Obese People Getting Disability Benefits

Off Topic
121

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]wilks19 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]wilks19 wrote:
DBCooper look up epigentics and tell me it is not this womens fault she is fat, if you don’t feel like looking it up, essential it is your genes don’t dictate what you are. they are just a blue print of everything that u can be and are expressed due to enivromental stress/signals( gorging on food, watching her probably fat parents do whatever they did and copying) so as of the point her getting fat it is possibly not her fault for getting fat assuming her parents were, but to say there is a fat gene that that will prevent her from being skinny is in my opinion absured. change her beliefs instill some work ethic and the human body is capable of some amazing things, but most people seem to have forgotten that fact… *didnt read past 1st half page may have missed someone sayin somethin along this line.[/quote]

Read past the first half page. Then relearn how to type in a manner that someone with command of the English language can comprehend. Then return to this thread.[/quote]

weak arugement to deny logic, there was one part that was gumbled up but its the internet not an essay get over it ya dust pan, and i saw two people mention enivromental stressors affecting gene expression, both of which you did not comment on. so maybe learn more about why genes work the way they do. come back to this thread then and an intelligent disscussion can be had.
[/quote]

My understanding is that epigenetics is mostly responsible for disorders in human beings. Being fat is a lot of things but it isn’t a disorder. Also, from what little I know about it I was under the impression that things like obesity, if epigenetics is even responsible for it in the first place, is the result of previous generation’s lifestyles, hence it is a hereditary thing and uncontrollable to an extent for the person who is fat now.

But this isn’t the point. The point is that we don’t know why this person is fat. You don’t. I don’t. So if you think I’m going to further degenerate this thread by engaging in some asinine argument with you about something neither of us know the answer to then you’re senile.[/quote]

hhmmm well almost everyone in my family isn’t by any means in good shape most over weight only exceptions are my grandfathers, one was 155 pounds soaking wet. the other got pretty big apprently but after my mother was born and with steroids. i am 185 lbs 6’2 in good shape imo, but everything that should have been pasted down is being out of shape,short, or in the opposite direction a twig. so yes before birth, and being in womb has a great affect on ones gene expression but i am the sole weight lifter in the imediate family and i used to be a complete twig. now at 19 about 7 years later my bone structure is different then my brothers, father, grandfathers and even though some of my brothers weight more(chunky) or the same my muscles are much fuller. even when i went 3-4 months without lifting becasue of mono i did not lose to noticable of mass, i stress this part IN MY OPINION i belive it is because i have effectivly modified my gene expression by working out through puberty. people just like the idea of blaming there failures on others or people who came before them. everyone needs to man up and take resposibilty for themself because there is to much room for accepting failure in oneself and scoiety if we dont. did not edit cause i clearly dont give a shit about it.

122

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
To add, Scandinavian countries have managed to maintain a welfare state while continually experiencing healthy economic growth.

They also have some of the highest living standards in the world and are proof it’s possible to have social equality without stifling entrepreneurialism and economic growth.

Perhaps in the US transfer payments have mostly adverse effects but that simply isn’t the case in several other countries.

[/quote]

They have social equality in Scandinavia (I doubt they actually do, but for the sake of argument I’ll accept that) because everyone’s white. They have social equality because everyone pays the same huge amount of taxes in order to keep running a system that they won’t all use equally. The 45 y/o person who just had a triple bypass paid the same into that system as the 45 y/o who’s lived healthy his whole life and has never had so much as a cold. Is that social equality? No.

Also, like I said, they pay a massive amount of their income in taxes, like 80% or more. America will NEVER allow that to happen. We were founded on the basis of limited taxation, the anti-tax sentiment in this country runs too deep and for too long for any comparison of us to Scandinavia to be relevant. And let’s be honest, their standard of living is high, but their wealth and the size of their economy is miniscule compared to the U.S. so they are hardly a standard that the U.S. is trying to live up to.[/quote]

I know it will never happen, I’m just saying transfer payments DO work if used correctly.[/quote]

They DO NOT work, as I stated clearly earlier in this thread. They don’t necessarily even help people who get them improve their situations significantly. And they certainly don’t help create wealth. If the govt takes my money and gives it to someone else who “needs” it, this isn’t creating wealth because even though the person who gets the money is better off, I am worse off. This is essentially a zero sum game with transfer payments and they only work if you consider “working” to be taking money from one group of people and giving it to another. But that isn’t the role of the govt; it’s to stimulate the economy, protect people’s individual property and personal rights and provide for national defense. That’s about it. So they aren’t stimulating the entirety of the economy in any way by making transfer payments. It’s not even really a zero sum game. The payment that one person receives doesn’t come from one other person; it comes from a bunch of taxpayers, which hurts a bunch of consumers which hurts even more businesses who lose that small amount of revenue which hurts workers because this results in lower wages and lost jobs.

Then you have unemployment, which sounds like a good idea and I’ve collected it in the past and it helped. But you know what? I didn’t earn that in the form of paid taxes. Why? Because my employer paid into it as well and they transfer that cost to me in the form of a wage decrease that represents the amount of tax they pay. So I get taxed twice yet only collect on half of it when I’m unemployed. It’s all fucked.

And stop with the comparison to Scandinavia and other socialist-leaning countries. Look at the U.S. As bad as things have gone for our economy right now we are still THE economic power on this planet and none of the countries you’re talking about are anywhere near the U.S. in terms of total GDP, standard of living or the size and power of the economy. It’s a good thing for the U.S. that we are different from them, not a bad thing, so stop presenting it as one.

123

[quote]wilks19 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]wilks19 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]wilks19 wrote:
DBCooper look up epigentics and tell me it is not this womens fault she is fat, if you don’t feel like looking it up, essential it is your genes don’t dictate what you are. they are just a blue print of everything that u can be and are expressed due to enivromental stress/signals( gorging on food, watching her probably fat parents do whatever they did and copying) so as of the point her getting fat it is possibly not her fault for getting fat assuming her parents were, but to say there is a fat gene that that will prevent her from being skinny is in my opinion absured. change her beliefs instill some work ethic and the human body is capable of some amazing things, but most people seem to have forgotten that fact… *didnt read past 1st half page may have missed someone sayin somethin along this line.[/quote]

Read past the first half page. Then relearn how to type in a manner that someone with command of the English language can comprehend. Then return to this thread.[/quote]

weak arugement to deny logic, there was one part that was gumbled up but its the internet not an essay get over it ya dust pan, and i saw two people mention enivromental stressors affecting gene expression, both of which you did not comment on. so maybe learn more about why genes work the way they do. come back to this thread then and an intelligent disscussion can be had.
[/quote]

My understanding is that epigenetics is mostly responsible for disorders in human beings. Being fat is a lot of things but it isn’t a disorder. Also, from what little I know about it I was under the impression that things like obesity, if epigenetics is even responsible for it in the first place, is the result of previous generation’s lifestyles, hence it is a hereditary thing and uncontrollable to an extent for the person who is fat now.

But this isn’t the point. The point is that we don’t know why this person is fat. You don’t. I don’t. So if you think I’m going to further degenerate this thread by engaging in some asinine argument with you about something neither of us know the answer to then you’re senile.[/quote]

hhmmm well almost everyone in my family isn’t by any means in good shape most over weight only exceptions are my grandfathers, one was 155 pounds soaking wet. the other got pretty big apprently but after my mother was born and with steroids. i am 185 lbs 6’2 in good shape imo, but everything that should have been pasted down is being out of shape,short, or in the opposite direction a twig. so yes before birth, and being in womb has a great affect on ones gene expression but i am the sole weight lifter in the imediate family and i used to be a complete twig. now at 19 about 7 years later my bone structure is different then my brothers, father, grandfathers and even though some of my brothers weight more(chunky) or the same my muscles are much fuller. even when i went 3-4 months without lifting becasue of mono i did not lose to noticable of mass, i stress this part IN MY OPINION i belive it is because i have effectivly modified my gene expression by working out through puberty. people just like the idea of blaming there failures on others or people who came before them. everyone needs to man up and take resposibilty for themself because there is to much room for accepting failure in oneself and scoiety if we dont. did not edit cause i clearly dont give a shit about it.
[/quote]

As you said, this is all just opinion, and poorly-formed at that. And it all stems from what is nothing more than anecdotal evidence. It seems I know more about epigenetics than you do and I don’t know shit about it. Perhaps you should further familiarize yourself with it before you harangue me about some trivial comment I made that, at this point, has no bearing on where I plan to travel in this thread.

124

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]wilks19 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]wilks19 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]wilks19 wrote:
DBCooper look up epigentics and tell me it is not this womens fault she is fat, if you don’t feel like looking it up, essential it is your genes don’t dictate what you are. they are just a blue print of everything that u can be and are expressed due to enivromental stress/signals( gorging on food, watching her probably fat parents do whatever they did and copying) so as of the point her getting fat it is possibly not her fault for getting fat assuming her parents were, but to say there is a fat gene that that will prevent her from being skinny is in my opinion absured. change her beliefs instill some work ethic and the human body is capable of some amazing things, but most people seem to have forgotten that fact… *didnt read past 1st half page may have missed someone sayin somethin along this line.[/quote]

Read past the first half page. Then relearn how to type in a manner that someone with command of the English language can comprehend. Then return to this thread.[/quote]

weak arugement to deny logic, there was one part that was gumbled up but its the internet not an essay get over it ya dust pan, and i saw two people mention enivromental stressors affecting gene expression, both of which you did not comment on. so maybe learn more about why genes work the way they do. come back to this thread then and an intelligent disscussion can be had.
[/quote]

My understanding is that epigenetics is mostly responsible for disorders in human beings. Being fat is a lot of things but it isn’t a disorder. Also, from what little I know about it I was under the impression that things like obesity, if epigenetics is even responsible for it in the first place, is the result of previous generation’s lifestyles, hence it is a hereditary thing and uncontrollable to an extent for the person who is fat now.

But this isn’t the point. The point is that we don’t know why this person is fat. You don’t. I don’t. So if you think I’m going to further degenerate this thread by engaging in some asinine argument with you about something neither of us know the answer to then you’re senile.[/quote]

hhmmm well almost everyone in my family isn’t by any means in good shape most over weight only exceptions are my grandfathers, one was 155 pounds soaking wet. the other got pretty big apprently but after my mother was born and with steroids. i am 185 lbs 6’2 in good shape imo, but everything that should have been pasted down is being out of shape,short, or in the opposite direction a twig. so yes before birth, and being in womb has a great affect on ones gene expression but i am the sole weight lifter in the imediate family and i used to be a complete twig. now at 19 about 7 years later my bone structure is different then my brothers, father, grandfathers and even though some of my brothers weight more(chunky) or the same my muscles are much fuller. even when i went 3-4 months without lifting becasue of mono i did not lose to noticable of mass, i stress this part IN MY OPINION i belive it is because i have effectivly modified my gene expression by working out through puberty. people just like the idea of blaming there failures on others or people who came before them. everyone needs to man up and take resposibilty for themself because there is to much room for accepting failure in oneself and scoiety if we dont. did not edit cause i clearly dont give a shit about it.
[/quote]

As you said, this is all just opinion, and poorly-formed at that. And it all stems from what is nothing more than anecdotal evidence. It seems I know more about epigenetics than you do and I don’t know shit about it. Perhaps you should further familiarize yourself with it before you harangue me about some trivial comment I made that, at this point, has no bearing on where I plan to travel in this thread.[/quote]

i was in a rush when i wrote that and had to go, after i sent it i wanted to come back and say nvm it doesnt matter you are going to believe what you want to and i will believe what i want to. also no you do not know more about epigentics there is more to it then just previous generations life, individuals also play a role in the way our genes are expressed but again doesnt matter but if you have time look into some of bruce liptons work on it, it is really interesting stuff.

125

[quote]wilks19 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]wilks19 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]wilks19 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]wilks19 wrote:
DBCooper look up epigentics and tell me it is not this womens fault she is fat, if you don’t feel like looking it up, essential it is your genes don’t dictate what you are. they are just a blue print of everything that u can be and are expressed due to enivromental stress/signals( gorging on food, watching her probably fat parents do whatever they did and copying) so as of the point her getting fat it is possibly not her fault for getting fat assuming her parents were, but to say there is a fat gene that that will prevent her from being skinny is in my opinion absured. change her beliefs instill some work ethic and the human body is capable of some amazing things, but most people seem to have forgotten that fact… *didnt read past 1st half page may have missed someone sayin somethin along this line.[/quote]

Read past the first half page. Then relearn how to type in a manner that someone with command of the English language can comprehend. Then return to this thread.[/quote]

weak arugement to deny logic, there was one part that was gumbled up but its the internet not an essay get over it ya dust pan, and i saw two people mention enivromental stressors affecting gene expression, both of which you did not comment on. so maybe learn more about why genes work the way they do. come back to this thread then and an intelligent disscussion can be had.
[/quote]

My understanding is that epigenetics is mostly responsible for disorders in human beings. Being fat is a lot of things but it isn’t a disorder. Also, from what little I know about it I was under the impression that things like obesity, if epigenetics is even responsible for it in the first place, is the result of previous generation’s lifestyles, hence it is a hereditary thing and uncontrollable to an extent for the person who is fat now.

But this isn’t the point. The point is that we don’t know why this person is fat. You don’t. I don’t. So if you think I’m going to further degenerate this thread by engaging in some asinine argument with you about something neither of us know the answer to then you’re senile.[/quote]

hhmmm well almost everyone in my family isn’t by any means in good shape most over weight only exceptions are my grandfathers, one was 155 pounds soaking wet. the other got pretty big apprently but after my mother was born and with steroids. i am 185 lbs 6’2 in good shape imo, but everything that should have been pasted down is being out of shape,short, or in the opposite direction a twig. so yes before birth, and being in womb has a great affect on ones gene expression but i am the sole weight lifter in the imediate family and i used to be a complete twig. now at 19 about 7 years later my bone structure is different then my brothers, father, grandfathers and even though some of my brothers weight more(chunky) or the same my muscles are much fuller. even when i went 3-4 months without lifting becasue of mono i did not lose to noticable of mass, i stress this part IN MY OPINION i belive it is because i have effectivly modified my gene expression by working out through puberty. people just like the idea of blaming there failures on others or people who came before them. everyone needs to man up and take resposibilty for themself because there is to much room for accepting failure in oneself and scoiety if we dont. did not edit cause i clearly dont give a shit about it.
[/quote]

As you said, this is all just opinion, and poorly-formed at that. And it all stems from what is nothing more than anecdotal evidence. It seems I know more about epigenetics than you do and I don’t know shit about it. Perhaps you should further familiarize yourself with it before you harangue me about some trivial comment I made that, at this point, has no bearing on where I plan to travel in this thread.[/quote]

i was in a rush when i wrote that and had to go, after i sent it i wanted to come back and say nvm it doesnt matter you are going to believe what you want to and i will believe what i want to. also no you do not know more about epigentics there is more to it then just previous generations life, individuals also play a role in the way our genes are expressed but again doesnt matter but if you have time look into some of bruce liptons work on it, it is really interesting stuff. [/quote]

Okay, fine. Vanish.

126

bud ur just a loser, i am offering facts and you are telling me gtfo, you seem to be to ignorant to look into what could prove you wrong. cling to your ego, this is how bad things tend to happen people!

127

[quote]wilks19 wrote:
bud ur just a loser, i am offering facts and you are telling me gtfo, you seem to be to ignorant to look into what could prove you wrong. cling to your ego, this is how bad things tend to happen people![/quote]

No, you are the one who is ignorant. There is nothing you can say to me in regards to epigenetics that will erode the crux of my argument in this thread. Why? Because I’m not arguing that fat people ARE inherently disabled in any sense of the word, a distinction you seem incapable of making. You’ve latched onto a statement I made that basically communicated that I had read or heard about some studies that showed there might be a genetic factor involved, which in any other capacity negates at least part of the choice aspect. You disagree. Fine.

You see, you are proving my ACTUAL point for me, in that it is impossible to differentiate between a “worthy” disability and one that isn’t. We can’t even agree on this one and it seems as if even the medical community isn’t in complete agreement about it. In some polar opposite examples you can, but not when you get down to more closely-matched ones, which you have to do at some point. Epigenetics has nothing to do with this argument.

128

This is such a dumb argument.

129

[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:

[quote]OBoile wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

That being said, there are also more and more studies each year that indicate that there is a distinct possibility that a huge factor in someone’s weight is genetic in nature and that essentially many people cannot “choose” to not be fat, only the extent to how fat they become. I’ve even heard of studies raising the possibility of an “obese” gene. Perhaps this woman’s disability doesn’t even boil down to choice as much as it does chance.

[/quote]

If genetics were the cause and not environmental factors, then why are there so many more fat people now than 40 years ago? Evolution doesn’t work that quickly.[/quote]

Well, there certainly is a genetic component. “The Fat Gene” has essentially been proven, but it doesn’t mean everyone carrying it is fat; it merely means they are more likely to gain excess weight and have to work harder to get rid of it.

The problem, as you’ve said, is very much environmental. Instead of acknowledging that it will take more work to look good, most use the genetic component as an excuse to maintain their self-destructive course. Couple that with parents that get softer every generation, and you have our current obesity epidemic. Unfortunately the cynic in me thinks that it will only ever reverse when an effective drug comes out, since Pandora’s Box of medicating every problem has already been opened.[/quote]

Oh I have no doubt that some people are more pre-desposed to being fat than others. We all know that guy who can eat anything and still be skinny and we all know the guy gains weight easily.

But as you (and I) said, just because you are more likely to become fat, doesn’t mean it HAS to happen. No fat gene is going to overcome thermodynamics. A gene may make you carry around an extra few lbs naturally, but not an extra 200. As you say, it simply takes more work for some people.

130

hhhmmmmm I really did think this was a lot simpler.

Should people who eat all that they want, do not move, get fat so they can’t work, be okay for disability?

I kinda think just paying that person to NOT MOVE and to NOT WORK just feeds the problem.

I really thought it was that simple.

Why isn’t it that simple?

For those of you advocating an entire revision of the system… Please tell me how.

131

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

hhhmmmmm I really did think this was a lot simpler.

Should people who eat all that they want, do not move, get fat so they can’t work, be okay for disability?

I kinda think just paying that person to NOT MOVE and to NOT WORK just feeds the problem.

I really thought it was that simple.

Why isn’t it that simple?

For those of you advocating an entire revision of the system… Please tell me how.
[/quote]

Okay, here goes.

First of all, when I say get rid of social services that are funded by taxes and run by the govt, I don’t mean you simply cut disability and the like and then stop. No, that would leave a huge hole where there is clearly a need in society. The average American really doesn’t give a shit about the poor and less fortunate, across the board regardless of why they are poor/disabled/etc. That’s why we have these programs in the first place: to provide a safety net that we wouldn’t necessarily have in place otherwise.

Now this is a problem. I’ve said before in other threads that I think this country is slipping down the slope of spiritual bankruptcy (this has nothing to do with organized religion). I feel that we need to create a renewed sense of community and compassion in this country. I am extremely liberal in that sense.

But I do not feel that the way to create this societal harmony is to tax it out of us. One, this is bad for the economy as a whole and secondly, creating these sorts of programs only leads to more and more programs that spiral out of control, such as Medicare and SS. The way to do this is to further stimulate the economy by providing tax cuts to people who can prove that they have spent a considerable amount of time or money working with those who would otherwise be on govt welfare. I think that this will bring the fortunate into close contact with those less fortunate than themselves and that this will eventually lead to a greater sense of fulfillment for those that do so.

You see, if something needs to be done, you are much better off providing an incentive for someone to do it rather than force them to do it, no matter what “it” is. All taxing us in this manner does is take from one and give to another and it creates a feeling of resentment toward not only the taker, but the recipient as well. This isn’t good at all and I strongly, strongly feel that THIS is the root cause of the massive political polarization in this country right now.

So the solution is to cut all this govt bullshit. Everything, all subsidies (although I would support subsidizing education in a small way simply because educating our children is the single best investment we can make in this country and I support anything that helps bring education to everyone in this country), all frivolous taxes like estate taxes and sales taxes and SS taxes, no disability, no minimum wage, no unemployment, no Medicare or Medicaid, drastically-reduced corporate taxes, reduced income taxes at the state and federal level, a very slight progressive tax that has even the highest rate far below what it is now, and a whole slew of similar such things. ALL of these programs end up costing this country and this economy money in the long run, some in the short run, and none of them contribute to actually CREATING wealth, only transferring it.

If these programs are gone the country’s wealth should rise dramatically and the accompanying increase in personal income will make it easier for those who are less fortunate to earn a satisfactory wage. Those who are unable to work will have to rely on charity and that sort of thing, but that’s exactly what they rely on now, except that the net negative effect is much greater.

132

I disagree with DBCooper.
That is all.

133

[quote]OBoile wrote:
I disagree with DBCooper.
That is all.[/quote]

Why?

134

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

hhhmmmmm I really did think this was a lot simpler.

Should people who eat all that they want, do not move, get fat so they can’t work, be okay for disability?

I kinda think just paying that person to NOT MOVE and to NOT WORK just feeds the problem.

I really thought it was that simple.

Why isn’t it that simple?

For those of you advocating an entire revision of the system… Please tell me how.
[/quote]

Okay, here goes.

First of all, when I say get rid of social services that are funded by taxes and run by the govt, I don’t mean you simply cut disability and the like and then stop. No, that would leave a huge hole where there is clearly a need in society. The average American really doesn’t give a shit about the poor and less fortunate, across the board regardless of why they are poor/disabled/etc. That’s why we have these programs in the first place: to provide a safety net that we wouldn’t necessarily have in place otherwise.

Now this is a problem. I’ve said before in other threads that I think this country is slipping down the slope of spiritual bankruptcy (this has nothing to do with organized religion). I feel that we need to create a renewed sense of community and compassion in this country. I am extremely liberal in that sense.

But I do not feel that the way to create this societal harmony is to tax it out of us. One, this is bad for the economy as a whole and secondly, creating these sorts of programs only leads to more and more programs that spiral out of control, such as Medicare and SS. The way to do this is to further stimulate the economy by providing tax cuts to people who can prove that they have spent a considerable amount of time or money working with those who would otherwise be on govt welfare. I think that this will bring the fortunate into close contact with those less fortunate than themselves and that this will eventually lead to a greater sense of fulfillment for those that do so.

You see, if something needs to be done, you are much better off providing an incentive for someone to do it rather than force them to do it, no matter what “it” is. All taxing us in this manner does is take from one and give to another and it creates a feeling of resentment toward not only the taker, but the recipient as well. This isn’t good at all and I strongly, strongly feel that THIS is the root cause of the massive political polarization in this country right now.

So the solution is to cut all this govt bullshit. Everything, all subsidies (although I would support subsidizing education in a small way simply because educating our children is the single best investment we can make in this country and I support anything that helps bring education to everyone in this country), all frivolous taxes like estate taxes and sales taxes and SS taxes, no disability, no minimum wage, no unemployment, no Medicare or Medicaid, drastically-reduced corporate taxes, reduced income taxes at the state and federal level, a very slight progressive tax that has even the highest rate far below what it is now, and a whole slew of similar such things. ALL of these programs end up costing this country and this economy money in the long run, some in the short run, and none of them contribute to actually CREATING wealth, only transferring it.

If these programs are gone the country’s wealth should rise dramatically and the accompanying increase in personal income will make it easier for those who are less fortunate to earn a satisfactory wage. Those who are unable to work will have to rely on charity and that sort of thing, but that’s exactly what they rely on now, except that the net negative effect is much greater.[/quote]

Not to be unkind or dismissive, but I just will not read through a novel.

Why can’t the answer be a bit more succinct?

Why shouldn’t the answer be as simple as the question?

135

I disagree entirely with DB. Without turning this into a political thread, I’m just going to say that when you cut all things like that, you end up with a massive disparity in wealth, starving old people, and a very, very angry lower class that WILL eventually rise up and kill you.

Some people act like we’ve arrived where we are overnight- forgetting that they’ve never lived through the depression, where the threat of communist overthrow was real and the circulation of Marxist ideals was prevalent.

America has it’s problems, and its loopholes that fat pieces of shit like that broad exploit- but in the end, we have things set up pretty well, and nothing is unfixable.

DB- you sound like a typical libertarian. Tis a shame.

136

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

hhhmmmmm I really did think this was a lot simpler.

Should people who eat all that they want, do not move, get fat so they can’t work, be okay for disability?

I kinda think just paying that person to NOT MOVE and to NOT WORK just feeds the problem.

I really thought it was that simple.

Why isn’t it that simple?

For those of you advocating an entire revision of the system… Please tell me how.
[/quote]

Okay, here goes.

First of all, when I say get rid of social services that are funded by taxes and run by the govt, I don’t mean you simply cut disability and the like and then stop. No, that would leave a huge hole where there is clearly a need in society. The average American really doesn’t give a shit about the poor and less fortunate, across the board regardless of why they are poor/disabled/etc. That’s why we have these programs in the first place: to provide a safety net that we wouldn’t necessarily have in place otherwise.

Now this is a problem. I’ve said before in other threads that I think this country is slipping down the slope of spiritual bankruptcy (this has nothing to do with organized religion). I feel that we need to create a renewed sense of community and compassion in this country. I am extremely liberal in that sense.

But I do not feel that the way to create this societal harmony is to tax it out of us. One, this is bad for the economy as a whole and secondly, creating these sorts of programs only leads to more and more programs that spiral out of control, such as Medicare and SS. The way to do this is to further stimulate the economy by providing tax cuts to people who can prove that they have spent a considerable amount of time or money working with those who would otherwise be on govt welfare. I think that this will bring the fortunate into close contact with those less fortunate than themselves and that this will eventually lead to a greater sense of fulfillment for those that do so.

You see, if something needs to be done, you are much better off providing an incentive for someone to do it rather than force them to do it, no matter what “it” is. All taxing us in this manner does is take from one and give to another and it creates a feeling of resentment toward not only the taker, but the recipient as well. This isn’t good at all and I strongly, strongly feel that THIS is the root cause of the massive political polarization in this country right now.

So the solution is to cut all this govt bullshit. Everything, all subsidies (although I would support subsidizing education in a small way simply because educating our children is the single best investment we can make in this country and I support anything that helps bring education to everyone in this country), all frivolous taxes like estate taxes and sales taxes and SS taxes, no disability, no minimum wage, no unemployment, no Medicare or Medicaid, drastically-reduced corporate taxes, reduced income taxes at the state and federal level, a very slight progressive tax that has even the highest rate far below what it is now, and a whole slew of similar such things. ALL of these programs end up costing this country and this economy money in the long run, some in the short run, and none of them contribute to actually CREATING wealth, only transferring it.

If these programs are gone the country’s wealth should rise dramatically and the accompanying increase in personal income will make it easier for those who are less fortunate to earn a satisfactory wage. Those who are unable to work will have to rely on charity and that sort of thing, but that’s exactly what they rely on now, except that the net negative effect is much greater.[/quote]

Not to be unkind or dismissive, but I just will not read through a novel.

Why can’t the answer be a bit more succinct?

Why shouldn’t the answer be as simple as the question?
[/quote]

Here is as close to succinct as I come. The question is astronomically far from being simple, despite it being worded with brevity, and so the answer is equally complicated.

137

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I disagree entirely with DB. Without turning this into a political thread, I’m just going to say that when you cut all things like that, you end up with a massive disparity in wealth, starving old people, and a very, very angry lower class that WILL eventually rise up and kill you.

Some people act like we’ve arrived where we are overnight- forgetting that they’ve never lived through the depression, where the threat of communist overthrow was real and the circulation of Marxist ideals was prevalent.

America has it’s problems, and its loopholes that fat pieces of shit like that broad exploit- but in the end, we have things set up pretty well, and nothing is unfixable.

DB- you sound like a typical libertarian. Tis a shame.[/quote]

There is no way to create a system in which there is relative parity as far as income levels go without going through massive transfers of wealth. Here is the bottom line, and this traces all the way back to John Locke’s writings in his “Two Treatises of Government” which was a huge influence on Thomas Paine and was likewise a huge influence on the formation of our country and our political system:

People enter into a society, a commonwealth as Locke calls it, where there is some sort of established authority (sovereign) whose responsibility it is to protect the property and personal rights of the populace. It’s the social contract theory in its most basic form. You give up certain rights in order to be protected under the sovereign from the “natural” right of everyone to take whatever they can when they live outside of a commonwealth or outside of society in a state of nature or warfare.

The distinction that Locke makes, and THIS is the absolute most basic tenet upon which this country was founded, is that one of the rights people DO NOT agree to in order for protection under the sovereign power is the “right” for their property to be confiscated. We enter into these social contracts to protect our property (and this includes our income) so why would we allow the govt to take it from us? And that’s what happens when I have to pay taxes for social services that I will never use.

A move away from this line of thought is a move toward the exact line of political theory that Locke was rebutting, namely Thomas Hobbes’ “Leviathan”. So in essence, what you recommend, irish, is a move closer toward the anti-thesis of what this country was founded upon.

Hobbes was much more in line with you. He essentially felt that the state, the “Leviathan”, was the private interest AND the public interest since he felt no private interest should be allowed because this is what leads to problems within the state. So the state owns all and therefore private interest is eliminated. The Leviathan can then take what it wants and use it for whatever it wants, as long as it is justifiably for the betterment of the state as a whole.

It’s a justification for totalitarianism and/or monarchism. I realize that you aren’t going that far, but do you really think we should move further from Locke and closer toward Hobbes?

138

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I disagree entirely with DB. Without turning this into a political thread, I’m just going to say that when you cut all things like that, you end up with a massive disparity in wealth, starving old people, and a very, very angry lower class that WILL eventually rise up and kill you.

Some people act like we’ve arrived where we are overnight- forgetting that they’ve never lived through the depression, where the threat of communist overthrow was real and the circulation of Marxist ideals was prevalent.

America has it’s problems, and its loopholes that fat pieces of shit like that broad exploit- but in the end, we have things set up pretty well, and nothing is unfixable.

DB- you sound like a typical libertarian. Tis a shame.[/quote]

And by the way, I am a card-carrying member the Libertarian Party, so I’m not ashamed at all.

I also put my money and time where my mouth is. I am not one of the people who rails against social programs and then does nothing to help the needy. I spend a LOT of time volunteering time to work with all sorts of people who are currently qualifying for govt assistance, and I can tell you right now that if this country was earning a significantly higher income at all levels and products were generally much cheaper than now and there were much more people working in areas like where I volunteer time, we would not need ANY of this taxpayer-funded bullshit.

139

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I disagree entirely with DB. Without turning this into a political thread, I’m just going to say that when you cut all things like that, you end up with a massive disparity in wealth, starving old people, and a very, very angry lower class that WILL eventually rise up and kill you.

Some people act like we’ve arrived where we are overnight- forgetting that they’ve never lived through the depression, where the threat of communist overthrow was real and the circulation of Marxist ideals was prevalent.

America has it’s problems, and its loopholes that fat pieces of shit like that broad exploit- but in the end, we have things set up pretty well, and nothing is unfixable.

DB- you sound like a typical libertarian. Tis a shame.[/quote]

Also, you speak of a “massive disparity” in wealth. I beg to differ. If anything, your way of thinking creates a wider disparity. Why? Simple.

When you have all of these taxes like SS, Medicare, worker’s comp, etc tacked onto your paycheck, you get taxed twice, resulting in a loss of income. When your employer hires you he says “Shit, I have to pay into healthcare? BOOM, 12% of your wages, gone. SS? BOOM, 6%, gone. Workers comp? BOOM, 5%, gone.” You get the point. But the large companies, whose CEO’s are making top dollar and taking advantage of tax shelters and so forth, still make the same profit per unit while you suffer.

The disparity will always be there, and that’s reality. It will never go away completely and govt’s role has NEVER been to make it shrink. But I do believe that the plan I laid out for OctoberGirl WILL lead to a shrinking of that income discrepancy. You see, what you basically want is to make sure that those who are deserving get disability or can at least find some form of work, however small, that allows them to remain solvent, right? And you feel that these social programs, if remedied to remove the undeserving like this fat ass, would do the job, right?

Well, they won’t. So how do you allow the deserving to earn? Simple. You create an environment where wages rise and jobs increase. How do you do this? Cut everything I’ve mentioned, and for reasons I have spent about 12,500 words explaining. Of course, the remedies are manifold. I agree that many of these tax shelters and many bullshit 501((c)(3)'s that escape taxes entirely need to be eliminated. If we’re going to lower taxes across the board and create an environment where EVERYONE can potentially benefit, we should at least tax everyone at that lower rate without providing tax shelters.

UNLESS…you do something for society as I mentioned earlier where there is some sort of product created, in purely economic terms, for the payment you receive from the govt in the form of a tax break for performing said charity/volunteer work. Perhaps if a private company wants to set up as a 501(c)(3) so they can provide food or shelter or job training services or free healthcare, they should be tax exempt. But that’s it. What’s so bad about that?

140

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I disagree entirely with DB. Without turning this into a political thread, I’m just going to say that when you cut all things like that, you end up with a massive disparity in wealth, starving old people, and a very, very angry lower class that WILL eventually rise up and kill you.

Some people act like we’ve arrived where we are overnight- forgetting that they’ve never lived through the depression, where the threat of communist overthrow was real and the circulation of Marxist ideals was prevalent.

America has it’s problems, and its loopholes that fat pieces of shit like that broad exploit- but in the end, we have things set up pretty well, and nothing is unfixable.

DB- you sound like a typical libertarian. Tis a shame.[/quote]

It is indeed, specifically that liberty is only seen as a nuisance and only used pejoratively, except of course when it is invoked to deprive people of it even further.