anyway, I think some peopleworry too much about how other people live their lives. If people want to fuck like rabbits from the time they turn of legal age until they die, it is not my business.
If “you” are opposed due to religious reasons, you must have enough faith to believe that God will know what to do with people. If you don’t have that much faith, then why the fuck do you really care?
I find it hard to understand. We aren’t here to live lives free of sin. That isn’t what religion is about. Religion is about recognizing our own faults and trying to better ourselves, while looking after and accepting our fellows.
Heck, I’m not trying to get into religion per se, but it underlies morality concerns and related controls on personal lawful behavior, and I don’t believe that this is what religion is even supposed to be about.
People don’t have to do things that any of us like. We don’t have to like anyones lifestyle. We don’t have to like their sexual preferences, their music preferences, there child-rearing preferences, their relationship preferences, their food preferences, their religious preferences, their voting preferences or anything else that isn’t illegal.
We need to work on finding ways to reduce the burden that bad eggs put on taxpayers, but imposing one groups morality on another group is certainly not the way to go about it.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Sloth,
One of the major changes, which is not a morality issue, is that women now have the ability to be self-sufficient and chase their own careers.
Now, we have double the number of people who can easily choose to leave an unhappy relationship without facing utter destitution.
Anyway, I think some peopleworry too much about how other people live their lives. If people want to fuck like rabbits from the time they turn of legal age until they die, it is not my business.
If “you” are opposed due to religious reasons, you must have enough faith to believe that God will know what to do with people. If you don’t have that much faith, then why the fuck do you really care?
I find it hard to understand. We aren’t here to live lives free of sin. That isn’t what religion is about. Religion is about recognizing our own faults and trying to better ourselves, while looking after and accepting our fellows.
Heck, I’m not trying to get into religion per se, but it underlies morality concerns and related controls on personal lawful behavior, and I don’t believe that this is what religion is even supposed to be about.
People don’t have to do things that any of us like. We don’t have to like anyones lifestyle. We don’t have to like their sexual preferences, their music preferences, there child-rearing preferences, their relationship preferences, their food preferences, their religious preferences, their voting preferences or anything else that isn’t illegal.
We need to work on finding ways to reduce the burden that bad eggs put on taxpayers, but imposing one groups morality on another group is certainly not the way to go about it.[/quote]
I think you are right.
Personal morality or a lack there of undoubtedly contributes to the abuse of welfare.
That said, trying to change the moral fiber of our society is probably not the best strategy for the government to try and correct its hemorrhaging welfare system.
Curbing mismanagement and making the system have higher standards and expectations from those that receive welfare benefits seems more appropriate action for a secular institution.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Sloth,
One of the major changes, which is not a morality issue, is that women now have the ability to be self-sufficient and chase their own careers.
Now, we have double the number of people who can easily choose to leave an unhappy relationship without facing utter destitution.
[/quote]
I never considered this before but have to say this one reason seems undoubtedly one of the most important contributors to the current fragility of marriage.