for the USA peoples

[Saladin]

Most people try to get jobs anyway, as welfare doesn't exactly provide these people with oodles of money. You're only talking about the minority who will cheat to do that. Of course there are many middle class and rich who would cheat their way to the top or live off of someone's else's hard work(coughcoughBushcoughcough), so it's not like the poor are different then those who are well off.

And the people who are too... well, stupid is the word, to get a high-paying job

I really resent that comment. I believe that no one is stupid when given a fair shot, which of course rarely happens in this world. Lack of government funding for inner city schools, a failing culture based on money, sex and drugs and racism all contribute to not getting a good job.

Healthcare- I resent having to pay my tax money (well, figuratively, but still) for some idiot who gets injured by risking their own life needlessly, smoking, binge drinking, and basically harming themselves... they should pay for their stupidity. I honestly don't care very much for public healthcare over tax breaks, because if you get injured, you should pay out of your own pocket.

I resent watching those people who are suffering from diseases and accidents get poor treatment because some rich asshole wants to have an extra yacht and so asks for a tax break. It's funny that most of these idiots who risk their own lives are those people who can pay their own health but the people who don't, can't.  

[Lord Lanair]

As to your first comment- I am definatly not going to argue that a lot of people cheat the system to get money, however, the rich don't usually cheat the government out of money (at least in a way I recognize... naive me).  And I'm not sure about the statistics, but how many people on long-term welfare actually look for employment?  :miffed:

Hmm... but natural intellect counts for something, doesn't it?  And what do you mean by a failing culture?  :miffed:

I'm guessing we can refer to the "sex and drug based culture" mentioned before as a risk to life (overdoses, STD's, effects of drugs), and though that usually happens with the poor people, and maybe some rich, it's still a drain on the system....

I think I should change my stance a little, since it does seem a bit harsh.  The government should be providing less help (like medicare/medicade/etc) but the cuts in those services should be accompanied by a reduction in prices in the medical field.  The entire medical system needs reform: malpractice lawsuits must be limited so the malpractice insurance cost can go down (then doctors will charge less per visit), the drug-making process needs refining in order to produce cheaper pills and prescriptions, and how's this for an idea: get medical insurance from the company you work for.  The combination of those would offset any government ending of programs to a great extent, coupled with the famous tax breaks.  

[Rug]

As to your first comment- I am definatly not going to argue that a lot of people cheat the system to get money, however, the rich don't usually cheat the government out of money (at least in a way I recognize... naive me).

Tax breaks aren't cheating the government out of money, considering how I answered the issue of Supply-Side economics, above? *cough* Yeah, ok...

And I'm not sure about the statistics, but how many people on long-term welfare actually look for employment?

Something like 90%, over here, anyway.

The government should be providing less help (like medicare/medicade/etc) but the cuts in those services should be accompanied by a reduction in prices in the medical field

Wouldn't keeping Midicare as-is have much the same effect, or do you just want to take more money off poor people, still?

 

[mole]

on another note

Where is Saddam?

and

How do you know?

[evilknight]

i havnt heard anything about him for a while.
last i heard he was being held somewhere for questioning or something like that. but that was a few months ago.

[whiteknight]

Oh my goodness, stop the presses, the people who have invested time and effort in making money want to actually keep some of it?  What a novel idea.  With all due respect to everyone here, the notion that those who have made the effort to place themselves in a position to make good money through years of hard work(read: working their way through college) should bear the burden of the entire society so that everyone is "equal" is preposterous.  Those of you who've read the sword of truth series(i know theres a few of you here) will be familiar with the principals i'm talking about. Don't take me for a cold hearted bastard, i fully agree that "haves" should help the "have nots" but out of their own volition.  Laws that require people who've made money to provide for those who refuse to are nothing but guilt trips.
Wheres the incentive to improve your life when you can force others to do it for you?

Now, before you all go off on me(and i'm sure you will) keep in mind this is not a personal attack on any of you.  I'm perfectly willing to discuss this nicely, so keep that in mind.  Know also that I speak from experience.  I'm currently working my way through college and trying to go to medical school.....when i'm done i'll be hundreds of thousands in dollars in debt to learn a job that will hopefully, save peoples lives.  I'd like to be able to be out of debt eventually.

[Lord Lanair]

*Gasp*  Everything I wanted to say/have already said, but without my cold-heartedness or argumentative nature!  *Major applause*    

[Rug]

Oh my goodness, stop the presses, the people who have invested time and effort in making money want to actually keep some of it?  What a novel idea.  With all due respect to everyone here, the notion that those who have made the effort to place themselves in a position to make good money through years of hard work(read: working their way through college) should bear the burden of the entire society so that everyone is "equal" is preposterous.  Those of you who've read the sword of truth series(i know theres a few of you here) will be familiar with the principals i'm talking about. Don't take me for a cold hearted bastard, i fully agree that "haves" should help the "have nots" but out of their own volition.  Laws that require people who've made money to provide for those who refuse to are nothing but guilt trips.
Wheres the incentive to improve your life when you can force others to do it for you?

Now, before you all go off on me(and i'm sure you will) keep in mind this is not a personal attack on any of you.  I'm perfectly willing to discuss this nicely, so keep that in mind.  Know also that I speak from experience.  I'm currently working my way through college and trying to go to medical school.....when i'm done i'll be hundreds of thousands in dollars in debt to learn a job that will hopefully, save peoples lives.  I'd like to be able to be out of debt eventually.

Haveswill not help have notsout of their own volition, because they are greedy. Greed is the foundation of modern Conservatism. Yes, you rich people may keep your wealth. I have no issues with that.

You should NOT, however, be getting wealthier at the expense of the poor (See: why supply side economics does not work).

Also, if a wealthy person can provide what the government needs, tax wise, and still live in luxury, why shouldn't they? Why should the poor man foot a bill that they cannot pay, that they have no say in (noone can opt out of taxation), when the rich man could make up the small difference?

Taking $5,000 froma $30,000 salary is the same $5,000 dollars you get from someone with a $300,000 salary! So why not do it that way?

Because rich men are greedy, and want every cent they have. Fine, but not if it causes one low paid (and necessary) worker to live in poverty. And if you say that all low paid workers can excel themselves and get better jobs, where do your massive corporations get their cheap labour? Hell, half of them use sweat shops. Secretaries are necessary, and low paid. Does that $5,000,00-a-year CEO want to type his own letters? Hell no. He wants a lowly paid secretary to do it for him, because he's lazy, and he can afford it. So, he's not adverse to losing money, he's only adverse to losing money if he doesn't see any immediate short-term benefit, which he doesn't see when he gives up his tax money to subsidise tsomeone elses lowly paid secretary's taxes.

Which is very greedy.

So, big paid executives everywhere, if you want to be able to justify the low taxation you receive and that massive paycheck you've earned, go and make your products, write your letters, and answer the phone yourself. Otherwise, start thinking about other peoples needs for a change, and stop being so goddamned lazy.



So, in summary - America, in the world community needs to stop 'helping' because you aren't, and America as a country needs to start helping its citizens, particularly the ones who don't run massive corporations who give senior members of your government massive pensions *cough* Halliburton *cough*.

[mole]

(is pained because he has no mouse)

unfortunatly most of the should's, shouldn'ts, could's and couldn'ts in all this are a very 'in a perfect world' scenario and dont really work.

if you like me you dont really care about the terrible things going on in the world unless you find some odd reason too or have it shoved in front of your face. very selfish but very true
 

[whiteknight]

Haveswill not help have notsout of their own volition, because they are greedy.

well theres a stereotype if i've ever heard one.  Granted, there are lots of greedy wealthy people, but making that kind of sweeping assumption is just plain wrong.  
The issue here is not greed.  The issue is, at its core, fairness.  When it comes right down to it, people who make it their passion to succeed in the United States can and will.  I know of many stories, some of them close family friends who started from nothing and now make enough money to donate(whoa, wealthy people donating?! oh my goodness) to local universities to help with research and building new facilities.  Now, before you start on that line, success doesn't necessarily imply rich.  There are many people who are much more content to be in a profession they truly enjoy than make the sacrifices necessary to make piles of money.  I'm planning on being a doctor, but not because i want to get rich.  If i wanted to do that, i'd go to law school and work my ass off there to earn a position on a track to being a partner in a huge law firm.  But making money would have to be all i'd exist for.  Most people aren't willing to make that kind of committment(i know i'm not).

You should NOT, however, be getting wealthier at the expense of the poor

first off, i don't know where you get your idea that i'm rich.  working through college puts me in a slightly financially disadvantaged position that will continue for years after i'm done with medical school.  In the meantime, i'm working away making not much more than min wage like the "poor working man" But i'm doing it.  And i'm working in school to better myself.  And i'm going to save peoples lives.  And i would really really really like to be out of debt someday.  How is any of this at the expense of the poor?

Taking $5,000 froma $30,000 salary is the same $5,000 dollars you get from someone with a $300,000 salary! So why not do it that way?

for the record, that is not at all how a flat tax works; i'm sure you knew that, but that particular sentence is very very misleading.  Its on percentage.  So taking 5,000 from a 30,000 salary is exactly like taking 50,000 from a 300,000 salary cause they're the same percentage.  Right now, in the US, in california, the tax on a 300,000 salary is almost 150,000.  I don't make anywhere near that much, but i know of people who do, and quite frankly they're taking it rather well. Now you'll argue they're still living on 150,000 while the other is living on 25,000.  Its not "fair" you'll say.  What does it take to make things fair?  The person who makes the 150,000 net(after taxes mind you) has most likely gone to school for half his life and also most likely dedicates much of their life to actually making the money reducing their amount of time to actually enjoy it.  A person who enjoys their lifestyle making 25,000 is gonna be "happier" than a person who hates their job that they work 85 hours a week at making 150,000.  Yet the person on top is the one supporting the economy for the entire nation.  Now whats "fair"?
 

[Rug]

well theres a stereotype if i've ever heard one. Granted, there are lots of greedy wealthy people, but making that kind of sweeping assumption is just plain wrong.
The issue here is not greed. The issue is, at its core, fairness. When it comes right down to it, people who make it their passion to succeed in the United States can and will. I know of many stories, some of them close family friends who started from nothing and now make enough money to donate(whoa, wealthy people donating?! oh my goodness) to local universities to help with research and building new facilities. Now, before you start on that line, success doesn't necessarily imply rich. There are many people who are much more content to be in a profession they truly enjoy than make the sacrifices necessary to make piles of money. I'm planning on being a doctor, but not because i want to get rich. If i wanted to do that, i'd go to law school and work my ass off there to earn a position on a track to being a partner in a huge law firm. But making money would have to be all i'd exist for. Most people aren't willing to make that kind of committment(i know i'm not).

The issue is greed. You went off topic there - talking about succeeding, when the issue here IS money. You cannot survive on being successful - it does not pay the bills. So, that secretary might have made a huge effort to get that job, and be really proud of themselves for getting it. They're still poor.

first off, i don't know where you get your idea that i'm rich. working through college puts me in a slightly financially disadvantaged position that will continue for years after i'm done with medical school. In the meantime, i'm working away making not much more than min wage like the "poor working man" But i'm doing it. And i'm working in school to better myself. And i'm going to save peoples lives. And i would really really really like to be out of debt someday. How is any of this at the expense of the poor?

Perhaps my use of the word 'you' was misleading. They is much better. They being the richest 1%.

for the record, that is not at all how a flat tax works; i'm sure you knew that, but that particular sentence is very very misleading. Its on percentage. So taking 5,000 from a 30,000 salary is exactly like taking 50,000 from a 300,000 salary cause they're the same percentage. Right now, in the US, in california, the tax on a 300,000 salary is almost 150,000. I don't make anywhere near that much, but i know of people who do, and quite frankly they're taking it rather well. Now you'll argue they're still living on 150,000 while the other is living on 25,000. Its not "fair" you'll say. What does it take to make things fair? The person who makes the 150,000 net(after taxes mind you) has most likely gone to school for half his life and also most likely dedicates much of their life to actually making the money reducing their amount of time to actually enjoy it. A person who enjoys their lifestyle making 25,000 is gonna be "happier" than a person who hates their job that they work 85 hours a week at making 150,000. Yet the person on top is the one supporting the economy for the entire nation. Now whats "fair"?

Yes, I can do basic math. However, you can get $5000 dollars from both the poor man, leaving him with little, and the rich man, or you can take 9,000 from the rich man, and leave the poor man with some more to live on.

If the person works really hard, 85 hours a week for a big salary, they need to ask themselves why they're doing it.  If its purely for the money, they should probably take another look at their life, and rearrange some priorites.

And, yes, the rich subsidising those who cannot support themselves, for whatever reason (except bone idleness, which is incredibly rare). is fair. It is fair because the rich person is helping the poor person enjoy those aspects of life that cannot be enjoyed when in poverty.



As you live in your country and I do not, I cannot possibly claim to know more about this subject than you, however. And I hate neverending arguments, so I'm willing to concede this one point. I still have you nailed to the wall on the foreign policy etc discussions earlier on, unless someone wants to pick those up again.

[whiteknight]

i saw some of the foreign policy issues but i don't want to go through 6 pages of them, please refresh my memory on whatever you'd like to discuss that you think you have me "nailed to the wall"

EDIT:

The issue is greed. You went off topic there - talking about succeeding, when the issue here IS money. You cannot survive on being successful - it does not pay the bills. So, that secretary might have made a huge effort to get that job, and be really proud of themselves for getting it. They're still poor.

poor is a relative term, in comparison to a person who makes 300 thousand a person who makes 30,000 is poor, but someone with 30,000 can still pay the bills(assuming they're careful what they spend money on)  If you want to discuss different buying power for luxuries, see the above argument.

If the person works really hard, 85 hours a week for a big salary, they need to ask themselves why they're doing it. If its purely for the money, they should probably take another look at their life, and rearrange some priorites.

comletely beside the point.  Someone who can't pay bills on 30,000 needs to reevaluate their priorities....part of the sacrifice you make being content not to have worked harder in education or looked for a higher paying job

[Rug]

Illegality of the Iraq invasion? Thats a goodun, for today, as Koffi Annan said it was illegal earlier.

Fact that US foreign policy creates more problems than it solves through over reaction and over aggression?

Immorality of war over resources?

Neccessity of respecting the U.N and not pissing on their authority?

American inability to conform to simple human rights issues? Like child rights?

Continuation of NBC proliferation in a time when only the USA could deploy a major NBC arsenal, and has all it 'needs' should it ever 'need' to use them?

I reserve the right to reuse arguments if you voice a point that Lanair made earlier; in short, it'd be best if you read.

comletely beside the point. Someone who can't pay bills on 30,000 needs to reevaluate their priorities....part of the sacrifice you make being content not to have worked harder in education or looked for a higher paying job

My example was 20,000 for a reason. And, no, not everyone can do better than a low paying job, due to the varied reasons RB cited above.

[whiteknight]

My example was 20,000 for a reason. And, no, not everyone can do better than a low paying job, due to the varied reasons RB cited above.

incorrect, not everyone is willing to make the sacrifices necessary to make more money.
And secretaries make more than 20,000 a year.  There is ALWAYS a way, if you're willing to invest yourself.

Just for the record, theres so much bulls#!^ on both sides of the arguments in the past few pages they're not worth reading......if you want to make points, make them against me where i don't have to try to sort them out from other crap.

Illegality of the Iraqi War?  According to Kofi Annan huh.....Well pardner, we're cowboy's and 'round here we do whatever the hell we want(ok, i admit that was a little over the top)
Illegal is a nebulous term at best when dealing with international affairs.  Why exactly does the U.N. have the authority to declare it illegal?  Was it "illegal" for Saddam to support terrorism?  Was it "illegal" for him to use chemical and biological weapons against his people?  I'm sorry, i fail to see how this term "illegal" provides any sort of legitimate reason.  The UN made it clear to Saddam that failure to comply would be met with force.  The UN, pressured by certain nations thatt for the interest of goodwill amongst the internet community will remain unnamed(Not Britain, i know), backed down.  We finished the job.

We will respect the UN when it earns respect.  Period.  If it makes itself into a toothless and powerless body, then we can't do anything about that

Child rights issues....not really sure what you're referring to by that, i'd appreciate an explanation though i don't doubt that crap happens.  I seriously doubt the US is making a determined effort to purposefully ignore child's rights

Nukes......why should we make ourselves more vulnerable just because the rest of the world has decided to?  Russia still has ICBMs, (i don't know for sure, but i believe Britain does, correct me if i'm wrong).  Nukes are horrible weapons, yes, but they are weapons of last resort.  In a world where nothing is certain, weapons of last resort must be available.  Don't get pissy at the US for wanting to have the capability to blast the hell out of something that attacks us.

[Perdition]

*gives whiteknight a cookie for being alive and having some good points*