Ultimate College Softball
Sign up Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 18      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   Next   »
sbmom1812

Registered:
Posts: 3,002
Reply with quote  #31 
Nice Fib.
__________________
Susan
JoiseyGuy

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #32 
LMUFan - I understand (and agree mostly) with your perspective concerning contemporary unions.  They are, however, the only voice of the workers in an ever existing conflict of reward from profit with the owners of the means of production, and we do operate under a capitalistic system.  In many cases they have already served their purpose and are now just self perpetuating organizations, but remove them completely, and we are back in the nineteenth century.     Frank

PS - Even with the existing unions, look at the distribution of profit from upper management to the workers and think perspective from each end. I truly understand your perspective, and why it exists.  There is another.

__________________
"Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges, or beliefs. This state of mind is not common, but it is essential for right thinking. Where it is absent discussion is apt to become worse than useless." Leo Tolstoy

"Do not try to teach pigs to sing. It will frustrate you and infuriate the pigs who will unite in anger against you, and you will never achieve singing your song". Dr. Petersen
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 15,198
Reply with quote  #33 
The issue with unemployment benefits is not that there's abuse in the system.  There's abuse in every system and the politicians have no incentive to tackle those abuses.  The issue is that when you have unending benefits and little motivation on the part of the recipient to end those benefits, you foster a culture of increasing dependency and reduced incentives to get back on one's feet.  For anyone to answer - why do you think food stamp usage and disability payments are at all time highs?  And that is on top of unemployment that remains high and a record low for workforce participation.

Back to the basic problem with liberalism - liberals believe that government programs can right the wrongs of society and conservatives believe it is the right and responsibility of the individual to right themselves.  That is not to say that conservatives believe no government assistance is required - it's just that we believe, under our current government, the problem has gotten way out of hand to the point where there may be no turning back.  There are just too many registered voters partaking of the government trough.

__________________
Will I Wynn is a poster who used to go by the name of Dewey.  He used to criticize people who did that.

"Once you open your eyes, it's impossible to be a Democrat." - CJ Pearson
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,419
Reply with quote  #34 
pabar - First off, I don't think UE is unending.  Secondly, we experienced the worst economic collapse of our lifetime, putting millions out of work and millions more into poverty or near poverty, and the significant demand on our safety net programs should be understandable.  I think we should allow some time for a recovery before we remove these people from these programs, or limit the participation.  Just my opinion.
bluedog

Registered:
Posts: 12,580
Reply with quote  #35 
Quote:
I don't agree the abuse is anywhere near the level you are suggesting.

Dewey, for once, I agree with you......It's worse!!


GrizzlyFan

Registered:
Posts: 2,055
Reply with quote  #36 
Joisey, why do government workers need unions? If the government is so great and fair, always looking out for the little guy, why would they need unions?
And do you not see a conflict of interest with government unions bargaining with government politicians on behalf of government workers? It reminds me of congress voting on giving themselves a raise.
That is why we have unsustainable government pensions and wages breaking the backs of working people. The fox is guarding the hen house.

__________________
If Obamacare is such a good thing, why did he have to lie about it to get it passed?
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 10,417
Reply with quote  #37 
Dewey, I don't believe I ever said "most persons receiving assistance are abusing the system." If that is what you read, I would venture that you may be reading with pre-conceived notions, and so maybe not really absorbing what is actually written. If you truly hope to gain insights, that probably won't prove beneficial.

My focus isn't on small fish but on the ocean of liberal expansion of government dependency, in which UE, welfare etc cast a wide net. The goal isn't just to eliminate waste and fraud, but to prune dependency and reduce and/or even eliminate some programs entirely, and shift the focus to making citizens more self-reliant and capable of making real contributions. In that regard we are, and have been, moving in the wrong direction. Can we agree that America would be much better off if say 80% of those now on welfare were instead contributing to society? Assuming you agree, shouldn't we be shattering the status quo and striving toward creating opportunities for these people to break free of their dependency?

__________________
There are problems in these times, but, oh, none of them are mine.
- Velvet Underground
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,419
Reply with quote  #38 
ForeverInBlue - When I asked you about Grizzly's claim that the majority of those using these programs, I used the smallest majority of 51% since Grizzly didn't specify the number, you said you had no idea leaving open the idea that maybe it truly is a majority.  Now that you are more specific, I'll assume you believe less than 50% are undeserving.  I try very hard not to have pre-conceived notions but I often have little success getting those who post or engage me to clarify their positions.  For example, I was unable to guess if you thought Grizzly was accurate or not and you didn't choose to tell me.  

That aside, your comments take me back to my first post in this thread.  It sounds like you've given great thought as to where you wish we are as a Country.  I think that's great.  Now, rather than condemning Liberalism, spell out the food stamp program, unemployment, and other safety net changes your side would like to make.  Would there be assistance to full time working families who earn less than the poverty level?  What is your response to the millions unemployed, particularly during a recession unlike any we've ever seen before, when there is apparently a shortage of jobs?  What about those children of single mothers?  Take them away, feed them, leave them on their own?  In other words, sell your solutions.  Present and push some ideas.  I just don't see any attempt by the GOP to offer alternative solutions and, from their followers, we simply hear the never-ending moochers, leeches, deadbeats, Obamaphones, etc., etc, comments.  From my perspective, it would seem your side needs to make a case for something rather than against.  But if you do, please start a different thread.
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 10,417
Reply with quote  #39 
Dewey, so you took my statement of " I have no idea what %" and assumed that to mean a majority and then let that assumption inform your reading of my post. That is pre-conceived thinking right there. Why not assume "if he has no idea" then let's work from some middle ground, or even the low end. But no, you went to an extreme. And it misses the point tht the programs themselves are contributing to the problem of dependency.

I suspect the reticence of the GOP on really pushing for solutions is at least twofold. One, nothing will get passed by the Dem Senate or the Obama White House; and two, they will be vilified in the press for their lack of compassion. Sound familiar?

I'm sure if Obama or the Dem Senate proposed a plan that would decrease dependency on the Federal government and reduce entitlement spending, the GOP would be all ears. But lacking any initiative from the Democrats it's not likely we'll get any solutions put forth publicly.

__________________
There are problems in these times, but, oh, none of them are mine.
- Velvet Underground
GrizzlyFan

Registered:
Posts: 2,055
Reply with quote  #40 

Dewey, I would end unemployment benefits after 6 months. If someone still can't find a job, let them apply for welfare. Most people are willing to milk the unemployment benefits but they are too proud to accept welfare. So they would go get a job even if it pays less than the one they lost in the first place.
Before anyone could receive food stamps or any government assistance they would have to be subjected to a drug test.
The problem with liberalism which you refuse to admit is that liberals need and want more people to be dependent on government in order to increase their voter base. That is why liberal politicians are constantly creating new programs.
Liberals judge success by how many people they can get on government assistance.
Conservatives judge success by how many they can get off of government dependency.


__________________
If Obamacare is such a good thing, why did he have to lie about it to get it passed?
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,419
Reply with quote  #41 
ForeverInBlue - Grizzly said the majority of those getting assistance were undeserving.  You implied the minority of those receiving assistance were "truly needy", (I think you said the others far outnumber the truly needy).  Bouncing back and forth from one poster with a more extreme position to another poster, maybe I've misinterpreted how significant you feel the the problem is.  My bad.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,419
Reply with quote  #42 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrizzlyFan

Dewey,
Before anyone could receive food stamps or any government assistance they would have to be subjected to a drug test.
The problem with liberalism which you refuse to admit is that liberals need and want more people to be dependent on government in order to increase their voter base. That is why liberal politicians are constantly creating new programs.



Would you require applicants for small business loans to take drug tests?  It would appear to me you would simply be finding ways to spend even more money.  Secondly, with half the Country on the dole as you like to say, how can the NRA, with four million members carry such weight with our Representatives, as opposed to the little people?  It seems once the GOP lost a couple of elections, there had to be an answer.  Yeah, they bought all the voters off.  Can't be anything else.  Yes, I refuse to admit your misinformation because it's untrue.  However, I thank you for offering up one suggestion and it does confirm something ForeverInBlue said.  If the GOP ran with this proposal, they would take on a lot of heat.

PS:  I think UE has always been limited to 26 weeks but was changed due to the economic collapse and needs of so many out of work folks.
airborne

Registered:
Posts: 188
Reply with quote  #43 
I don't think you should have to take a drug test for a small business loan. See, you are paying that back. Folks receiving stamps & "assistance" are not. I realize both are a form of assistance yet one is taking with no obligation to return the assistance and the other is "if you don't pay we will take your business, house, and anything else we need to, to cover your debt."

So there is a slight difference...

__________________
Some say it is unfair to hold disadvantaged children to rigorous standards. I say it is discrimination to require anything less–-the soft bigotry of low expectations.

George W. Bush
woody

Registered:
Posts: 11,625
Reply with quote  #44 
Dewey, does your workers comp insurance, and company liability insurance require you to drug screen your new employees? Are you required to have a "safety program" in place? If one of your employees is injured on the job, what is the first thing that will occur when they are admitted to an ER? I would submit that blood will be drawn, and if they are found to have illegal substances in their body, not only will coverage for the injury be denied, but you as an employer will be expected to do something else. You can fire the employee for violating the company policy on illegal substances, but if you do, the employee will then claim they have a substance abuse issue, therefore your insurance is obliged to provide substance abuse counseling, and rehabilitation, and you could be sued for terminating that employee. Believe me, I know the procedure. In the construction industry, we are just glad they can pass a basic UI for a new hire. After that, if they get injured on the job, most limp away, and never report an on the job injury. Why should recipients of welfare handouts have any more rights than a person working for a paycheck? Why not at least an initial UI, with random UI's to follow? Employees, both private, and public are subjected to this scrutiny, why should people getting the  handouts from the taxes of the working class be exempt?
__________________
Note to self, never agree to rewire a huge piece of industrial equipment made by former Axis powers that is older than I am. 

Update, I fixed that sucker. 
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,419
Reply with quote  #45 
Quote:
Originally Posted by woody
Dewey, why should people getting the  handouts from the taxes of the working class be exempt?


Here are a few good reasons.
spazsdad

Registered:
Posts: 9,714
Reply with quote  #46 
So the inner city doesn't have a drug problem, that is just our perception since they are just the source for the wealthier people to get their drugs. That has to be one of the best spins yet.
Ever heard of crack? I doubt there are many middle/upper class people driving into the hood to get their $10 hit.
The name of your source is appropriate because that is what the opinion writer is smoking.
woody

Registered:
Posts: 11,625
Reply with quote  #47 
Dewey, what a bunch of crap, from a Liberal Rag. Drug test, and start removing the leaches. Generation after generation in chains on the Democrat plantation.
__________________
Note to self, never agree to rewire a huge piece of industrial equipment made by former Axis powers that is older than I am. 

Update, I fixed that sucker. 
masare

Registered:
Posts: 2,643
Reply with quote  #48 
If you want to understand why conservatism fails to win elections you need to understand that most voters who choose a democratic candidate are not liberals. The term is as outdated as the Republican Party!
GrizzlyFan

Registered:
Posts: 2,055
Reply with quote  #49 
Quote:
Originally Posted by masare
If you want to understand why conservatism fails to win elections you need to understand that most voters who choose a democratic candidate are not liberals. The term is as outdated as the Republican Party!


We already know why liberals win elections. It's because of the ever growing voter base of moochers, leeches, and parasites who will always vote for the freebies.

__________________
If Obamacare is such a good thing, why did he have to lie about it to get it passed?
bluedog

Registered:
Posts: 12,580
Reply with quote  #50 
Masare, your explanation may be true....But, if it is true, then, so is Grizzly's...Actually, Grizzly's is true, regardless!
GrizzlyFan

Registered:
Posts: 2,055
Reply with quote  #51 
Dewey you deny that the goal of democrats is to get more people receiving government handouts.
Let me ask you two questions that prove you are either ignorant of the liberal's agenda which you support or you are being blatantly dishonest.
1) Is the ultimate democrat agenda to have nationalized health insurance?
2) Does nationalized health insurance put more or less people on government dependence?

Also, if you are right that democrats DON"T want more people dependent on government, then would you admit that the democrats have done a terrible job of getting people off of government assistance the last 4 years?
15,000,000 added to welfare
9,000,000 added to disability

Which is it Dewey?

__________________
If Obamacare is such a good thing, why did he have to lie about it to get it passed?
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,419
Reply with quote  #52 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrizzlyFan
Dewey

1) Is the ultimate democrat agenda to have nationalized health insurance?
2) Does nationalized health insurance put more or less people on government dependence?

Also, if you are right that democrats DON"T want more people dependent on government, then would you admit that the democrats have done a terrible job of getting people off of government assistance the last 4 years?
15,000,000 added to welfare
9,000,000 added to disability

Which is it Dewey?


Grizzly - Yes, many Democrats want single payer health insurance but we want to pay into it during our lifetime.  Just like Medicare.  Right now we take advantage of private health insurance but don't consider ourselves dependent on insurance companies.  We are just consumers.

Secondly, I can't think of any reason why folks would want citizens dependent on anyone.  I'm certain those Churches and community centers are offering much needed assistance and are not trying to destroy a person's ability to succeed on their own.  Your analogy, using the worst recession in our lifetime as a critique of President Obama, is as unfair as accusing former President Bush for failing to save the lives of Americans on 9/11.

Now may I ask you one question and get you to answer it as I have yours?  In your signature line, are those folks on SS and Medicare included in the majority you call parasites?  Same with those public workers, (police, firemen, etc.), drawing pensions that they funded through personal pay deductions and negotiated wage agreements?  Are they part of these parasites that have you so upset?  If these people aren't included, how can you be in the minority?  Thanks.
GrizzlyFan

Registered:
Posts: 2,055
Reply with quote  #53 
So Dewey if someone doesn't work and therefore pay into "your" nationalized health care then they are not covered?
If they are then you ARE for creating more government dependents. If they are NOT covered then that is no different than people buying their own insurance. So why have it?

__________________
If Obamacare is such a good thing, why did he have to lie about it to get it passed?
CalRoxMySox44

Registered:
Posts: 3,280
Reply with quote  #54 
This is the stupidest thing I have ever read. Im truly worried if for any second you thought this post sounded the least bit intelligent. You might as well be a racist and post "this is why I hate black people" and it would sound just as ignorant as this thread
__________________
14 World Series appearances
3 WCWS title game appearances
1 NCAA Championship http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Golden_Bears_softball
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 15,198
Reply with quote  #55 

http://reason.com/blog/2012/03/27/how-government-failure-leads-to-more-gov


__________________
Will I Wynn is a poster who used to go by the name of Dewey.  He used to criticize people who did that.

"Once you open your eyes, it's impossible to be a Democrat." - CJ Pearson
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,419
Reply with quote  #56 
Grizzly - It would likely work similar to Medicare except there would be no age requirement.  People might contribute in various ways.  Please don't ask me to be a legislator as I'm not qualified to know exactly how to do this legally.  Today, if people choose not to have health insurance, I guess they pay if they have the money.  Same with single payer maybe.  If you never paid in, then you would probably pay if you have resources, otherwise you would qualify as poor.  Just some thoughts.

Now why did you ask me more questions and totally ignore the two or three I asked?  Please provide me the same courtesy.  Thanks.

PS:  Uh oh, I see Grizzly signed off again.  I don't get it.  I cooperate and then get the back of somebody's hand.  Why is that?
woody

Registered:
Posts: 11,625
Reply with quote  #57 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalRoxMySox44
This is the stupidest thing I have ever read. Im truly worried if for any second you thought this post sounded the least bit intelligent. You might as well be a racist and post "this is why I hate black people" and it would sound just as ignorant as this thread



What are you referring to? Did a post get deleted or something? What you just posted makes no sense. Please explain what you are talking about.

__________________
Note to self, never agree to rewire a huge piece of industrial equipment made by former Axis powers that is older than I am. 

Update, I fixed that sucker. 
GrizzlyFan

Registered:
Posts: 2,055
Reply with quote  #58 
Sorry Dewey I had a basketball game to go to.
I believe that people who paid into SS and are now receiving it are not moochers or leeches. However, I do believe that all government workers pensions are way too much and unsustainable without sucking more life out of the producers. If someone thinks it is rational to work 20 years as a teacher and then expect to retire with $67,000 a year pension paid for by ME the tax payer, I would call that person a parasite.
Obama got the majority of the vote for several reasons. The biggest reason is that too many people care more about getting something for themselves (paid for by someone else) than they care about the future of this country. Whether it is government funded abortion, employer funded contraception, government funded health insurance, extended unemployment benefits (ie paid extended vacation for many), huge government pensions (ie teachers, police, firemen, dog catchers, all government employees), welfare, disability, etc... Too many people care more about these things than about the fact that to pay for them means either bankrupting the nation or destroying our economy through taxing the workers to death.

Again, you deny that democrats want more government dependency yet you admit that democrats want nationalized health care. Please tell me how nationalized health insurance creates less government dependency. I can't wait for that spin!

__________________
If Obamacare is such a good thing, why did he have to lie about it to get it passed?
masare

Registered:
Posts: 2,643
Reply with quote  #59 
OMG! Seriously?
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,419
Reply with quote  #60 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrizzlyFan
Sorry Dewey I had a basketball game to go to.


Grizzly - I offered to answer your questions if you returned the favor.  An hour later you signed on, made more comments, evaded all my questions, and then signed off.  I figured you were ignoring me and thus my surprise.  In any event, I'm trying to get to how you say nearly two hundred million citizens are in the parasite category and you are in the minority.  Who is included in your group?  That's my primary question...who makes up this majority of parasites and how did you arrive at a total?  Are you really including retired police and firemen, as overpaid retirees, in the parasite category?  By the way, where did you get the number of years worked and amount paid in pension amounts?  I'd like to read that article.  CoachB never seems to suggest pensions are this high.

Now on to your question.  Universal health insurance is not rocket science.  Today, we pay the Government to provide our neighborhood protection, (police, fire, and ambulance).  Could you make an argument this should be handled by private companies.  I suppose.  Today we pay Government to provide national security.  Could we make an argument for a private industry to handle this?  I suppose.  I think health care insurance should be another non-profit industry and we can pay the Government for our health care insurance.  I know you can argue this should be left with the private industry but it's really not so different from my other examples.

If you are asking about those who don't work, I suppose the working spouse will be asked to pay more for his Universal insurance.  If you are single and don't work, you may be billed or asked to pay on your tax return.  If you are single and have no income or assets, you probably will qualify for Government assistance when it comes to your health care, just as you do today.  I really don't know exactly how it will work but Obamacare probably explains it a little.


Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.