Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 2/19/2006 9:39:09 AM EDT
Here comes the poll...
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 9:40:43 AM EDT
no
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 9:41:37 AM EDT
No, to all of the above. The other person in question has an obligation to pay for their own education, food, and medical care.
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 9:42:22 AM EDT
No to all of em.
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 9:42:32 AM EDT
No, and (flame suit on) that includes education. Sorry.
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 9:43:10 AM EDT
How about fire protection?

Link Posted: 2/19/2006 9:43:23 AM EDT
I pay my own way. Why not others?
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 9:43:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:
How about fire protection?




They're just like the mafia, man!
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 9:46:07 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/19/2006 9:47:54 AM EDT by PBIR]
Yes, I do if the people cannot do it themselves (will-nots need not apply) but I don't believe we should be forced to by having our money taken by the IRS. My obligation is from my religion, not from socialist beliefs. I don't think education falls under my obligation though.
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 9:46:38 AM EDT
No to everything. Social security, medicare, medicaid, welfare, food stamps, WIC, public education, school lunches, EVERYTHING.
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 9:47:37 AM EDT
Yes.....no to all !!!
If you're a poor child and through birth and no fault of your own your parental units can't afford to pay for an education, yep fuck em all !!!
This sure would be a better place then wouldn't it.
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 9:48:23 AM EDT
I have an obligation to do what I decide I have an obligation to do. Not what .gov or anyone else decided.
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 9:49:32 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/19/2006 9:49:52 AM EDT by bastiat]

Originally Posted By SPECTRE:
Yes.....no to all !!!
If you're a poor child and through birth and no fault of your own your parental units can't afford to pay for an education, yep fuck em all !!!
This sure would be a better place then wouldn't it.



was america a better place before the government monoploy schools, or is it better off with the horrible state of public education today?
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 9:49:37 AM EDT
Yes.

My wife, kids and other family members from time to time.
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 9:50:30 AM EDT
A little bit different, but what about the military?
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 9:54:13 AM EDT
I already do. (Over $10,000 in taxes this year to my local school district, and I have no children)



Link Posted: 2/19/2006 9:54:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By bastiat:

Originally Posted By SPECTRE:
Yes.....no to all !!!
If you're a poor child and through birth and no fault of your own your parental units can't afford to pay for an education, yep fuck em all !!!
This sure would be a better place then wouldn't it.



was america a better place before the government monoploy schools, or is it better off with the horrible state of public education today?



Not my point.
200 years ago not having an education didn't affect you like it does today. How would having a HUGE segment of our population illiterate help America today ?
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 9:56:08 AM EDT

Originally Posted By fike:
A little bit different, but what about the military?



The military provide everyone living in our country with a service, which we all compensate them for. This is to say we employ them, we are obligated to them as an employer.
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 9:56:50 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SPECTRE:

Originally Posted By bastiat:

Originally Posted By SPECTRE:
Yes.....no to all !!!
If you're a poor child and through birth and no fault of your own your parental units can't afford to pay for an education, yep fuck em all !!!
This sure would be a better place then wouldn't it.



was america a better place before the government monoploy schools, or is it better off with the horrible state of public education today?



Not my point.
200 years ago not having an education didn't affect you like it does today. How would having a HUGE segment of our population illiterate help America today ?



Isn't THAT the present state of affairs???
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 9:57:10 AM EDT

Originally Posted By verticalgain:

Originally Posted By fike:
A little bit different, but what about the military?



The military provide everyone living in our country with a service, which we all compensate them for. This is to say we employ them, we are obligated to them as an employer.



And school teachers don't?
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 9:59:14 AM EDT
No to all.

Education- I paid for my own, Student loans are a wonderful thing. And there are more available now, to more people, than ever before.

Food- Absolutely not. I pay for my own food. I work for the money to pay for my food. Pretty simple equation, really.

Medical Care- Once again, No. Why should I be expected to foot the bill for someone with lung cancer, liver cancer or heart problems? I dont smoke, drink to access, and I'm pretty watchful of what I eat, in order to prevent those types of problems for myself later in life. Why should I be penalized for someone else not caring about their body?

In fact, I'm all for a mass culling of the societal dredges.
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 10:00:43 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SPECTRE:

Originally Posted By bastiat:

Originally Posted By SPECTRE:
Yes.....no to all !!!
If you're a poor child and through birth and no fault of your own your parental units can't afford to pay for an education, yep fuck em all !!!
This sure would be a better place then wouldn't it.



was america a better place before the government monoploy schools, or is it better off with the horrible state of public education today?



Not my point.
200 years ago not having an education didn't affect you like it does today. How would having a HUGE segment of our population illiterate help America today ?



The private market would boom. The media/corporate America wouldn't let all of those consumers sit around wasting away in the ghetto. They'll be tossing handouts out left and right to gain the goodwill of everyone. You'll also see a return to more home-and-community based cooperative type schools.

If the parents don't care enough about their child to find some way to educate them then no amount of your or my money is going to make that kid anything better than the sum of his parts.
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 10:01:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SPECTRE:

Originally Posted By bastiat:

Originally Posted By SPECTRE:
Yes.....no to all !!!
If you're a poor child and through birth and no fault of your own your parental units can't afford to pay for an education, yep fuck em all !!!
This sure would be a better place then wouldn't it.



was america a better place before the government monoploy schools, or is it better off with the horrible state of public education today?



Not my point.
200 years ago not having an education didn't affect you like it does today. How would having a HUGE segment of our population illiterate help America today ?



You assume they would be illiterate.

First, people would need to decide if they could afford to educate their children before they had them.

Second, without the government run monopoly schools and the thuggish teacher unions, education would be much more affordable.

Third, without the massive amount of state, local, and federal taxes seized for education, people would have more of their own money to spend on educating their own children.

Fourth, then, just like now, there are private organizations and churches that would step up and fill th e void and provide education for free or at a greatly reduced rate.

When the government takes, people stop giving. Proven fact. (Tragedy Of American Compassion, Marvin Olasky). And government does the job much worse than the private sector does.

Eliminate the education monopoly and seizing of income for it and you will end up with a system that educates all children much better than they are being educated today.
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 10:01:50 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SPECTRE:

Originally Posted By bastiat:

Originally Posted By SPECTRE:
Yes.....no to all !!!
If you're a poor child and through birth and no fault of your own your parental units can't afford to pay for an education, yep fuck em all !!!
This sure would be a better place then wouldn't it.



was america a better place before the government monoploy schools, or is it better off with the horrible state of public education today?



Not my point.
200 years ago not having an education didn't affect you like it does today. How would having a HUGE segment of our population illiterate help America today ?



What makes you think a HS education alone cuts it in todays economy? Why not have everyone pay for public college too?
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 10:02:04 AM EDT

Originally Posted By krpind:

Originally Posted By verticalgain:

Originally Posted By fike:
A little bit different, but what about the military?



The military provide everyone living in our country with a service, which we all compensate them for. This is to say we employ them, we are obligated to them as an employer.



And school teachers don't?



No. The military protect/serve our nation as a whole. Teachers educate children, to varying degrees of success, and do nothing for people who do not have children.
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 10:02:12 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/19/2006 10:03:44 AM EDT by W_smith]
BUT I'm a COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATIVE who cares about my community & my country !!




Link Posted: 2/19/2006 10:03:16 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 4v50:
I pay my own way. Why not others?


Ding fucking Ding! We have a winner! I agree!
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 10:03:26 AM EDT

Originally Posted By krpind:

Originally Posted By verticalgain:

Originally Posted By fike:
A little bit different, but what about the military?



The military provide everyone living in our country with a service, which we all compensate them for. This is to say we employ them, we are obligated to them as an employer.



And school teachers don't?



And you denied on the firefighter thread that you're a liberal!

The public school system is horribly overpriced, inefficient, and bad at the one job it is supposed to be doing.

And there's a difference between the military and teachers: It's impossible for one person to protect the country in this day and age. But one person can educate their children, or pay for a private school to do it.
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 10:04:27 AM EDT

Originally Posted By W_smith:
BUT I'm a COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATIVE who cares about my community & my country !!







Get over it.
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 10:22:20 AM EDT
Yea if they are my family. Everyone else can go fuck themselves!
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 11:09:24 AM EDT
I believe that society should support those who CANNOT support themselves. Orphans, the disabled, kids who need medical care and CANT get the money from parents, etc.

Those who WILL NOT support themselves because they make poor decisions and spend their money on crack instead of formula and diapers, I have no respect for, nor do I feel an obligation to help them.

Look at it this way. Right now you take a hard line, because you have a job and you are successful. If tomorrow you fell at work and were paralyzed from the neck down, who is going to feed you, wipe your ass and send your kids to school?

Who of us has not needed an hand up from time to time?~~ T. Roosevelt, Sorbonne, Paris, 1910
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 11:16:43 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/19/2006 11:18:31 AM EDT by leakycow]

Originally Posted By bastiat:

And there's a difference between the military and teachers: It's impossible for one person to protect the country in this day and age. But one person can educate their children, or pay for a private school to do it.



apples and oranges. there's not one teacher out there trying to educate the entire populace. using your metaphor, fuck the military because a father should use his AR-15 to defend only his family and nothing more, or hire a security service.
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 11:17:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By bastiat:
Second, without the government run monopoly schools and the thuggish teacher unions, education would be much more affordable.



Please elaborate.
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 11:19:14 AM EDT
Our Founding Fathers didn't think so at the federal level and wrote the Constitution that way
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 11:19:37 AM EDT

Originally Posted By leakycow:

Originally Posted By bastiat:
Second, without the government run monopoly schools and the thuggish teacher unions, education would be much more affordable.



Please elaborate.



already done on the first page.

Link Posted: 2/19/2006 11:23:55 AM EDT
I would change the wording on your poll.

I don't and shouldn't have a LEGAL obligation for any of these. I should assume a moral obligation under the appropriate circumstances.

To me there is no such thing as charity when it comes to taxation and government actions. Charity has to be voluntary to be valid. Otherwise it's simply theft.
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 11:25:16 AM EDT

Originally Posted By leakycow:

Originally Posted By bastiat:

And there's a difference between the military and teachers: It's impossible for one person to protect the country in this day and age. But one person can educate their children, or pay for a private school to do it.



apples and oranges. there's not one teacher out there trying to educate the entire populace. using your metaphor, fuck the military because a father should use his AR-15 to defend only his family and nothing more, or hire a security service.



sigh.

Here's the shorthand verison:

The government exists by,for, and of the people to do things they CAN NOT do by themselves.

It is impossible for you and your neighbors to say "gee, iran is getting out of hand, let's go over there with our guns and keep them from handing nukes to terrorists".

You can also not say "gee, bob over there is pretty good with a gun. Maybe I could spot him $1000 and a plane ticket and he could take on the iranians!"

That's why there's government - basically citizens of a certain area - band together and set up agencies to provide services they CAN NOT provide on their own or in private groups.

Now with education, there is absolutely nothing preventing you from educating your own children (countless parents do with home shooling) or from using your money to send your kid to a private school.

Since education issomething that can be handled either by an individual or a private group, there is no reason to have government take everyone's money under the threat of a gun in order to educate someone else's kid. Because they could be doing it themselves one way or another if they actually bothered.



Link Posted: 2/19/2006 11:27:10 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/19/2006 11:31:24 AM EDT by AC_Doctor]
Libtards think that the rich should support the poor. I don't see anything like that written in our Constitution...

AC



Damn, this U.S. Govt. cheese!!! Uncle Sam owns me a new Lexus
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 11:28:15 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 11:30:24 AM EDT
Ahhhhh Nooooooooo
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 11:34:25 AM EDT
F*ck no. This country is founded upon the idea of self detemination; carry your own load, work hard, do the best you can do, and move forward.

At least that is my approach to life.
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 11:36:38 AM EDT

Originally Posted By bastiat:

Originally Posted By krpind:

Originally Posted By verticalgain:

Originally Posted By fike:
A little bit different, but what about the military?



The military provide everyone living in our country with a service, which we all compensate them for. This is to say we employ them, we are obligated to them as an employer.



And school teachers don't?



And you denied on the firefighter thread that you're a liberal!

The public school system is horribly overpriced, inefficient, and bad at the one job it is supposed to be doing.

And there's a difference between the military and teachers: It's impossible for one person to protect the country in this day and age. But one person can educate their children, or pay for a private school to do it.



The difference is that Defense is a Federal mandate of the US Constitution and education is a State Mandate of the several States.
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 11:36:55 AM EDT
I believe that some form of public education is for the benefit of the general population.Beyond that, there should be some form of public aid for the lower class and destitute. Some of you guys are waaaayyy out there in thinking there should be NO programs. I seem to recall from a thread a while back that there are plenty of you who benefit from one or another .gov programs, so obviously theres an element of it being a case of "my program is good but the rest are bad" at work here.
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 11:37:30 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/19/2006 11:41:45 AM EDT by barrysuperhawk]
I read a quote somewhere:
"It's an ironnclad law of economics, if you want more of something, subsidize it, if you want less, tax it."

In America, apparently we want more illegitimate non smokers that cannot support, educate or provide medical care for themselves...

It is human nature to try to take advantage of any situation for one's own self-interest. The ability to resist the urge to take advantage of someone and to instead attempt to help them is one of the things that marks civilization over mob rule.

Efficiency is doing things right.
Effectiveness is doing the right things.
Character is doing the right thing when nobody is looking.


Do I help others whenever I can? Yes.
Do I feel I should be compelled to do so? No.
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 11:37:38 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/19/2006 11:45:03 AM EDT by SamColt]
There are times when we have to...

That is if we have a shread of human decency in us.....basic needs for an unwanted handicapped child? Give me a fucking break people.....


ETA: to answer the question: sometimes yesbut most of the time i cant stomach the abuse...

Link Posted: 2/19/2006 11:39:04 AM EDT

Originally Posted By bastiat:
sigh.

Here's the shorthand verison:

The government exists by,for, and of the people to do things they CAN NOT do by themselves.

It is impossible for you and your neighbors to say "gee, iran is getting out of hand, let's go over there with our guns and keep them from handing nukes to terrorists".

You can also not say "gee, bob over there is pretty good with a gun. Maybe I could spot him $1000 and a plane ticket and he could take on the iranians!"

That's why there's government - basically citizens of a certain area - band together and set up agencies to provide services they CAN NOT provide on their own or in private groups.

Now with education, there is absolutely nothing preventing you from educating your own children (countless parents do with home shooling) or from using your money to send your kid to a private school.

Since education issomething that can be handled either by an individual or a private group, there is no reason to have government take everyone's money under the threat of a gun in order to educate someone else's kid. Because they could be doing it themselves one way or another if they actually bothered.




Now that's a more thorough explanation. Thanks.

Now where does an aggressive foreign policy like you outlined above fit in with the "everyone just takes care of their own" mentality? I mean, Iran can't touch the US. Fuck Israel, right? I'm being the devil's advocate here.
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 11:42:33 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/19/2006 11:43:35 AM EDT by ALPHAGHOST]
NO

the govt paying and 'redistributing' the working individuals of the USA is COMMUNISM
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 11:43:10 AM EDT
any of you hardliners have a problem sending your kids to public school on my taxes I've paid for public education and never used a dime of yet? Or do you refuse it and pay tuition?

again - give me a break....
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 11:43:27 AM EDT
yes on education to a certain extent.
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 11:44:15 AM EDT
Sure - my family's...
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 11:48:50 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/19/2006 11:55:47 AM EDT by leakycow]

Originally Posted By bastiat:

Originally Posted By leakycow:

Originally Posted By bastiat:
Second, without the government run monopoly schools and the thuggish teacher unions, education would be much more affordable.



Please elaborate.



already done on the first page.




No, not really. You just made a sweeping generalization that government run schools and teacher unions are somehow driving up the cost of education. I want to know HOW they are doing this. In your response, please explain this phenomena in the many states where teachers are not unionized. Thank you.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top