More fuel to the fire

[The Ozzman]

What's the percentage of posters that are from the US?

 

[Einherjar86]

I, personally, think the welfare system is unnecessary. I think Dodens' argument above is fairly sound, but I also believe that there are certain fundamental differences between the services provided by law enforcement, military, and other emergency personnel. People who provide those services possess specific skills and training necessary to successfully carry out their duties. If someone finds himself in financial difficulty, the situation is different. They aren't in any need of immediate physical care, and no skills or training are necessary to offer them aid. I agree that it's in a country's best interest to look out for its less fortunate; but I also think that, on the scale of small town communities, you'll find that this takes place regularly without government intervention. All welfare applicants need is charity, and that the population can provide.

Taxation is important because it supplies for these services, such as emergency personnel, that require training. Welfare is basically just forced charity. I agree with taxation to pay for protection services, but charity can and should be offered by the population without forced attrition. I realize you encounter a problem when people refuse to help of their own volition; but I think you'll find that this doesn't occur that often within small communities. Towns form rotary clubs and charity events, and they help their own.

 

[genocide roach]

rightist propaganda.

fucking tool
~gR~

 

[Dak]

Talk about Deja Vu. Bottom line is this arguement will continue in circles because both sides will never see the other way. Those for rewarding the lazy (yes, that IS rhetoric, deal with it) and those for smaller government aren't going to have any sudden epiphanies if they haven't already.

As far as McCain vs Obama, they both are bad news and America is fucked regardless who "wins". I use qoutation marks since anyone with at least half a brain realizes the elections have been rigged for years and nothing has changed for 2008.

 

[MasterOLightning]

I, personally, think the welfare system is unnecessary. I think Dodens' argument above is fairly sound, but I also believe that there are certain fundamental differences between the services provided by law enforcement, military, and other emergency personnel. People who provide those services possess specific skills and training necessary to successfully carry out their duties. If someone finds himself in financial difficulty, the situation is different. They aren't in any need of immediate physical care, and no skills or training are necessary to offer them aid. I agree that it's in a country's best interest to look out for its less fortunate; but I also think that, on the scale of small town communities, you'll find that this takes place regularly without government intervention. All welfare applicants need is charity, and that the population can provide.

Taxation is important because it supplies for these services, such as emergency personnel, that require training. Welfare is basically just forced charity. I agree with taxation to pay for protection services, but charity can and should be offered by the population without forced attrition. I realize you encounter a problem when people refuse to help of their own volition; but I think you'll find that this doesn't occur that often within small communities. Towns form rotary clubs and charity events, and they help their own.

If you think charity is a solution for large urban centers, you're living in a dream world. I can see where your ideological stance comes from, but it's just not practical. You do benefit from welfare in the same way you benefit from the police stopping crimes in your community that do not involve you specifically. If the government doesn't provide it, no one will, and everyone will be worse for it, unless you're some millionaire in a gated community.

 

[Dak]

If you think charity is a solution for large urban centers, you're living in a dream world. I can see where your ideological stance comes from, but it's just not practical. You do benefit from welfare in the same way you benefit from the police stopping crimes in your community that do not involve you specifically. If the government doesn't provide it, no one will, and everyone will be worse for it, unless you're some millionaire in a gated community.

 

[CAIRATH]

Talk about Deja Vu. Bottom line is this arguement will continue in circles because both sides will never see the other way. Those for rewarding the lazy (yes, that IS rhetoric, deal with it) and those for smaller government aren't going to have any sudden epiphanies if they haven't already.

As far as McCain vs Obama, they both are bad news and America is fucked regardless who "wins". I use qoutation marks since anyone with at least half a brain realizes the elections have been rigged for years and nothing has changed for 2008.

 

[Einherjar86]

If the government doesn't provide it, no one will, and everyone will be worse for it, unless you're some millionaire in a gated community.

This is incorrect. People will still provide charity and financial aid even without the government forcing it.

I don't think my proposition is perfect in every way, but neither do I think that welfare is a perfect system. And personally, I'd rather have my ideal system; but that's my opinion.

 

[Cythraul]

so are we going to have one of these discussions every week now or what? This is getting a bit old.

 

[Dak]

Probably until the election :Smug: then a brief break until a major piece of legislation gets brought up concerning [wealth] and where it's going/staying.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

True, I am kinda getting sick of these threads.