|
Post by Kliquid on Jul 26, 2011 18:10:49 GMT -5
For some unknown reason you cannot see that people are not always able to do things they want with money. Maybe the parents can't afford the health insurance for their kid. Not always their fault if they can't afford it but for some reason it's always their fault in your eyes. Explain to me why it would NOT be their fault. And by that, I mean why it wouldn't be their fault for a large population of people. Not some isolated case that is a fraction of one percent of the people on Social Security. We need socialized medicine in this country for when insurance companies refuse to cover people. By doing that, you're forcing a doctor to work for less money than he would otherwise be getting. If AIDS medicine wasn't so high then maybe the guy wouldn't need insurance or the other guy's premium wouldn't go up. That's on the companies for making the medicines cost so much. If the cost of medicine were lowered then it'd be a whole new ball game. Exactly. So join the good fight and look into what is actually causing medication costs to rise. You didn't say everyone abuses it, you just put your argument the way that those are the only ones on social security are the ones that abuse it or the extremely disabled. You make it seem it's one or the other. In my opinion, the only people who need it are the extremely disabled. So yeah, that assessment is pretty much correct. If you're not disabled, then why the are you on Social Security? Just because one has a mental disability does not mean they are not intelligent. They don't have to manage their money. They could live alone and have someone else manage their money. A sibiling or a friend. Unfortunately, under the current laws, there are a lot of people who are mentally disabled enough to get money, but they *think* that they are fine to take care of the money. Explain to me how someone is able to live on their own, but not able to work. My understanding is you are supposed to pay into Social Security for yourself. You pay X amount each check towards it. Yes, it's supposed to be there for you but I know that doesn't mean it will be. But you put that money in for yourself to have when you reach that age. I know they don't have accounts for each person so you put in $600 and it goes to Kliquid's Social Security fund but you pay into it so that you can get something out of it. I'm saying you aren't paying $600 for Joe B, I'm saying you are paying $600 so that you can get money when you reach SS age. And that part needs to be fixed so you do get something out of it. Well all $600 is supposed to go to me, then, I guess? But god knows it won't. So what's the point in even having that discussion? The point is that it's an out of control amount for me to have to pay for other people when I know I'm going to have to fend for myself. Bill Gates is a billionaire. Why aren't you a billionaire? Because I didn't bust my ass and invent Windows, I guess? It's wrong, very wrong to be sitting there and purposely not working because others will pay for you. That needs to change. But we cannot fault those who are in dire straits and who are unemployed through no fault of their own and tell them better luck next time. Find another job... The thing is, if your job was important to begin with, then it will be replaced by something else. If it wasn't important, then you shouldn't have been doing it. Again, personal responsibility. Free market. What I see from you is if someone is doing bad financially you want to put 100% of the blame on them. You don't want to see any outside factors blamed. You think some how they can control every outside factor there is and that's not possible. In about 95% of cases, I'd agree with that assessment. People should be responsible for themselves.
|
|
AONI
Superstar
Joined on: Jul 8, 2008 22:10:17 GMT -5
Posts: 563
|
Post by AONI on Jul 26, 2011 18:21:57 GMT -5
In about 95% of cases, I'd agree with that assessment. People should be responsible for themselves. not everyones responsibilities begin and end with themselves. parents are responsible for children, brother is responsible for sister, etc. a lot of the poorest people I see every day (outside of the homeless) wouldnt be struggling so bad if the only person they had to feed and clothe were themselves. im not saying that these people deserve your money or anyone elses, only that this issue is not as individually based as some make it out to be.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Jul 26, 2011 18:26:42 GMT -5
not everyones responsibilities begin and end with themselves. parents are responsible for children, brother is responsible for sister, etc. a lot of the poorest people I see every day (outside of the homeless) wouldnt be struggling so bad if the only person they had to feed and clothe were themselves. im not saying that these people deserve your money or anyone elses, only that this issue is not as individually based as some make it out to be. No one is forcing anyone to have kids, though. If you have a kid, it's a conscious decision to provide for that child. "If I didn't get to your girlfriend, I don't want to pay for your damn kid."
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Jul 26, 2011 18:37:40 GMT -5
CNN Money reports that 50% of people either could not put their mitts on $2k inside of 30 days or would probably not be able to do it. Only 25% of people would be able to get $2k inside of 30 days without any problems.
|
|
|
Post by KMIS™ on Jul 26, 2011 18:39:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jul 26, 2011 18:44:54 GMT -5
You really have no idea how people could be in financial ruin through no fault of their own? The people on it, for the most part, have worked and put money into Social Security. That's why they can be on it. How can one live alone but not work? Severe agorophobia for one example. But you should be like Bill Gates. If Bill Gates can become a billionaire, so can you. If you think the poor can be like you then why don't you work to be like Bill Gates? Who gets to deem what jobs are or are not important? I am just dumb founded by the stupidity of that statement that if someone lost their job and they couldn't find another one like it then it wasn't an important job. A teacher loses her job and can't find another teaching job. Guess teaching's not that important. See, that's stupid just like your statement. the free market then.
|
|
AONI
Superstar
Joined on: Jul 8, 2008 22:10:17 GMT -5
Posts: 563
|
Post by AONI on Jul 26, 2011 18:45:15 GMT -5
not everyones responsibilities begin and end with themselves. parents are responsible for children, brother is responsible for sister, etc. a lot of the poorest people I see every day (outside of the homeless) wouldnt be struggling so bad if the only person they had to feed and clothe were themselves. im not saying that these people deserve your money or anyone elses, only that this issue is not as individually based as some make it out to be. No one is forcing anyone to have kids, though. If you have a kid, it's a conscious decision to provide for that child. "If I didn't get to your girlfriend, I don't want to pay for your damn kid." clearly. but this argument has been focused on the effects these cuts & taxes would have on the individual. to a larger extent, those decisions then effect the family of that individual. and when you take into account each individual and their families, you have a community of people at the mercy of these decisions that were made to target the individual. you can argue about individual liberty all you want, but effecting the community around that individual is inescapable.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Jul 26, 2011 19:01:22 GMT -5
You really have no idea how people could be in financial ruin through no fault of their own? The people on it, for the most part, have worked and put money into Social Security. That's why they can be on it. You're ignoring the fact that we CANNOT afford it. As the number of retired workers increase the system is going to be even more ed up than it is. The system is not sustainable at present. It isn't. As more workers enter the system, it's only going to get worse. Honestly, I'm lazy. Not gonna lie. Also, it's Carlos Ruiz' fault.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Jul 26, 2011 19:14:01 GMT -5
You really have no idea how people could be in financial ruin through no fault of their own? You still haven't given an example. The people on it, for the most part, have worked and put money into Social Security. That's why they can be on it. I've worked and put money into it, too. My parents have, as well. None of us will see a dime. Why? Because it's ing bankrupt already! How can one live alone but not work? Severe agorophobia for one example. So, an absurdly rare condition is your big explanation? Not to mention, people CAN work from their home... I do it, in fact. But you should be like Bill Gates. If Bill Gates can become a billionaire, so can you. If you think the poor can be like you then why don't you work to be like Bill Gates? Yes, I CAN become a billionaire if I put all of my efforts into it. But I don't think there is enough of a benefit for me to have to work that hard to get something I don't really care that much about. Then again, I also don't expect to be given the things that Bill Gates has for free. So yeah, not similar at all. Who gets to deem what jobs are or are not important? I am just dumb founded by the stupidity of that statement that if someone lost their job and they couldn't find another one like it then it wasn't an important job. Um, the free market dictates it. If there's a market for your job, you will be able to find a position. Come on Slap, this isn't a difficult concept. I'm a web designer right now. Am I under the impression that I'm going to be doing web design for the next 40 years? No. I'm going to have to adapt myself and my skills to be appropriate for the future. If more people do this, they will be better off individually and we will be better off as a country. A teacher loses her job and can't find another teaching job. Guess teaching's not that important. See, that's stupid just like your statement. the free market then. Why do people lose their jobs? - They are bad at the job - There isn't enough of a market for the job - The business isn't good overall But of course, you choose an occupation like a teacher which the government runs, which further proves my point that schools should be more privatized.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jul 26, 2011 19:37:23 GMT -5
I didn't give an example because no matter what I say you'll find a way to blame it on the person. It could be as bizaare as aliens came and took all their money and you'd blame them for not having alien insurance.
I'm just telling you why they can be on it because they worked and paid into it. You and your parents should also be able to be on it when they reach that age. We're arguing should and can't with that and not should and shouldn't.
But you were saying go out in public and work and if they couldn't do that they should be cast away. That's why I said agorophobia.
Why do you make it seem that the poor or even lower middle class are bums? They work hard and do all they can to get by but I guess that's not good enough for you and I don't get why you have this disdain for them.
Getting new skills would probably mean school. So not only do you want them to work and maybe two jobs at that and you want them to go to school so in 45-50 years they can be dying in their hospital bed from all the heart problems we could attribute to working around the clock and the stres, they at least know they won't burden their kids with huge hospital bills.
Today it's mostly the third option of business isn't good (which the second option of not being a market for the job could fall into). Business being bad is no fault at all of the person working so they are screwed. They have a bit saved but that could only last maybe a month or two if they stretched it. Then what do they do at the end of that month or two and they still can't find a job? Now they are broke and ruined through no fault of their own.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Jul 26, 2011 20:03:50 GMT -5
I didn't give an example because no matter what I say you'll find a way to blame it on the person. It could be as bizaare as aliens came and took all their money and you'd blame them for not having alien insurance. Probably because it's true in almost every single case. If aliens came and took someone's money... I'd be willing to make an exception. How's that? I'm just telling you why they can be on it because they worked and paid into it. You and your parents should also be able to be on it when they reach that age. We're arguing should and can't with that and not should and shouldn't. You know my opinion on it. We know the idea is bad. We know Social Security, financially, cannot work. So why are we trying to continue it? Why don't we find another way that takes care of the people who truly CANNOT take care of themselves? But you were saying go out in public and work and if they couldn't do that they should be cast away. That's why I said agorophobia. I didn't say go out in public. I just said work. These people CAN work. Why do you make it seem that the poor or even lower middle class are bums? They work hard and do all they can to get by but I guess that's not good enough for you and I don't get why you have this disdain for them. You keep putting these words in my mouth that are just completely not true. I don't have a disdain for them. But do I feel bad for them? Not really. Not all poor and/or lower-middle class people are poor workers, by any means. Some of them bust their asses for everything that they have. That said, their situation is still, ultimately, their own doing. Working hard and making a lot of money are not necessarily synonymous. Working SMART is more important. The other thing is that maybe people who are in the lower-middle class are content being there. Maybe they don't WANT more. Or maybe they don't REALLY want more. By that, I mean, maybe they don't care enough to really try to better their lives. I am that way to some extent. I don't feel the desire to become a billionaire. But again, I'm not going expect that I am given things that billionaires have worked for. I'm not talking down to anyone. But to act like people are completely victims of their circumstance is just crazy, man. There might be people who have had a ridiculous string of terrible things happen to them, but that's such a minority. The VAST MAJORITY of poor people are NOT victims of circumstance, but rather victims of their own doing. Getting new skills would probably mean school. So not only do you want them to work and maybe two jobs at that and you want them to go to school so in 45-50 years they can be dying in their hospital bed from all the heart problems we could attribute to working around the clock and the stres, they at least know they won't burden their kids with huge hospital bills. LoL, what? I expect people to have foresight. It doesn't take a genius to realize that there are occupations today that will not be here 10, 20, 40 years from now. Plan for it. Today it's mostly the third option of business isn't good (which the second option of not being a market for the job could fall into). Business being bad is no fault at all of the person working so they are screwed. They have a bit saved but that could only last maybe a month or two if they stretched it. Then what do they do at the end of that month or two and they still can't find a job? Now they are broke and ruined through no fault of their own. A business being bad would mean that another, better business will rise up in its place. This is a principle of the free market. Thus, there would be a new job created. If a person loses their job, they get unemployment for something like 39 weeks (someone give me the exact number if they remember). If you have a desirable skill, you will be able to find a job.
|
|
Gnewt32
Mid-Carder
My display name is my XBL Gamertag
Joined on: Oct 17, 2007 18:56:12 GMT -5
Posts: 177
|
Post by Gnewt32 on Jul 26, 2011 20:20:00 GMT -5
The people can work, but choose not to because they know they're gonna get money anyways. Which is why I don't support welfare!
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Jul 26, 2011 20:34:31 GMT -5
I'm just telling you why they can be on it because they worked and paid into it. You and your parents should also be able to be on it when they reach that age. We're arguing should and can't with that and not should and shouldn't. What about the fact that we CANNOT AFFORD IT? We literally DO NOT have the money. We don't have the money to fund the program as it is. Right now, at this second, we do not have the money to fund Social Security. The problem is going to get worse as time goes on. We need to put our foot down and say, that if you're not 45 or older, you're not getting Social Security. That's painful though. It forces younger people to actually take responsibility for their own retirements.
|
|
Revvie®
Main Eventer
Somewhere between Reality, and the Absurd
Joined on: Jun 29, 2005 1:04:26 GMT -5
Posts: 4,327
|
Post by Revvie® on Jul 26, 2011 21:34:04 GMT -5
I find it ridiculous that people are actually arguing against whats slappy is saying.
My father was sick his entire life, worked his entire life because ss would not say he was handicapped. Took him till he was 47 and dying due to overworking prexisting problems. Awesome...it was obviously his fault for not planning his life out at age 23 when it all started, it was his fault for working to provide his family because they would only continously deny him until a doctor told him no more and still had to wait five years. So yea...he should lose it...makes perfect sense to me....ridiculous....is all im going to say.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Jul 26, 2011 21:51:35 GMT -5
I find it ridiculous that people are actually arguing against whats slappy is saying. My father was sick his entire life, worked his entire life because ss would not say he was handicapped. Took him till he was 47 and dying due to overworking prexisting problems. Awesome...it was obviously his fault for not planning his life out at age 23 when it all started, it was his fault for working to provide his family because they would only continously deny him until a doctor told him no more and still had to wait five years. So yea...he should lose it...makes perfect sense to me....ridiculous....is all im going to say. 1. He could have had health insurance to pay for his medical expenses. You didn't say whether he did or didn't, but I'm going to presume he did. If not, then yes, it was partially his fault. 2. Clearly this is a case where social security did NOT work... Which is exactly what we've been saying... 3. You don't have to do hard, manual labor to be "working."
|
|
Revvie®
Main Eventer
Somewhere between Reality, and the Absurd
Joined on: Jun 29, 2005 1:04:26 GMT -5
Posts: 4,327
|
Post by Revvie® on Jul 27, 2011 7:03:50 GMT -5
I find it ridiculous that people are actually arguing against whats slappy is saying. My father was sick his entire life, worked his entire life because ss would not say he was handicapped. Took him till he was 47 and dying due to overworking prexisting problems. Awesome...it was obviously his fault for not planning his life out at age 23 when it all started, it was his fault for working to provide his family because they would only continously deny him until a doctor told him no more and still had to wait five years. So yea...he should lose it...makes perfect sense to me....ridiculous....is all im going to say. 1. He could have had health insurance to pay for his medical expenses. You didn't say whether he did or didn't, but I'm going to presume he did. If not, then yes, it was partially his fault. 2. Clearly this is a case where social security did NOT work... Which is exactly what we've been saying... 3. You don't have to do hard, manual labor to be "working." your right you dont, you just have to make enough to support a family...which unless your just PERFECT throughout life, sometimes manual labor becomes the way to do that.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Jul 27, 2011 9:28:52 GMT -5
They should'nt have to pay for it via insurance. It should be free to all citizens. It is a fundamental human right in the 21st Century. No, it isn't. You have a right to YOUR life and YOUR liberty. If I become a doctor and am told, "You must work on this person for free (or at a discounted rate dictated to me by the government," I am no longer in control of my own life. This is not liberty. Now SHOULD a doctor work on someone? I think so, but it shouldn't be required. More than half of Americans do not support it. www.cnsnews.com/node/63516Because if we hadn't had a stimulus unemployment would be much higher. Also, its not growing higher every day. According to what? You're just fictionally making that assumption. There is absolutely no proof whatsoever that the stimulus packages affected the United States in any positive way. I think that you havwe a right to free healthcare aswell. The doctor being paid less had the liberty to choose whether to become a doctor, and he also has the choice whether to go private or not. According to basic economic sensse - there isn't proof Global Warming is affecting the Ozone Layer, but you'd be an idiot not to believe it.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Jul 27, 2011 11:16:34 GMT -5
No, it isn't. You have a right to YOUR life and YOUR liberty. If I become a doctor and am told, "You must work on this person for free (or at a discounted rate dictated to me by the government," I am no longer in control of my own life. This is not liberty. Now SHOULD a doctor work on someone? I think so, but it shouldn't be required. More than half of Americans do not support it. www.cnsnews.com/node/63516According to what? You're just fictionally making that assumption. There is absolutely no proof whatsoever that the stimulus packages affected the United States in any positive way. I think that you havwe a right to free healthcare aswell. The doctor being paid less had the liberty to choose whether to become a doctor, and he also has the choice whether to go private or not. According to basic economic sensse - there isn't proof Global Warming is affecting the Ozone Layer, but you'd be an idiot not to believe it. I've not met a doctor around here who is thrilled about Obamacare because it's going to seriously impact their bottom line. They will end up being required to treat people for very little profit who they normally would not have to treat. Personally I think we need to look at why healthcare is so expensive. Cut the costs of healthcare, then let people buy it or not. If they don't, they're SOL.
|
|
Gnewt32
Mid-Carder
My display name is my XBL Gamertag
Joined on: Oct 17, 2007 18:56:12 GMT -5
Posts: 177
|
Post by Gnewt32 on Jul 27, 2011 14:19:51 GMT -5
Global Warming is a myth, nuff said!
|
|
|
Post by Halloween King on Jul 27, 2011 14:52:40 GMT -5
Honestly, if you depend on Social Security as your sole source of income, you've been screwed for a while. It's a huge government Ponzi scheme. Sadly, lots of people have made poor decisions over the course of their lives and now do depend on the checks. Honestly, I really think this is pure fear mongering on Obama's part. I dont agree with what I marked in bold. Many people have not made poor decisions. I feel the people who depend on those checks are people who have not had much of a choice. I know a number of people who worked there whole life, and have nothing to show for it. By you saying the people who depend on those checks you are implying that those people had money/fortune to begin with. And that through poor decision making they lost what ever they had.
|
|