Should Gov't have Limits?

[uscitizen]

This is why am for true universal single payor healthcare.

You buy auto insurance don't you?

 

[Katiegrrl0]

Nope. Just help society stay healthy and educated and I think most social programs funded by government - for people as opposed to orgs/companies -- would disappear.

That works for me. An educated and healthy society works and provides. When there are to many safety nets some will not participate for their own good.

When there's zero safety nets, kiss domestic tranquility goodbye.

People today complain there is to much government and infringement.
The other side looks toward safety nets. This thread has addressed government telling people what to buy and stepping into to much on a personal level.
Safety nets can be good but also impede some from ever taking personal responsibility for their actions.

Where is the line drawn? That's the question. When does assistance stop the growth process in an individual?

 

[The T]

That works for me. An educated and healthy society works and provides. When there are to many safety nets some will not participate for their own good.

When there's zero safety nets, kiss domestic tranquility goodbye.

People today complain there is to much government and infringement.
The other side looks toward safety nets. This thread has addressed government telling people what to buy and stepping into to much on a personal level.
Safety nets can be good but also impede some from ever taking personal responsibility for their actions.

Where is the line drawn? That's the question. When does assistance stop the growth process in an individual?

Line is drawn where Liberty of the Individual is infringed to benefit another with no consent.

 

[Dick Tuck]

That works for me. An educated and healthy society works and provides. When there are to many safety nets some will not participate for their own good.

When there's zero safety nets, kiss domestic tranquility goodbye.

People today complain there is to much government and infringement.
The other side looks toward safety nets. This thread has addressed government telling people what to buy and stepping into to much on a personal level.
Safety nets can be good but also impede some from ever taking personal responsibility for their actions.

Where is the line drawn? That's the question. When does assistance stop the growth process in an individual?

Good question. It's somewhere between 0 and 100%. I've no doubt that people game the system for a free ride. But, they're not, as Reagan once claimed, driving Cadillacs (unless Mitten's wife gave em one of her spares). I fully supported Clinton's "Welfare to Work" initiatives. As we have it now, it's about at the level of living in poverty, but surviving. How much less should we go? Do you believe that corporations aren't going to fight tooth and nail against 100% living wage employment?

 

[bripat9643]

The bad guys won! LOL! And as a result seniors in this country have one of the highest standards of living in the world.

And their grand children will all work like galley slaves their entire lives to pay for it all, and they'll live like paupers after the government takes 80% of their income.

Thanks granny!

That's hardly true.

But that's not stopped you in the past.

No, that's exactly true if we follow the Democrat prescription for reforming programs for the elderly: doing nothing.

The next few generations are going to have a vastly lower standard of living than the current crop of greedy geezers who think they're entitled to make others pay for their retirement.

[There are numerous ways to fix social security before it has zero net assets sometime in 2040ish - none of which require raising the rate to 80%. You're simply being a retard and you know it.

Social security already has zero assets. And, of course, turds like you will fight tooth and nail against any reform that returns fiscal sanity to the program, so an 80% tax rate is where we are headed.

 

[DontBeStupid]

It's a parent's job to protect their children, not the government's.

And those vulnerable people you speak of are more so just ignorant. They should be educated, not ruled. Educated on what a budget is, educated on why credit cards are retarded, educated that putting food on the table is more important than the Comcast triple-play package.

Hmm. So, it's SOLELY a parent's job to protect their child from sex offenders, drunk drivers and drug peddlers?

How about we agree to disagree on that one.

There are already laws on the books making the things you listed illegal. The insinuation in your post was that the government needs to speficially tailor laws to "protect" children in lieu of parents.

Except of course I never mentioned parents at all and my post was in response to Katie talking about not being able to smoke in certain establishments.

But hey, I guess you can believe whatever you want. Even if it's wrong.

 

[Dick Tuck]

And their grand children will all work like galley slaves their entire lives to pay for it all, and they'll live like paupers after the government takes 80% of their income.

Thanks granny!

That's hardly true.

But that's not stopped you in the past.

No, that's exactly true if we follow the Democrat prescription for reforming programs for the elderly: doing nothing.

The next few generations are going to have a vastly lower standard of living than the current crop of greedy geezers who think they're entitled to make others pay for their retirement.

[There are numerous ways to fix social security before it has zero net assets sometime in 2040ish - none of which require raising the rate to 80%. You're simply being a retard and you know it.

Social security already has zero assets. And, of course, turds like you will fight tooth and nail against any reform that returns fiscal sanity to the program, so an 80% tax rate is where we are headed.

What a bunch of bullshit. SS has amassed enough of a surplus, in the form of government debt to carry it forward for about 40 years.

 

[dblack]

Hospitals are required to treat emergency care regardless of ability to pay. Teaching hospitals must accept all comers too

A problem that would be relatively easy to solve.

 

[bripat9643]

What a bunch of bullshit. SS has amassed enough of a surplus, in the form of government debt to carry it forward for about 40 years.

ROFL! You are truly a moron, Dick Suck. Who do you imagine is going to pay off those I.O.U.s in the Social Security "trust fund," the tooth fairy?

 

[Dick Tuck]

What a bunch of bullshit. SS has amassed enough of a surplus, in the form of government debt to carry it forward for about 40 years.

ROFL! You are truly a moron, Dick Suck. Who do you imagine is going to pay off those I.O.U.s in the Social Security "trust fund," the tooth fairy?

So you think that the government will default on debt incurred by law? Dream on, asswipe.

 

[Valox]

Should the government have limits? That is not up to you decide, as proclaimed by Marshall.

 

[bripat9643]

What a bunch of bullshit. SS has amassed enough of a surplus, in the form of government debt to carry it forward for about 40 years.

ROFL! You are truly a moron, Dick Suck. Who do you imagine is going to pay off those I.O.U.s in the Social Security "trust fund," the tooth fairy?

So you think that the government will default on debt incurred by law? Dream on, asswipe.

That's a possibility, but the issue is who will have to make good on the government's debt. The answer is the taxpayers. Those I.O.Us in the Social Security Administration's vaults don't do the taxpayer's a bit of good because the taxpayers will be the ones paying them off.

Like all defenders of the world's biggest ponzi scheme, you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. The government already spent the money represented by the I.O.U's but you are expecting us to believe that it still has the money in a vault somewhere. You have to be terminally clueless not to understand that there is no money to pay off those I.O.Us. except the money in your pocket.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Yeah, because most people without health insurance have plenty of things to put liens on and massive salaries to garnish.




Is there a law that spells out how to collect money that SOMEONE DOES NOT HAVE?

I have a friend in his 40's. He got in a horrible motorcycle accident when he was in his mid 20's. He had no health insurance. He was in a coma for 6 months. The bill was $750,000. 15 years, guess how much the hospital has successfully collected from him?


You're a fucking moron.

The fucking government will garnish a paycheck as small as a couple hundred bucks a week.

That's why my friend only works for cash, genius. And all the rental property he owns is actually in his mother's name.

Its not that hard to beat the system. Deadbeat dad's do it all the fucking time.

And just because your friend is a fucking deadbeat doesn't mean the hospital that saved his worthless life can't garnish his pay to at least recoup spme of the money he stole frm them.

They obviously can't,. he still owes every penny.

The hospital that saved his life, BTW, never asked him if he wanted to owe them $750,000 in exchange for their services. He didn't get that choice, it wasn't a decision he made.

Then maybe they should have let that worthless piece of shit that you call a friend bleed out in the gutter where he belongs.

And sooner or later his mommy is going to die so that property will eventually be in his name and the hospital can put a lien on it for the money he owes them.

And the fact that you call this guy a friend says a lot about you.

 

[alan1]

Let's cut to the chase - should the gov't have the power to force you to buy something, anything, or not buy it? Do they have the power to decide for you what's good for you and what isn't, a decision you have no say in? For example, should they be able to determine the conditions for who gets what medical treatment, based on cost analysis by a bunch of bureaucrats?

And let's not change the subject by bitching about the private insurance system. Separate issue, please stick to the basic question. Should the gov't have any limits at all?


My take: the gov't has no business making personal decisions for it's citizens. Nor does it have a responsibility to assist those who make the wrong choices. Gov't should be restricted to ONLY those functions that individual cannot do by themselves, such as national defense.

An article by Walter E Williams on March 14th sums things up quite clearly.

Compliant Americans​

Part of the problem is that people who act as instruments of government do not pay a personal price for usurping parental authority. The reason is Americans, unlike Americans of yesteryear, have become timid and, as such, come to accept all manner of intrusive governmental acts.

I believe that the anti-tobacco movement partially accounts for today’s compliant American. Tobacco zealots started out with “reasonable” demands, such as the surgeon general’s warning on cigarette packs. Then they demanded nonsmoking sections on airplanes. Emboldened by that success, they demanded no smoking at all on airplanes and then airports and then restaurants and then workplaces -- all in the name of health. Seeing the compliant nature of smokers, they’ve moved to ban smoking on beaches, in parks and on sidewalks in some cities. Now they’re calling for higher health insurance premiums for smokers. Had the tobacco zealots demanded their full agenda when they started out, they would not have achieved anything.

Read the entire article here --> http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/12/CompliantAmericans.htm

 

[The T]

What a bunch of bullshit. SS has amassed enough of a surplus, in the form of government debt to carry it forward for about 40 years.

ROFL! You are truly a moron, Dick Suck. Who do you imagine is going to pay off those I.O.U.s in the Social Security "trust fund," the tooth fairy?

So you think that the government will default on debt incurred by law? Dream on, asswipe.

Their credit rating has been downgraded once...how many more times would convince you?

 

[Unkotare]

Tell us Swallow? What do the 4th and 5th Amendments mean if YOU are so animate that the States and in particuliar the citizens are not soverign in the practice of thier Liberty?

You want a "swallow", faggot?

Alas..no.

But do go on. Even if you are a homo and a pussy..you are entitled to your free speech.

Like everyone else.

There goes Swallow trolling for 'business' again...

 

[The T]

Tell us Swallow? What do the 4th and 5th Amendments mean if YOU are so animate that the States and in particuliar the citizens are not soverign in the practice of thier Liberty?

You want a "swallow", faggot?

Alas..no.

But do go on. Even if you are a homo and a pussy..you are entitled to your free speech.

Like everyone else.

There goes Swallow trolling for 'business' again...

Poor Swallow cain't help himself...

 

[Unkotare]

You want a "swallow", faggot?

Alas..no.

But do go on. Even if you are a homo and a pussy..you are entitled to your free speech.

Like everyone else.

There goes Swallow trolling for 'business' again...

Poor Swallow cain't help himself...

Some people really love their work.

 

[Sallow]

Guys..get a room.

 

[Sallow]

By the way..*T*, your new butt buddy is into shit videos of Japanese girls.

Just google "Unkotare scat".

You might be a little shocked..