Trapped inside the crash of 2011

[aslan]

Originally Posted by QFIT

Then you are advocating gov't health care, which the gov't cannot afford.

The enacted health plan takes the casino game out of health care. No longer could a parent legally decide to blow his money on the slots instead of buying health insurance for his kids.

I advocate the government to provide a safety net for the very poor who cannot afford the basics of life, food, shelter, clothing, medicine and who are not able to work their way out of poverty. Lazy people can starve for all I care, but truly needy people are a responsibility, morally speaking, of all of us. I advocate the same for Social Security. It should only be provided as a safety net for the very poor. Everyone who can afford the basics of life should fend for themselves. Of course, now they've incorporated SS into the very fabric of our society so that even in pension plans it is considered an adjunct. This should never have come to be.

It's how far one pushes the envelope that bothers me. I don't need SS, but I get a small check each month. There are millions like me. Maybe I should have only gotten back only my original investment, which wasn't much, plus the time value of money; or maybe it should be considered my contribution to the genuinely needy. Still, I would prefer my money go to private organizations of my choosing to help the poor, not the government. Maybe a voucher system would work.

I also want to make clear that I advocate for government as much as possible at the local and state levels, not the Federal level. The Federal government could FUAWD. It is too far removed from the individual and his community. It is too prone to bureaucratic red tape, corruption and idiocy. It is not too big too fail, it is too big to work.

The care for abused children should always be a high priority of us as individuals, whether acting alone, or through religious organizations, private organizations/foundations, or government. Delinquent parents should pay a price for willful neglect, however that is defined.

[aslan]

Originally Posted by shadroch

Keep posting posts full of untruths and what is a person supposed to assume?

Moral authorities have spoken to your quandary. Saint Augustine wrote: "For not every one who says a false thing lies, if he believes or opines that to be true which he says." http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1312.htm De mendacio, paragraph 3, sentence 2.

[zengrifter]

Question about so-called "health care" >>

If there is no acceptable HOLISTIC healthcare alternative, than its only "disease care" - that is why the entire debate about health care is skewed. The standard health care systems in US are crap-garbage-sh*t-scams.

What is my question? zg

[aslan]

Originally Posted by zengrifter

Question about so-called "health care" >>

If there is no acceptable HOLISTIC healthcare alternative, than its only "disease care" - that is why the entire debate about health care is skewed. The standard health care systems in US are crap-garbage-sh*t-scams.

What is my question? zg

Which would make the debate over whether the government should run our crap-garbage-sh*t-scam or the private sector. But don't forget, zg, if we ever get our c-g-s-s running properly, it will be important who is running it, so your input is still quite valuable.

[blackriver]

I think a lot of you are missing the point. It may be possible to spend the same money on public health care but have a healthy population than pay to keep an unhealthy population alive but unable to function. This will create a healthier workforce. This shouldnt be compared to food stamps and welfare ( which I don't like either) but to education and making sure at risk youth have opportunities. Its probably cheaper to invest early than to clean up the mess later. Not to mention more humane and creates assets rather than liabilities

[blackriver]

And I'm pretty sure no one smokes our over eats because the government will get stuck with their cancer and heart disease treatment costs. But more that the gov has even more at stake in the population adopting healthy habits it will come up as a factor when they vote on continuing tobacco and corn subsides among many other things like gym classes and smoking regulations

[shadroch]

Originally Posted by blackriver

I think a lot of you are missing the point. It may be possible to spend the same money on public health care but have a healthy population than pay to keep an unhealthy population alive but unable to function. This will create a healthier workforce. This shouldnt be compared to food stamps and welfare ( which I don't like either) but to education and making sure at risk youth have opportunities. Its probably cheaper to invest early than to clean up the mess later. Not to mention more humane and creates assets rather than liabilities

Then you get goobers complaing about the gubernmint sticking their noses into things like school lunchs and stopping people from their constitutional right to feed their children Happy Meals. On the one hand, you have people who want to bring child abuse charges against parents that feed their kids a steady diet of fast foods, and on the other you have people fighting for their right to raise obese children.

[blackjack avenger]

Is wrecking the Europeans. What happened to a man standing on his own 2 feet? A man is to weak or dumb to see to his needs? Should a single man feel shame taking from a man with kids?

Citizens can't determine what they want to buy and sell, only the government knows? This worked so well with communism (sarcasm).

Capitalism is the best system man has divised, study economic history & human nature, it becomes clear.

[QFIT]

Originally Posted by blackjack avenger

Is wrecking the Europeans. What happened to a man standing on his own 2 feet? A man is to weak or dumb to see to his needs? Should a single man feel shame taking from a man with kids?

Citizens can't determine what they want to buy and sell, only the government knows? This worked so well with communism (sarcasm).

Capitalism is the best system man has divised, study economic history & human nature, it becomes clear.

Yes, study economic history. Pure capitalism fails miserably. Look at the South American countries in the 60s, or many African nations. Pure socialism also fails miserably. All pure systems fail. That's why the US has had aspects of socialism for nearly a century. That's why Europe has succeeded brilliantly with aspects of socialism, and has surpassed the US in economic success. We must take the best of all theories. Why blind yourself to statistics that show the US has been losing ground in education, longevity, infant mortality, happiness factors, economic strength, and good will for decades?

[Automatic Monkey]

Originally Posted by QFIT

Yes, study economic history. Pure capitalism fails miserably. Look at the South American countries in the 60s, or many African nations. Pure socialism also fails miserably. All pure systems fail. That's why the US has had aspects of socialism for nearly a century. That's why Europe has succeeded brilliantly with aspects of socialism, and has surpassed the US in economic success. We must take the best of all theories. Why blind yourself to statistics that show the US has been losing ground in education, longevity, infant mortality, happiness factors, economic strength, and good will for decades?

Capitalism is almost a pejorative term, not typically used by anyone other than proponents of a centrally-planned economy.

How do you feel about free-market economics?