the entire concept that if i bust my butt production-wise and follow the company procedures, thereby garnering raises, bonuses, and promotions...ie become financially successful; but my neighbor, who's late to work, just gets by on production level, and only does things the correct way when he thinks the boss is looking...and gets fired....how on earth can one claim he is entitled to anything from me, via taxes?
He earned his station in life, and somehow there are those out there who claim I'm the bad guy because I think he should sleep in the bed he made for himself!

No one but my family is "entitled" to my fluff....let the neighbor earn his own fluff! I prefer to help those that are helping themselves.

Hear hear. This is in essence, the difference between liberalism and conservatism.

Of course this will be taken as what Democratic politicians have been spewing for the past few years, conservatives want people to die or live on the streets. Its false. Conservatives give more to charity than do liberals. I can't help but give money to dudes on the street because I feel bad for their situation. But when you try to organize a society around forced equality its both unjust and doomed to fail like socialist Europe has failed unless you have naturally industrious people (Germans).

I'm convinced that the difference between the right and left as we see it today in politics today is very marginal.

I'd just like to point out, if your religious, we are to give to others willingly not for someone to take it from us and give to others (i.e. higher taxes etc to support social programs).

Also private charities are far more efficient than the government when it comes to how much money they take in vs. how much of that money actually goes to help people.

welfare in the US is a great way to discover who needs to be killed. the current system is set up for the ultimate correction and will be best implimented by a hitler like government head figure. (thats what i tell myself so i can sleep at night)

Really tells you all you need to know that this is considered a serious policy compromise.

Source: http://tinyurl.com/6qms7j4

You are the only one talking about 'forced equality'. I understand the notion that you only want your tax dollars to benefit yourself, and your neighbor has to earn everything on his own. The problem is, you live in this collective noun called society. As a result you use things like roads, paid for with taxes. Other people use these roads, and these people use other roads, maybe roads you don't even know exist.

The notion that you can only be responsible for your personal slice of society is utter fantasy. You benefit from its shared aspects, as much as you may stamp your feet in protest. You are free to work hard and to succeed as a result of your effort, and not be encumbered by providing for common needs on your own (fire protection, fresh water, so forth). If you don't put forth the effort to succeed in a place like Canada, your life still sucks. It just sucks a little less, since things like a seasonal flu or a toothache aren't going to go untreated and possibly kill you.

not once did i mention a problem with taxes for roads, fire, police, sewer/water systems, national defense, etc..

socialism breeds laziness, tho, and the items above don't have anything to do with socialism

seasonal flu and toothache's killing people..LOL....make stuff up often?
every county in the US has a hospital that takes medicare/medicaid payments from the govt, it is therefore ILLEGAL for them to refuse service based on someones ability to pay

the notion that i'm somehow responsible for paying the way for the lazy good for nothing neighbor is offensive, to put it mildly
if he wants my assistance, how bout he come knock on my door and ask for it, instead of having BIG BROTHER come to my door and FORCE me to under threat of jail if i wish not to
how bout my neighbor be accountable to do better, or else the help gets cut off.....something the govt would never ever do

people want equal outcome.....no matter if they've earned it or not
merely existing doesn't give anyone the right to someone elses stuff

I don't think very many people want an equal outcome. Most want equal opportunity. Something that isn't really happening so much anymore.

Ya... not sure where that roads red herring came from

http://theswamerica.com/news/26538.html
http://www.globalsecurity.org/...3_flu-pandemic-deaths.htm

Ha ha?

I agree in general people should reap what they sow. However, there is a time and place for SOME social welfare. It benefits all of society for offering a helping hand to keep otherwise productive citizens on their feet. You can't help it if your a hard worker and very productive but a CEO scammed the company and not its bankrupt and your now unemployed. Or someone is doing the best they can and they get hurt severely out side of work and now they can't work for some time. It would not benefit society for every time things like this happened these people loose their houses and go bankrupt. I am all for unemployment insurance (remember only productive workers can get it) and things of this nature.

I know there are lots of people who play the system and are crooked but overall i think MOST are legit. I am against drug testing people, unless all federal and state workers get tested the same amount as the people getting welfare are tested (this includes politicians).

I am against Obamacare or social healthcare. I believe we can cut costs down by allowing insurance over state lines. This would cut out many middle men and lower costs alone. There are many other ways to lower it but thats where id start.

wow Bu...really.......

Deerhunter:
i've no issue with unemployment insurance, tho the two states i've worked in stated you only got it if you lost your job thru no fault of your own....and as an employer, i've never lost a case in 24 years
if their not working for me, it was their own fault
layoffs, company's closing...that's not the workers fault, and i understand
i'm not compasionless, i just draw a clear line between the unfortunate and the lazy

and as for those "gaming" the system, from my perspective there is a majority who are doing it
i'm in food service, and i may do 20 interviews...hire 3...and be lucky to have 1 left after a month
the reasons vary, but in the end it comes down to not wanting to do what it takes to keep a job

Thanks Celeborn, what you've said is very well thought and reasonable. I can clarify why it is hard to keep people in food service. It is because they do not make anything. Any other job they can possible find would pay more. It is hard to be motivated (although most managers in FS do a great motivation job) when you make so little for something so fast paced. Also, FS is usually a first job for most people.

It is also my understanding that to get unemployment you must also have lost your job due to no fault of your own. I agree it is hard to have sympathy for people who quit or can't show up on time or enough not to get fired.

FYI the reason i brought up UI insurance was because a lot of the media and the Republican party (even though i lean right) are trying to convince the public that UI is social welfare even though it is not- it is earned. I do realize that the extension could be considered Social Welfare but still people have to have earned the right to be eligible. I think it's saving many homes, vehicles, banks, and criminal acts from being far worse than they are. It probably gives the most bang for the buck out of all our SW funds.

Deerhunter: Poeple apply those principles when arguing for most social welfare though.

For example people would argue that it doesn't make sense for productive people to be taken out of the economy because they get sick and can't afford treatment (talking about one of those people that are uninsured or under insured of course, or if you are one of the many whose ailment isn't covered). Thus it can save in other social programs money such as disability, welfare etc to have universal coverage.

The same principle can be applied to social security. If you raise the rates and expand the program, that will keep far more people out of poverty in old age and would save money in other social programs that have to be delivered to poor seniors.

The list goes on...

I would not make any of those arguments and i think you are delusional. There is a case that Social security would have been fine had the gov kept it in its own fund as it was supposed to. Instead they put it into gen funds and created a Ponzi scheme. Everyone has a right to be upset about SS. I am still paying into it and i doubt i will see a nickle. My parents payed fortunes into it and they will see little if any. They are upper 50's and don't expect to get any. How can you call that welfare when we have all payed into it and what you get is based off of what you put into it?

I didn't read one comment here.

RON PAUL 2012!

SS is a stupid idea to begin with. Lets force everyone to pay into something that turns out to be a bad retirement plan! It's like our government thought we were too stupid to save for our own retirement.

I'm delusional?

a) At no point did I say that I would make such arguments in order to push such policies.

b) My comment has plenty of merit within the context that I placed it, which is that the logic you used above regarding EI is the same logic that many left leaning people use in support of social programs in general. That is a the case regardless of whether or not you agree with the policies the arguments are being used to project.

c) how is it delusional? Your response actually has no bearing on my point. Yes it is probably true that SS will be broke by the time you get to an age of eligibility, and yes it may be true that it may have been avoided if they did things differently at some point in the past. But what the hell does that have to do with my point?

d)It actually is true that expanding those programs would save money in other programs. To other otherwise would be delusional. The debate would have to revolve around HOW MUCH money could be saved in other programs, and whether it would be a net reduction in overall costs. Or another point of argument against would be on ideological grounds (e.g. So what if the point is valid? The evasiveness of such policies aren't worth the benefits). To try to claim otherwise is to fail to recognize facts, which is a sign of partisanship and not of real debate, which is a big reason why the US system is so toxic and ineffectual to begin with.

Requiem: It seems to me that current statistics show that a majority of western society is, in fact, too stupid to save for their own retirement.

We don't know the circumstances of why individuals are on EI, so any assumptions we make about their motiviation or education are biased by our world view.

While antidotal evidence isn't data, it does highlight some of the system's strong points when working well. I personally was on welfare for a couple months after returning from England to Canada. I'm university educated, so I've made the right life choices by Klown's standards, so why did I need that temporary aid? Donald Trump declared bankruptcy, should he have been left with a mountain of debt to pay instead of being able to afford to run for office?

I've seen true poverty, where people live in huts of sticks or dried manure. We in the developed world only have a small percentage of people living at that level of poverty. They work hard all their lives just to achieve the minimum. Your ability to rise is directly connected to your starting point in the world.

SS while currently a ponzi scheme could be fixed, if we are willing to pay for it.

Why should you help your neighbour through a rough patch when you've earned your place in life? Because it could be you next time. There are regulations in place to reduce the numbers of those that take advantage of the system. The benefit of helping those that need help outweights the cost of helping those that don't help their selves.

Sadly you may be right...

15 kids? hamster sex, eh? kinky...

Why should you help your neighbour through a rough patch when you've earned your place in life? Because it could be you next time. There are regulations in place to reduce the numbers of those that take advantage of the system. The benefit of helping those that need help outweights the cost of helping those that don't help their selves.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I absolutley agree, Mapleson....I have zero issues with helping my neighbor, relatives, the couple down the street, when times get tough, or when "stuff" happens. What I do have a problem with, is the govt. threatening me with jailtime (if i don't paying my taxes) if I don't help, and help in the amount that the govt. decides I can help at.

freedom vs not
pic a side, and enjoy=)

too much text