[tsbalr120]

Originally Posted by toolbandfan

Ok... so your argument is the root of people living on welfare is poor education. What's your solution to the education issue that isn't considered welfare?





People talking about her just gives her more of the attention she never should have had. All that **** does is create more people like her that crave attention.

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

replace welfare with workfare

[TheSilentAssassin]

Originally Posted by SevenGold-IV

Conclusive, really? Don't be a *******, you and everyone in this country knows how long term smoking leads to cancer, heart disease, and emphysema.
I don't believe preventable illness should become uninsured, but at risk individuals should pay more to de-incentivize their behavior and not burden others unnecessarily for their poor decisions. Prevention is the key to lowering health care costs in this country.

Couldn't one argue that rock climbing is a cause for increased injury from falling? That injury could be prevented by simply not climbing, so rock climbers should pay more?

What about riding motorcycles? I broke my wrist on my motorcycle recently. Should every motorcycle have to pay increased rates to de-incentivize that behavior, because broken wrists are preventable by not riding a motorcycle.

What about eating fast food? Pay more. Playing video games? Pay more. Not running at least 2 miles a day? Pay more. See the problem?

[mylifefire]

Originally Posted by OhIoCoNtRActKilLa

The problem is not that we spend X amount of dollars on welfare. The problem is that X amount of people are completely content living on welfare..

As long as their is going to be humanity their is going to be poor people. Some take advantage of the system and some seriously need the help. Traditionally the locale religious institution or church took care of their own community's and then the need for state intervention wasn't necessary.I think we should tax the church and non profits and use that money to help fund welfare programs. Churches and non profits who could show they were indeed helping their locale community's would be able to keep their tax exemption. Shifting the responsibility to the locale community adds a layer of accountability that would discourage abuse within the system as welfare would become more scrutinized within the community.

Originally Posted by OhIoCoNtRActKilLa

It doesn't matter how you spend the money, where it goes, or how fast it disappears. It's all irrelevant. The absolute root of the problem is education. Nearly every single problem in this country comes down to education. You make Americans smarter and they won't live on welfare and ask for hand outs.

There is an increasingly large group of people in this country who are extremely ignorant. They breed ignorance and it is a problem, in my opinion.

Their are plenty of well educated people running the country who are completely ignorant of common sense LoL . Depends on what you mean by education.You could poor billions into schools and your still going to have the same kind of populace that we have today.Education in most all country's is focused around teaching people to be good patriotic citizens who don't question authority and who are trained to make great employees .The education system is designed to fit everybody into a preconceived box of what has been determined to be normal behavior."We think you have ADD". Here's a pill. Half the worlds population is under 30. What better way to suck the wealth out of that generation then through student loans and 200 dollar text books. Yes a well educated populace generates more wealth for society and expands the economy.You can get a college education off the Internet for free but that doesn't count.You have to work within the system so you have to go to their "accredited" institutions so you can get a piece of paper that says you kissed As for four years therefor making you worthy of employment and a life of indentured corporate servitude ...

[mylifefire]

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

Couldn't one argue that rock climbing is a cause for increased injury from falling? That injury could be prevented by simply not climbing, so rock climbers should pay more?

What about riding motorcycles? I broke my wrist on my motorcycle recently. Should every motorcycle have to pay increased rates to de-incentivize that behavior, because broken wrists are preventable by not riding a motorcycle.

What about eating fast food? Pay more. Playing video games? Pay more. Not running at least 2 miles a day? Pay more. See the problem?

In Germany we have free dental care and it's required that you keep your teeth up. If you don't and ten years from now you show up with thousands of dollars worth of dental work the state won't cover it because you weren't responsible in having regular check ups. Now the same argument could be used for smoking. If the state doctor tells you to stop smoking because you will develop heart disease and you don't then you will have to pay more of the cost when you end up in the hospital.I"m familiar with the dental laws as I lived their for awhile. Not sure about the smoking scenario I presented but I remember the Germans being real big on preventative care.

[SevenGold-IV]

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

Couldn't one argue that rock climbing is a cause for increased injury from falling? That injury could be prevented by simply not climbing, so rock climbers should pay more?

What about riding motorcycles? I broke my wrist on my motorcycle recently. Should every motorcycle have to pay increased rates to de-incentivize that behavior, because broken wrists are preventable by not riding a motorcycle.

What about eating fast food? Pay more. Playing video games? Pay more. Not running at least 2 miles a day? Pay more. See the problem?

I completely understand the point your making, but your taking it to the extreme. I provided one example about people taking responsibility for smoking. You are presenting the same slippery slope argument that is the crutch of every anti gay marriage argument; "next they'll legalize incest!"

Just curious, health insurance companies are currently starting to give lower rates to patients who don't smoke and aren't overweight. Do you have a problem with that?

[barrel roll]

Originally Posted by SevenGold-IV

I completely understand the point your making, but your taking it to the extreme. I provided one example about people taking responsibility for smoking. You are presenting the same slippery slope argument that is the crutch of every anti gay marriage argument; "next they'll legalize incest!"

Just curious, health insurance companies are currently starting to give lower rates to patients who don't smoke and aren't overweight. Do you have a problem with that?

private company incentive vs government incentive

Government incentive turns into government coercion. Government coercion is always through the barrel of a gun, and the antithesis to liberty.

Originally Posted by mylifefire

As long as their is going to be humanity their is going to be poor people. Some take advantage of the system and some seriously need the help. Traditionally the locale religious institution or church took care of their own community's and then the need for state intervention wasn't necessary.I think we should tax the church and non profits and use that money to help fund welfare programs. Churches and non profits who could show they were indeed helping their locale community's would be able to keep their tax exemption. Shifting the responsibility to the locale community adds a layer of accountability that would discourage abuse within the system as welfare would become more scrutinized within the community.


Their are plenty of well educated people running the country who are completely ignorant of common sense LoL . Depends on what you mean by education.You could poor billions into schools and your still going to have the same kind of populace that we have today.Education in most all country's is focused around teaching people to be good patriotic citizens who don't question authority and who are trained to make great employees .The education system is designed to fit everybody into a preconceived box of what has been determined to be normal behavior."We think you have ADD". Here's a pill. Half the worlds population is under 30. What better way to suck the wealth out of that generation then through student loans and 200 dollar text books. Yes a well educated populace generates more wealth for society and expands the economy.You can get a college education off the Internet for free but that doesn't count.You have to work within the system so you have to go to their "accredited" institutions so you can get a piece of paper that says you kissed As for four years therefor making you worthy of employment and a life of indentured corporate servitude ...

So you propose taking tax exemption status away from non-profits, unless they take care of their locality as seen through the eyes of the government? You don't see the horrible possibilities there, do you?

[TheSilentAssassin]

Originally Posted by SevenGold-IV

I completely understand the point your making, but your taking it to the extreme. I provided one example about people taking responsibility for smoking. You are presenting the same slippery slope argument that is the crutch of every anti gay marriage argument; "next they'll legalize incest!"

Just curious, health insurance companies are currently starting to give lower rates to patients who don't smoke and aren't overweight. Do you have a problem with that?

Not at all (for smoking at least; not sure about overweight). I am however questioning where we draw the line.

[mylifefire]

Originally Posted by barrel roll

private company incentive vs government incentive

Government incentive turns into government coercion. Government coercion is always through the barrel of a gun, and the antithesis to liberty.



So you propose taking tax exemption status away from non-profits, unless they take care of their locality as seen through the eyes of the government? You don't see the horrible possibilities there, do you?

Yes I see the slippery slope.The IRS would have to audit non profits to determine how their money is being spent.It would force more money from non profits to go to where it is suppose to or they would have to pay the state. If you look at the average non profit today they break down to 30/70 meaning only 30% of income donated to them actually goes to whomever they claim to be helping so many are just as inefficient at social distribution as government is with social programs even though they are considered a "private" agency.Rich people also start non profits to shelter their wealth.But I think non profits on a locale level have a better chance of getting the maximum amount of care to the public who needs it with a minimal amount of "waste".In order for my scenario to work it would have to be overseen by locale government and run on a community level.Even on that level abuse would be possible through cronyism or religious bias so its not perfect.The object would be to force localism to work again where community's take care of their own and get away from a federaly run programs.

[SevenGold-IV]

Originally Posted by barrel roll

private company incentive vs government incentive

Government incentive turns into government coercion. Government coercion is always through the barrel of a gun, and the antithesis to liberty.

I completely agree with you, but private companies don't run the welfare programs in our country.

[barrel roll]

Originally Posted by mylifefire

Yes I see the slippery slope.The IRS would have to audit non profits to determine how their money is being spent.It would force more money from non profits to go to where it is suppose to or they would have to pay the state. If you look at the average non profit today they break down to 30/70 meaning only 30% of income donated to them actually goes to whomever they claim to be helping so many are just as inefficient at social distribution as government is with social programs even though they are considered a "private" agency.Rich people also start non profits to shelter their wealth.But I think non profits on a locale level have a better chance of getting the maximum amount of care to the public who needs it with a minimal amount of "waste".In order for my scenario to work it would have to be overseen by locale government and run on a community level.Even on that level abuse would be possible through cronyism or religious bias so its not perfect.The object would be to force localism to work again where community's take care of their own and get away from a federaly run programs.

You missed the part where it would be forcing "localism" through "federalism" which is like trying to make your coffee sweet using salt.

[SevenGold-IV]

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

Not at all (for smoking at least; not sure about overweight). I am however questioning where we draw the line.

The line is very thin, and I share your concern. My understanding of the incentive discount program is that it's ok to be somewhat overweight but not obese. Obesity is what kills your joints and puts you at risk for diabetes etc.

[mylifefire]

Originally Posted by barrel roll

You missed the part where it would be forcing "localism" through "federalism" which is like trying to make your coffee sweet using salt.

Federalism is the driving force behind our present government so within that context my reply is the only logical way to force localism to work again even though that sounds like a contradiction. Under the threat of taxation more funds would be directed at the poor.I'd rather live in a country grounded in Jeffersonian ideals rather then Hamilton's principles but we don't.Until state rights are restored and people and locale communitys are the basis for bottom up power were stuck with how things are.