i don't choose to be jobless. should the government be paying me to not work since the economy is so bad? remember, its not my fault! i didn't ask for no job.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Split - Politics of space exploration
- Thread starter MacRumorSkeptic
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
i don't choose to be jobless. should the government be paying me to not work since the economy is so bad? remember, its not my fault! i didn't ask for no job.
Remember, this country was founded because of the dollar (ok, not the dollar, but the pound). Our forefathers rebelled because there was taxation without representation.
Sounds like it is related to someone taking your money. I think this is what Frohickey wants to prevent. They added the protections for property in the Constitution for such instances. It is not the government's job to care for the health of its citizens.
If you have a moral need to help these people, there are ways, but there is no need to make the populous pay everything for people who supposedly can't pay for X on their own. Once someone gets X for free, they are going to believe they are entitled to Y for free, as well as others believing they should be receiving X and Y for free instead of paying for others.
In terms of what should be a "right," I think you've made an arbitrary distinction. The Constitution doesn't distinguish between government activities with costs and those without cost, nor does is make participation in our system government voluntary. We fought a little war over that proposition.
FWIW, I'd like to see Medicare/Medicade coverage become available to all Americans who wished to enroll.
As a matter of fact, the government does do this. It'll pay you unemployment. This, of course, isn't a limitless resource and has some strings attached, but it is the government paycheck for being unemployed.
i am jobless, not unemployed, there is a difference. AND, the employer pays for the unemployment checks, not the government, even though the cash comes from the government.
And that's a point that I made earlier. I told Frohickey that if he didn't like the way the Government was spending his money then he should word to get someone elected who would change that. If he couldn't then his views weren't representative of the general population. Given that, he'd have the choice between leaving, ie moving somewhere where the general population agrees more closely with his views, or just living with the fact that he's not in a majority.
Regardless, representation does not mean 'I get things my way'. If you made more money than anyone else in the country, everyone else could vote to have you taxed at a much higher rate. You'd still have representation, but it wouldn't be worth much.
Finally, I'd submit to you that the if you read just about any analysis, there is a general consensus that it is the poor, not the rich, who are under represented in Washington. If you start to argue for representation, then you're not arguing Frohickey's case.
Hmm... Funny that. How do you interpret this...
And now you're suggesting that they really can pay for health care? That their poverty is, in some way, a deception?
Oh goodness...
Okay, so what's the difference? You're involuntarily out of work. Unless you're saying that you're self employed but have no clients. In that case, you're choosing to continue to be 'employed' while you have now work. So that is your choice.
Unemployment is not paid by employers. It's paid for by taxes (referred to as unemployment taxes, or, sometimes, unemployment insurance taxes). It is true that this is a tax made based on every pay check that it written, but it is paid by both the employer and the employee; both pay half. Now, the length of time that I've been working doesn't have a direct bearing on how long I can draw unemployment. I can easily draw more unemployment than I (or my employer on my behalf) ever put in. Plus, if I never go a day in my life without working, I'll never draw unemployment, but I wouldn't be able to get any of the money back that I spent so many years of my life paying into...
The way I understand it, jobless people have not had a job, therefore the can not get unemployment.
Unemployed were laid off or quit. Laid off workers can receive unemployment.
I recently graduated college. I have yet to find a "real" job, one with benefits and all. Therefore, I am jobless. My internship neither gives me benefits, nor money.
Okay, you are unemployed but you're not eligible for unemployment. This has to do with the fact that unemployment is based on how much you make when you are employed. Again, it's an imperfect system. I would argue that you should be eligible, but, last time I checked, I'm not in charge of these things...
Taking the thread further off-topic (or does it even matter at this point?), this has always irked me. If gov't is going to justify shaking down big tobacco on the basis of increased health costs, gov't has a MORAL RESPONSIBILITY to spend that money on those health costs or efforts to reduce smoking. To shake down industry, then throw that money into a general fund, or use fictional "surplusses" for anything other than what it was intended for, is dishonest at best, and in this case, evil IMHO.
While not necessarily evil, I also object to tolls being used for anything other than paying for construction or maintenance of said road. If there's a surplus, reduce the toll, end the toll, whatever. The implicit assumption is that the "tax" will be used for its stated purpose. (Georgia has a Republican governor for the first time since Reconstruction, partly because of this exact situation.)
Back on-topic, it wouldn't surprise me if our new space initiative is partly based on the presumption of launching or preventing (more?) space-based weapons. We don't know everything about every payload that's gone up there. There have been reports from respected sources about the possibility of satellites being able to target individuals on earth with energy enough to kill them, while making it seem like death from another cause...
I think space-based weapons are inevitable, if not already extant. Why would space be considered sacrosanct? The deep seas are not...
Funny, that, as I've read several scientific papers that outline why such weapons are effectively impossible. Put simply, the Earth's atmosphere acts as a scattering field. The more of the atmosphere an energy beam has to travel through the more dispersed it gets. This is also one of the significant limiting factors that effect ground based telescopes. But, anyway, the papers that I've read have said that it's virtually impossible to provide a tight enough beam to destroy an ICBM when it's in the upper ionosphere, let alone being able to hit anything on the ground.
My goodness. Ever since the President made his announcement about the new space initiative I've heard some of the most interesting bits of science fiction, usually being passed off as science fact. And, no, not even most of them have been heard here. But it does give an interesting measure of where the public's general understanding of science is at...
Sorry, just realized that you said "cigarette taxes", not referring to the states' litigation against the tobacco companies. Flew off a bit too early there... I was against the litigation (shakedown), especially after it became obvious that there would be no good-faith effort to use the funds for their supposed purpose. "Sin taxes", however, I look at as regressive but somewhat "voluntary" taxes...
Of course, after I typed that reference to satellite weapons, I did a google to try to find the URL which I can now not remember (was some months ago). I could swear it was from a mainstream science website, not a paranormal -- or paranoid -- one. Hopefully I bookmarked it on another machine, so I don't look like Fox Mulder here... I thought it was referring to a MASER or other DEW. However, your point makes sense, so until I can back it up from a "reliable" source, I will have to agree it seems suspect...
I was against the litigation (shakedown), especially after it became obvious that there would be no good-faith effort to use the funds for their supposed purpose. "Sin taxes", however, I look at as regressive but somewhat "voluntary" taxes...Of course, after I typed that reference to satellite weapons, I did a google to try to find the URL which I can now not remember (was some months ago). I could swear it was from a mainstream science website, not a paranormal -- or paranoid -- one. Hopefully I bookmarked it on another machine, so I don't look like Fox Mulder here... I thought it was referring to a MASER or other DEW. However, your point makes sense, so until I can back it up from a "reliable" source, I will have to agree it seems suspect...
Okay, through looking for that URL for tonight. Can't find it, will try more tomorrow. But go to www.janes.com (respected source IMO) and search for "dew weapon". Scary enough. Or do a general search for HPM "high power microwave" (not on Janes, though, that's a dead end) and ignore the obvious trash. Interesting methods of "crowd control"...
Oh, I don't deny that energy weapons are coming, just that it would be possible to target a single person with one from orbit. The beam scatter would mean that to have a beam powerful enough to kill a person would probably also injure if not kill anyone within a fair radius of that person.
my question is:
why is it so bad to militarize space? i think it is inevitable that this will happen. i would rather see my country in the forefront of this technology, not lagging behind. don't get me wrong, i would love peace, but i also like security. security comes from prevention. prevention comes from forward thinking.
once again, i don't want war in space. i also want to be/feel safe at home. i don't want to worry about an attack. i do not think we can trust others not to attack us, so why not attempt to defend against any attack? i think this is only prudent, as long as spending for such programs are within reason.
also- if it means that we can save one american life in a war by use of a space weapon, in most cases i will be for this use of a weapon. as long as there is no large environmental destruction, innocent casualties..., lets save some grunt's life, at the cost of some money. really, what is a life worth? lets spend some money, maybe a billion or four, and save an enlisted man's life. (btw-i see the nat'l hc arguments coming )
why is it so bad to militarize space? i think it is inevitable that this will happen. i would rather see my country in the forefront of this technology, not lagging behind. don't get me wrong, i would love peace, but i also like security. security comes from prevention. prevention comes from forward thinking.
once again, i don't want war in space. i also want to be/feel safe at home. i don't want to worry about an attack. i do not think we can trust others not to attack us, so why not attempt to defend against any attack? i think this is only prudent, as long as spending for such programs are within reason.
also- if it means that we can save one american life in a war by use of a space weapon, in most cases i will be for this use of a weapon. as long as there is no large environmental destruction, innocent casualties..., lets save some grunt's life, at the cost of some money. really, what is a life worth? lets spend some money, maybe a billion or four, and save an enlisted man's life. (btw-i see the nat'l hc arguments coming
)
idkew, I disagree with your definition of security. Being able to blow up the other guy before he can blow up you isn't really security, it's a promise of retribution, and we've already seen that this method doesn't always work.
You say we cannot trust others not to attack us, but look at our actions. If you were the leader China, and you saw that your biggest rival (who you already distrust greatly) is putting weapons into space that can vaporize your countryside and you have no defense against them, what are you going to think? Especially when your rival begins talking about "denying access" to ally it's own security concerns. Holding a sword over someone's head may get you what you want in the short term, but in the long term, you're asking to be rebelled against. In other words, putting weapons into space is the quickest way to get everyone else to put weapons into space, and then we start fighting over who gets to do what, when, and where and voila! Insta-war, all over again.
There's also the more philosophical argument, which is: why do we get to decide what the rest of the world does in space? Who gave us the right? Are we so afraid of our neighbors that we must threaten them and not allow them the same rights in space that we demand for ourselves? Guess so.
You say we cannot trust others not to attack us, but look at our actions. If you were the leader China, and you saw that your biggest rival (who you already distrust greatly) is putting weapons into space that can vaporize your countryside and you have no defense against them, what are you going to think? Especially when your rival begins talking about "denying access" to ally it's own security concerns. Holding a sword over someone's head may get you what you want in the short term, but in the long term, you're asking to be rebelled against. In other words, putting weapons into space is the quickest way to get everyone else to put weapons into space, and then we start fighting over who gets to do what, when, and where and voila! Insta-war, all over again.
There's also the more philosophical argument, which is: why do we get to decide what the rest of the world does in space? Who gave us the right? Are we so afraid of our neighbors that we must threaten them and not allow them the same rights in space that we demand for ourselves? Guess so.
bush has had quite a few good ideas about hc.
i like the anti national hc stance.
i like the small businesses banding together for better insurance idea.
i like tax deductible premiums.
i don't think ted did.
boo to drug testing is schools.
i like the anti national hc stance.
i like the small businesses banding together for better insurance idea.
i like tax deductible premiums.
i don't think ted did.
boo to drug testing is schools.
Hehehe... I see that someone else has fallen into the trap of personal insults because they couldn't argue the facts.
Let me return the sentiment, since we are into falling into personal insult traps.
In a way, I feel sorry for you, Snowy_River. It's clear that taking something that doesn't belong to you in your mistaken belief that it would help is the most important thing to you. To me this represents the breakdown of American culture and society at the core philosophical levels. American independence, American can-do-it-iveness. It's this type of attitude that is most likely going to bring about the collapse of the United States. And it will be a collapse from within, if it happens, not from any outside force. Even more than feeling sorry for you, Snowy_River, I feel sorry for the world because of the degredation of values that you represent.
If you have children, or young ones, what would be the outcome of this experiment.
Front lawn is smaller than the back lawn. You pay $2 to get the front lawn mowed, while the back lawn $1. Two kids. One is 13, the other is 8. Younger can't mow the front lawn because its too big. But you give both $2 for mowing the lawn. How long before the 13 year old decides to mow the back lawn instead of the front lawn.
Snowy_River, you are not the first one that say that you feel sorry for me or disgust, etc. I stand by my assertion that it is wrong to steal/take away someones belongings. It does not matter that its to be used for, if its to enrich the thief, or its given to the poor. Its the same thing. Theft is theft.
If helping the unfortunate is your goal, then that could be accomplished in other ways where you are not stealing from Peter to give to Paul. Paul stealing from Peter directly is bad. Govt stealing from Peter to give to Paul is even worse.
How about the idea of govt loans, which is to be repaid, for the unfortunate ones with poor health, no jobs, etc? This could be self-funded, but I guess its not as satisfying as having the govt show the rich folk who's boss. That just sounds like the Communist revolution.
What?!!!
Article I Section 8. Chockful of government activities and how they are to be funded at the very beginning of Section 8.
I guess I didn't attend public school where they treated the US Constiution as a 'living document'. Would have been nice. I would have been able to get straight As in english. Easy to do that if you can change the meaning of words.
"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but only those specifically enumerated." --Thomas Jefferson
"With respect to the words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." - James Madison - 'father of the Constitution.
How do you like your crow cooked? Baked, sauteed, fried, boiled, fricaseed or plain old barbequed?
I don't know if you've been paying attention, but I have not been advocating that the government have unlimited powers with respect to 'general welfare'. I have been advocating finding a balance. I know that 'too much' socialism doesn't work very well, and is, on the whole, a bad thing. So is 'too much' capitalism.
So, please don't try to paint me as an extremist. Yes, that makes your point of view easier to defend, but it is simply not true.
I have a couple of questions for you. How do you feel about public education? And food stamps? Extrapolating from other opinions you've stated, I'd guess, and this is just a guess, mind you, that you'd be in favor of eliminating both of these programs, as well. After all, aren't these programs just another form of the government taking money from Peter and giving to Paul?
If I'm wrong about your opinion of these programs, please let me know. I would consider these positions, and the ones that you've stated yourself, fairly extreme. I don't see much balance in them.
The fact that the only way that you're able to argue with me is to try to paint me with an extremist brush, it seems to me, bespeaks the weakness of your argument. I'm not a communist, and certainly not arguing for any kind of revolution. I'm not arguing for the government to have unlimited power. Indeed, all I am arguing for is for the idea of basic health care to be amoung those specifically enumerated powers.
Even now, after having written this, I know that it won't do anything to change your mind. I'd guess that's why so few people are left posting to this thread. They've all realized that it's pointless to further the discussion.
Oh, and, for the record, I don't see how saying that I feel sorry for you, or that it seems that the dollar is the most important thing to you, or that this view is, in my opinion, a degredation of values, is really an insult. Can't I feel sorry for you? Can't I feel that to hold the dollar so highly valued that, rather than give a few of them up you'd rather let the poor people who don't have enough of them to pay for their health care simply die, is a degredation of values? These are simply my opinions. You are the one who has ventured into insults with the redirection of my words, thereby mocking me.
I don't know that I have much more to say to you, Frohickey. I do feel sorry for you. And that's not a malicious statement, it is an honest grieving.
Hehe... pretty nifty debating style stating 'compassion' but not addressing the issue on hand. Tell you what, leave the personal feelings and just debate the issues.
You try to rebut idkew's statement
with the beginning sentence of the US Constitution, trying to mold the 'general welfare' clause into something it was not meant to be, as evidenced by the quotes I posted.
Ratify a Constitutional amendment saying that government is responsible for the health of its citizens, and I'll acquiese. But until that point is reached, its definitely not in the compact/accord reached between the people and government.
Yes, there has been governmental creep into areas it shouldn't be in. Its been on going for a long time now, and has been accelerating since FDR's first term.
The balance that you try to get is not indicated in the US Constitution. Its still the law of the land, and if the balance is not there, then its not supposed to be.
As to painting you an extremist. Nothing of the sort. I just write to the points that I see, if it paints to extremism, then so be it. Let the reader decide. I'm not the one saying the general welfare clause encompasses health care. I actually say its not, and that general welfare is limited in scope, as other constructionists would say.
As to the communist revolution, what happened in the two that we know off. State confiscation of property and life from the rich to give to the poor. The rich in pre-Lenin/Stalin Russia had their property taken, lives too. Same in China. Same thing happening in Zimbabwe. Its also common mantra by Democrats to denounce and denigrate the rich, to divide people along financial means. (Nevermind that prior to CFR, the percentage of contributions to the Democrats is dominated by big money contributors. You'd never hear that until you dig into it.)
Finally, as to valuing the dollar, its not really so much as valuing the dollar but valuing the fruits of MY labor. A slave's labor does not belong to him, and so, its not valuable to him, but it's of value to the master. There is absolutely nothing wrong with valuing the fruits of one own's labor. Pride in the work comes along as well.
I value my labor more than I value another person's health. Much like I value my health more than another person's labor. No where did I say that I do not volunteer the fruits of my labor to causes other than my own. There is the BIG difference here. Welfare proponents have always assumed that welfare opponents are uncaring brutes. Us, uncaring brutes, know the value, and also know when and how much to contribute VOLUNTARILY.
I would not presume to know how much you value your labor/health and force you to give it to outside causes. I'm not your master.