BF2S Forums I read yesterday that Bush was looking to reverse Roe vs. Wade

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

SSI is only in trouble because we continue to allow the government to borrow money from SSI for other uses.  If you were to become disabled right now, you would qualify for some level of support from SSI.  If we stop allowing the government to use SSI money for anything but SSI, you will see it when you retire.  Also, the maximum amount of income which is subject to SSI taxes has not been changed in a very long time.  It's about time they raised it from the current $87K to something more along the lines of $110K.

Under your proposal, would those making 110K per year receive SS when they hit the age eligible?

Yes they would.  Anyone that contributes through tax witholding should be able to receive money from that service.  My point was simply that once a persons anual income exceeds $87K they no longer have SSI taxes taken from their paycheck.  Given that this $87K threshold has not been changed for many years, it needs to be raised.

FeloniousMonk wrote:

The system doesn't work because it's government run. Put it in the hands of private organizations that need to retain efficiency or suffer closure and you'll have much better results. Nearly anything the government does is handled better by private entities. The government has little incentive to do good work because they won't have to worry about losing contracts or going bankrupt.

Is the red cross private?

Losati wrote:

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

All welfare recipients should be sterilized. 

Save a kid from poverty... abort it.

LOL, I hope that is a joke.

Also,I don't think Fellonious would want to pay for either of those.

not at all

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Is the red cross private?

certainly

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Cross

According to Swiss law, the ICRC is defined as a private association.

All payments to the ICRC are voluntary and are received as donations based on two types of appeals issued by the Committee: an annual Headquarters Appeal to cover its internal costs and Emergency Appeals for its individual missions.

Last edited by FeloniousMonk (2006-01-27 12:51:40)

FeloniousMonk wrote:

She shouldn't have the kids in the first place if she can't afford them. Even if she only had two kids it's still her responsibility to feed them, not mine. I had nothing to do with the birth of her children and thus I should have zero financial responsibility. If they end up on the streets or in jail it's her fault. If I choose to donate to a charity that would help feed those children, as I would certainly do if the welfare system didn't exist, then that's my choice because it's my money. But my hard work should never be taken from me because someone else is unable or unwilling to work.

Let them starve?  For their mother's mistakes?  Heartless, is all I can say.  And the crime does affect you, me, and everyone else in this country, whether you like it or not.   Which means, from a financial standpoint, you will end up paying for it, one way or another.

FeloniousMonk wrote:

I'd prefer it if all charity was truly charity. Private, non-profit, regulated organizations accepting donations (which would count dollar for dollar in personal tax breaks for those donating) and using that to support people who don't support themselves. But it should always be a choice, a willing donation.

They wouldn't be able to handle the need.  Not to mention the fact that they could dissappear without warning. Also, you have problems like what happened after the tsunami:  Public interest/visibility.  After the tsunami, the red cross and other organizations had problems getting donations for other causes because everyone had exhausted the disposable income they wanted to give to charities for tsunami relief.  Having a dedicated, and (relatively) set budget for such things as welfare has its advantages.

FeloniousMonk wrote:

Your girlfiend qualified yet has a job. Does that not seem wrong to you?

Nope.  People in even a slightly worse situation than my girlfriend should get food stamps.  But with me here, we have enough for both.  Apart, she wouldn't have enough for her.  (Well, perhaps this year she'll be good enough, but that's beside the point.)

FeloniousMonk wrote:

Good for your friend for devoting his/her time to a good cause but that still doesn't mean that I should have to pay for their meals unless I choose to. In fact I'd be very happy to do so in order to show my appreciation for their sacrifice but it should be a willing contribution, not a forced deduction.

See the point two points above this one.

FeloniousMonk wrote:

But how many people do sit at home all day being lazy and collecting welfare checks when they're supposed to be working? The system doesn't work because it's government run. Put it in the hands of private organizations that need to retain efficiency or suffer closure and you'll have much better results. Nearly anything the government does is handled better by private entities. The government has little incentive to do good work because they won't have to worry about losing contracts or going bankrupt.

I don't know how many, do you?  And as for 'efficiency':  That is no god to worship.  Efficiency would, in effect, mean you drop people who aren't worth the effort.  And when you start makin' decisions like that, people get fucked.  And not just fucked in the sense that some small percentage of tax that you pay is lost in wasteful spending.  This is fucked as in "life-and-death" fucked.  And that is no way to handle the goal of welfare.

Note: gotta not edit this much as I want as the boss is comin' around soon.  So I apologize it's not as polished as it should be.

FeloniousMonk where are you from?

Very wrong. SSI is in trouble because when it was started you had multiple people supporting one retiree. These days you have one worker supporting multiple retirees. That is the main reason SSI is in trouble and why I will never see a penny.

Not completely true.  The SSI system used to be a pay as you go program.  This was changed to an advance payment type tax, but the fact of the matter is that SSI had a SURPLUS that the government promised it would never touch...and that lasted all of about 2.3 seconds.

Nope, if I become disabled I don't see a penny from the government because I have an insurance policy that would cover me. Had I not been paying into SSI for years my insurance policy would be even better and I'd have less to worry about. Instead I'd be forced to rely on SSI checks because the money was already taken from me. Had I kept that money I could've made better decisions on its' investment than the government can.

Such as that may be, if you didn't have the policy, you would qualify.  Even with the policy you would still qualify for retirement benefits.

As to the schools...public education is a joke. Private schooling and home schooling should be encouraged to stem the degridation of education in America. Federal money for schools has been slowly lowering the quality of education, not improving it.

Irrelevant.  The slumping public school system has nothing to with the idea behind the reason for doing it.  Not everyone has the income to afford private schools, and home schooling has its own problems.  It's been shown that home schooled children tend to have poorer social skills because of their lack of interaction with their peers.

Yes it is. Eliminate welfare and allow private charities to take care of those who don't take care of themselves.

No, no it's not the answer.  You erroniously assume that everyone receiving welfare is unwilling to do for themselves, and that is not the case.  Yes, there are those cases, but that is not the majority of those receiving assistance.  You also seem to think that tax-exempt private charities don't have their own set of corruption problems.  Ever bother to look at who got payments from the 9/11 fund?  They have found numerous cases where businesses and individuals were able to skirt the system and get payments from this, even though they were in no way affected.  What's to say that private charities could handle the load?

It's sad that there seem to be so many people like you.  You always look at the faults and extreme cases as being the standard of the way a program works.  If you get your wish, I would hope that just once in your life you find yourself, through no fault of your own, unable to find a job, or find one making what you did.  You've burned through any savings/investments that you owned, sold your home, and crammed your family into the cheapest shithole you could find, then wonder whether you should pay the electric bill, gas bill, or buy food, and thend have some one tell you that you're not worth helping because your a lazy fuck that won't take care of yourself.

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

and home schooling has its own problems.  It's been shown that home schooled children tend to have poorer social skills because of their lack of interaction with their peers.

How is that a problem?   If you think lack of social skills is a problem then you need to reevaluate you thought process.  How old are you agent?

I'm 37, and lack of social skills is a problem.  The inability to learn how to cope/adapt to different personalties often carries over to the work place, and can hinder ones ability to get ahead in their career.  I don't know where you're from, but where I'm from you wouldn't keep a job for a week without at least some level of social skills.

Quite honestly, I'm dumbfounded by your comment.  We live in a society with people from different religious, ethnic, socioeconomic, political idea, etc. backgrounds, and you see no reason for people to have social skills?  Of all the arguments I've seen made in this thread, that is hands down the most retarded comment I've seen. 

Last edited by Agent_Dung_Bomb (2006-01-27 14:09:14)

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

Such as that may be, if you didn't have the policy, you would qualify.  Even with the policy you would still qualify for retirement benefits.

I don't want to qualify because the same amount of money going into SSI would serve me better in a private investment, both as security against a disabling situation and retirement.

Irrelevant.  The slumping public school system has nothing to with the idea behind the reason for doing it.  Not everyone has the income to afford private schools, and home schooling has its own problems.  It's been shown that home schooled children tend to have poorer social skills because of their lack of interaction with their peers.

Untrue. Home schooled children are equally as sociable as kids in public school because the majority of home schooling parents have their children interact in other forms. They still enroll them in sports and other such activities that kids participate in out of school, they still play with their friends in their neighborhoods, and home schooled kids are able to interact with kids of other ages instead of being forced to stick with kids their own ages. If anything home schooled kids have more opportunities to learn social lessons because they're not restricted to the same groups of people of the same age all the time. What they experience is far closer to real life than kids in public schools.

Private schools are not affordable to everyone but they would certainly be affordable to the majority of families in the country if so much tax money wasn't going toward a wasteful public school system. Unless you live below the poverty level you can afford to send a child to private school with the tax breaks provided. The cost is damn near identical.

Besides, private schooling and home schooling have been shown, time after time, to provide better education. Home schooled kids on average do far better on all standardized tests at all levels of primary education.

No, no it's not the answer.  You erroniously assume that everyone receiving welfare is unwilling to do for themselves, and that is not the case.  Yes, there are those cases, but that is not the majority of those receiving assistance.  You also seem to think that tax-exempt private charities don't have their own set of corruption problems.  Ever bother to look at who got payments from the 9/11 fund?  They have found numerous cases where businesses and individuals were able to skirt the system and get payments from this, even though they were in no way affected.  What's to say that private charities could handle the load?

Those private charities that have shown to be in violation of their duties ought to be shut down and the people responsible tossed in prison. The bottom line remains that MY money is mine. I worked for it. I busted my ass to earn my paycheck and the only things that I should ever have to put my money toward are things that I benefit from.

It's sad that there seem to be so many people like you.  You always look at the faults and extreme cases as being the standard of the way a program works.  If you get your wish, I would hope that just once in your life you find yourself, through no fault of your own, unable to find a job, or find one making what you did.  You've burned through any savings/investments that you owned, sold your home, and crammed your family into the cheapest shithole you could find, then wonder whether you should pay the electric bill, gas bill, or buy food, and thend have some one tell you that you're not worth helping because your a lazy fuck that won't take care of yourself.

Won't happen. I've been unemployed before and I've seen just how many jobs there are in the world. The unemployment rate in this country is due to laziness, not a lack of jobs. I've been unemployed and living off savings and had a myriad of choices from mopping floors to delivering newspapers. In all cases all I had to do was be willing to work. Simple as that.

I also plan ahead. I was taught from a very young age to prepare for the worst and as it stands if I lost my job I could survive for months on savings. I don't really make that much money, I don't have much disposable income. But I know how to prioritize and plan. The fact that others don't is not my fault.

Sorry but your situation can't happen to me. I know how to work. I've done office work and manual labor and when the shit truly hits the fan I'm willing to take just about any job to survive. I've performed some really nasty jobs in a pinch but the important thing is that I have always and will always support myself. I have never relied on government assistance for anything. I've taken no student loans, no SSI benefits, no welfare checks, nothing. All this despite the fact that at 17 I was living by myself while enrolled full time in school and started out with quite literally nothing to my name but the clothes on my back.

It's sad that there seem to be so many people like you.

You mean people that know what it's like to start with nothing and then earn their way to financial stability?

Losati wrote:

Half? Please.  The tax money that you pay that goes to welfare is much, much less than half your total income.

I realize that, I was saying that if you want to give half, a quarter, 10%, or 90% - whatever amount you wish - then it should be your choice. The same goes for me; be it half or half of a percent, I am the only one that should ever be allowed to decide where the money that I worked for goes.

A) There would not be enough money donated.  People would make the choice and the choice would be "No, thanks."  Do you think that if you had, say, 5-10% of your current tax given back to you that you'd turn around and donate that much to charity? Or even half of it?  And what do you think about other people? What would they do?

And that's not my problem. If the welfare system was eliminated I would be very willing to give to charity. I've done so many, many times in the past and the charities I've given to would have recieved more if I hadn't already been forced to give money to the welfare system.

What other people do is not my responsibility. What I do is. This is my problem with society; people aren't willing to take responsibility for their own actions. Instead those of us who work harder are required to pick up the slack.

B) I truly don't think they'd be able to handle the full need of the people who would need help.  The infrastructure within the government is already there in many ways.  Such as SSNs, income tax reports, etc etc.  That sort of structure would have to be created for these charities to do the work.  And managed after that.  And there's no way that could be handled by volunteers.  Which means what?  That's right:  $$$

Charities already have the infrastructure necessary to do these kinds of things. What do SSNs and income tax reports have to do with this? There doesn't need to be a national register of donations; last year I donated a car to Kars4Kids. I gave them the car and the title and recieved a form (forgot the designation) to file with my taxes. I get the deduction. Simple as that. No additional "infrastructure" needs to be created.

Her case is pretty moot, because we live together.  But finding a "second" job is not necessarily an option for all people.  Or a new job.  There could be children to raise, relatives to take care of, etc (and let's not talk about how they "shouldn't have had them".  The kids exist, we can't go back and time and slip a condom on the dude.  It's a done deal.)  And there is no way, and I mean no way, that everyone in this country could have a job, or even two jobs, that could sufficiently fund their needs.  It's just impossible.  It's endemic to our capitalist way of life.

Untrue. There are enough jobs for every able bodied man and woman in this country. When people are willing to work jobs are created. There are always things to do, things to build, things to invent, things to store, things to transport, etc etc. There is no shortage of jobs, only a shortage of people who are willing to do the shitty jobs.

I know what you meant.  But there would be a definite problem with people getting "dropped from the roles" of such if private charity handled the situation; people who truly needed the help.

Really? Are people currently "dropped from the roles"? For what reason? How often?

You know, I see two issues here:

1) What is the best way to ensure that money given to the poor actually helps the poor.

Put as few people as possible in the chain of custody. Having something in control of a government goes against that very concept.

2) Should I (Losati) have to give money to help someone else out.

Nope. If you choose to do so that's very admirable. But no one should ever have to.

As to the first:  Hey, that's totally open to debate and study.  And when all is said and done, there might be a "best" strategy.  Who knows?.  IMO, the government handling the situation makes the biggest positive impact, though it has definite flaws. (Kinda like democracy is the worst form of government, except for everything else).

As to the latter issue, that one to me is no debate (and I think you agree with me on that). 

My dad always used to tell me (and still does, unfortunately) "First things first."  Well what comes first?  Me buying myself a plasma TV or 7800GT (i'm an nVidia guy )?  Or ensuring that the least of us can have what they need?  And I know that my feeling that my personal obligation should be everyone's obligation sounds somewhat tyrannical (and socialist!).  But I think this way we, collectively, can put together enough support to make a larger difference than if we make such a thing a choice.  And, very importantly, at a lot cheaper of an individual contribution.

That's fine but if I decide that buying a 7800GTX (if you're gonna go, go all out ) is more important to me than helping someone out, why is that anyone else's business. On multiple occassions I've left restaurants with leftovers that I hand to the first homeless person I see. It's not a lot but it feeds them for a night. Might make a difference, might not. But it's my choice; I could've taken that food home and had some good eatin' the next day but I decided that I'd rather help someone out. On the other hand what if every time you went to a restaurant you were forced to order an additional side of rice to hand to the homeless guy outside?

So am I willing to pay $100 a year to help out the poor?  Yeah.  $500? Sure, man. * And should someone making over twice my income have to pay more?  Hell yeah.

Why? Just because you're willing to do something why should someone else who makes more money have to do the same. Now as far as general taxes not relating to welfare go, I somewhat agree. Overall those who make more should pay more but never a higher percentage. If I pay 20% of 60k in taxes and you pay 20% of
80k in taxes then someone who makes 600k should only have to pay 20% in taxes just as someone who makes 12k should have to pay 20%.

People with more money should not be penalized for making more money.

Is it "fair", economically speaking?  Fuck no.  That fuckin' government is stealin' even more of my money.

But no economic theory, including capitalism, can guarantee that every hard working, motivated individual can succeed.

True but the point of an economy is not to make sure that people can succeed. Success is the responsibility of the individual, not the group. I have no responsibility to make sure you succeed any more than you have the responsibility to make sure that I do.

Yeah man, same to you.  Time for me to jet as well

eh, I wanted to go home but I have to lock up so I'm stuck here for at least half an hour more...and I just bought a cheap logitech headset so I can finally start using teamspeak with my roommate

All in all I think it should be legal..
and mandatory if you vote Liberal or Democratic But...

1 wear a Condom u dum fuk.
2 it was the supreme court who put this forward not the electorate, not the people. Just like    bussing and all the other crap we never wanted or got to vote on.
3 its not " pro choice "  as the kid has little choice.
4 don't make me pay for it with my taxes.
5 If a child gets an abortion the parents should be notified.
6 why cant a man decide he doesn't want his child then? in NYC a Doctor gave his GF an abortion and they charged him with attempted murder, Why? only a woman can kill her kid?

I don't even see why it is a political issue.
It should be a medical issue not a political litmus test.
and clinton jerke'd off after WTC 93.