Welfare payments to support those in need

[Hawisher]

It would be less likely to be conrupt as well.

I'm still waiting for you to explain why the national debt is bad.

 

[dogs4thewin]

I'm still waiting for you to explain why the national debt is bad.

Because the younger generations are going to be paying off that monster debt which is not good for America.

 

[keith99]

Because the younger generations are going to be paying off that monster debt which is not good for America.

Not to mention how huge a percentage of the budget the iinterest on that debt is.

 

[Belk]

It would be less likely to be conrupt as well.

How corrupt is it now? Were is the corruption and what effect is it having?

 

[Hawisher]

Because the younger generations are going to be paying off that monster debt which is not good for America.

As opposed to paying off the debt now, which is somehow good for America?

Right when we're coming out of a monster recession is NOT the time to pay off debts.

 

[Belk]

As opposed to paying off the debt now, which is somehow good for America?

Right when we're coming out of a monster recession is NOT the time to pay off debts.

Depends on how we go about it, but in general I agree. Problem is that the political will is lacking to pay it off when we do have funds. It's draining $220 Billion from our budget every year in interest payments.

 

[Hawisher]

Depends on how we go about it, but in general I agree. Problem is that the political will is lacking to pay it off when we do have funds. It's draining $220 Billion from our budget every year in interest payments.

Sure, but let's talk about how well austerity and budget-balancing worked for Greece, hm? Now is certainly not the time to address this.

 

[Belk]

Sure, but let's talk about how well austerity and budget-balancing worked for Greece, hm? Now is certainly not the time to address this.

I agree. I just wish we could have the political will to address it during upswings and that we could attempt a balanced approach of revenue increase and spending cuts.

 

[dogs4thewin]

I agree. I just wish we could have the political will to address it during upswings and that we could attempt a balanced approach of revenue increase and spending cuts.

more spending cuts not increase in tax.

 

[Belk]

more spending cuts not increase in tax.

No, both. The simple fact is we can not effectively cut funding enough and maintain basic services. Our taxes are the lowest they have been in 60 years. It's time to pay the piper.

 

[stevenfrancis]

Most Conservative Christians here in Australia vote for the conservative liberal party. Tony Abbott the leader of this party is one of the most toxic Opposition leaders in Australian History. He wants to cut pensions and give a big tax cut to millionaires furthermore, leaving the less fortunate to suffer in poverty. Yet he calls himself a devout Christian urging that a razor be taken to welfare policy and the like. There are many people with severe disabilities that prevents them from working full time. Yet this devout Christian and his followers are voting to take away the little these people have. There are hundreds of verses of scripture that pertain the poor, it’s very sad.

Its funny how conservative Christians and other conservatives how they all 'know' or 'know of' someone who bludges off the system, and then proceed to assume that ALL welfare recipients are the same? :o

It's like the way they 'know' that all unemployed are bludgers because 'my
brother's neighbour's on the dole and wants to be' therefore they all must
be the same.

They really do need to get outdoors more, and get a shot of reality.

I am neither conservative, liberal, (nor Australian for that matter). I consider myself Christian above and before all other self-identification labels. A good state (government) will offer aid to those who are unable to take care of themselves, either through the misfortune of inability to find meaningful work, or through illness or physical disability. But when a state favors public dependency to boost the role of government in the state, it has some adverse effect as well. There are some, (though not nearly as many as some may imagine), of course, who will abuse the system. Over a long period of time, it can also remove the incentive to care for ones self to the best of their ability. But most devastating of all, from the Christian standpoint, is that over time, it desensitizes the individual to the needs of his brothers and sisters. They are likely to begin to look upon the state as the prime provider of charity through their taxes, and feel relieved of the direct love and compassion called for by the Lord, to love each other as ourselves. If a dollar has been withheld from your pay to go to a fund to provide everything for your neighbor, then you may find it redundant eventually to give someone that dollar directly from your heart. Or worse yet, to not spend your valuable time with someone who is lonely, in prison, or home bound. The churches don't get as much donation as they should from parishoners, because the state takes care of everything. It changes one of the chief characteristics of the Christian church model.

Charity is good. But it should be from from you to your neighbor, or to your church, or both. And it should consist of your time and talent, besides your treasure.

It's a tough call. We have the same issues in the States that we deal with quite poorly as well.

 

[dogs4thewin]

No, both. The simple fact is we can not effectively cut funding enough and maintain basic services. Our taxes are the lowest they have been in 60 years. It's time to pay the piper.

not if more of those services were volunteer and/or privatized ( meaning if you could not afford it you would not have access to that service.

 

[Hawisher]

not if more of those services were volunteer and/or privatized ( meaning if you could not afford it you would not have access to that service.

Which services would you privatize?

 

[dogs4thewin]

Which services would you privatize?

Public media centers for certain. The VAST majority of schools ( as in most cases private is better anynow) You already must pay for fire protection anynow (while still being funded by taxes) so why not full on privatize that. OR we could make people who COULD afford it get it privately the fire and maybe the schools meaning less taxes since fewer people would be using them publicly. Keep privatized health insurance ( all the way) as in if you are not on Medicare you must get it privately or nothing.

 

[Hawisher]

Public media centers for certain.

Er... why? Do you not think that free libraries provide a benefit to society?

The VAST majority of schools

So if you can't pay, you won't go to school? Sounds great.

( as in most cases private is better anynow)

[citation needed]

You already must pay for fire protection anynow (while still being funded by taxes) so why not full on privatize that.

Oh dear Lord, you ACTUALLY SUGGESTED private fire departments. I was going to bring that up to mock your idea, but you actually suggested it. We have had private fire departments, and it was a disaster. A horrible, horrible disaster.

OR we could make people who COULD afford it get it privately the fire and maybe the schools meaning less taxes since fewer people would be using them publicly.

You know that those things are a very, small part of the federal budget, right? Never mind that private schools are already available and only used by about 10% of students, including those with vouchers.

Keep privatized health insurance ( all the way) as in if you are not on Medicare you must get it privately or nothing.

I must've missed Jesus' teachings on "Let the poor die of cancer; they're not important."

 

[dogs4thewin]

Er... why? Do you not think that free libraries provide a benefit to society? So if you can't pay, you won't go to school? Sounds great. [citation needed] Oh dear Lord, you ACTUALLY SUGGESTED private fire departments. I was going to bring that up to mock your idea, but you actually suggested it. We have had private fire departments, and it was a disaster. A horrible, horrible disaster. You know that those things are a very, small part of the federal budget, right? Never mind that private schools are already available and only used by about 10% of students, including those with vouchers.

I must've missed Jesus' teachings on "Let the poor die of cancer; they're not important."

That teaching is not there. It says support that, but that does NOT mean that the government FORCES people to pay or have insurance. They already are required to treat cancer patients qho do not have a dime to their name. It is also an option for such people for money or other reasons such as just tired of fighting or in some cases they are far along or just do not want it to refuse. Keep in mind that when someone does die ( which will happen to 20% of the population from cancer. Between cancer and heart problems it cost nearly HALF of Americans their lives. The funerals cost about 10 grand for a decent one so it is not like those people will not still have that choice nor that we will get off cheap. Look both my dad's brother and my dad had cancer so I KNOW how much cancer treatments are. I have health issues and shocker both my father and I feel that that bill is stupid and should have never been passed.

As for fire departments people ALREADY ( I know in our area which also has volunteer fire departments, but in the city you must pay for fire protection of your property ( as well as home insurance anynow. As for the private schools being better what kind of citing do you want me to provide? I will say many of schools are AWFUL as well as inner city schools ( which tells me the poorer the area the worst the public schools. By the way, I did not say all public schools I said the vast majority. The media centers that would cut an entire area from the budget and would also cause fewer people to lose their jobs. Remember, I also said that we could have the public services but require those who could to go private.

 

[Hawisher]

That teaching is not there. It says support that, but that does NOT mean that the government FORCES people to pay or have insurance. They already are required to treat cancer patients qho do not have a dime to their name.

I think they're actually just required to treat those suffering from acute conditions (heart attack, gunshot wound) rather than chronic ones (cancer).

It is also an option for such people for money or other reasons such as just tired of fighting or in some cases they are far along or just do not want it to refuse.

I'm sorry, but are you saying we shouldn't provide healthcare to the poor because they should just choose to die? Because that's what it sounds like you're saying.

Keep in mind that when someone does die ( which will happen to 20% of the population from cancer. Between cancer and heart problems it cost nearly HALF of Americans their lives. The funerals cost about 10 grand for a decent one so it is not like those people will not still have that choice nor that we will get off cheap.

What are you even saying here? I'm sorry, but I just don't understand this part.

Look both my dad's brother and my dad had cancer so I KNOW how much cancer treatments are. I have health issues and shocker both my father and I feel that that bill is stupid and should have never been passed.

That's wonderful, but that doesn't give you the right to decide that on the behalf of other people.

As for fire departments people ALREADY ( I know in our area which also has volunteer fire departments, but in the city you must pay for fire protection of your property ( as well as home insurance anynow.

Home insurance is a completely different category from fire protection. Privatized fire departments were literally just enormous protection rackets.

As for the private schools being better what kind of citing do you want me to provide?

Whatever factual information you have that demonstrates that, for the same cost per student, you'll get a better education at a private school than a public one.

I will say many of schools are AWFUL as well as inner city schools ( which tells me the poorer the area the worst the public schools. By the way, I did not say all public schools I said the vast majority.

Then the minority that you don't eliminate will be incredibly crowded and even worse.

The media centers that would cut an entire area from the budget and would also cause fewer people to lose their jobs.

... what? Libraries are a miniscule portion of the budget, and schools really aren't that much either in the grand scheme of things.

Remember, I also said that we could have the public services but require those who could to go private.

Libraries cannot privatize while serving the same function in the community. Nor can fire departments. Nor can schools.

 

[Belk]

not if more of those services were volunteer and/or privatized ( meaning if you could not afford it you would not have access to that service.

Or, we could raise taxes to actually fund the services that should not be privatized. It's worked fine in the past so why not now?

 

[dogs4thewin]

Er... why? Do you not think that free libraries provide a benefit to society? So if you can't pay, you won't go to school? Sounds great. [citation needed] Oh dear Lord, you ACTUALLY SUGGESTED private fire departments. I was going to bring that up to mock your idea, but you actually suggested it. We have had private fire departments, and it was a disaster. A horrible, horrible disaster. You know that those things are a very, small part of the federal budget, right? Never mind that private schools are already available and only used by about 10% of students, including those with vouchers.

I must've missed Jesus' teachings on "Let the poor die of cancer; they're not important."

I think they're actually just required to treat those suffering from acute conditions (heart attack, gunshot wound) rather than chronic ones (cancer). I'm sorry, but are you saying we shouldn't provide healthcare to the poor because they should just choose to die? Because that's what it sounds like you're saying. What are you even saying here? I'm sorry, but I just don't understand this part. That's wonderful, but that doesn't give you the right to decide that on the behalf of other people.
Home insurance is a completely different category from fire protection. Privatized fire departments were literally just enormous protection rackets. Whatever factual information you have that demonstrates that, for the same cost per student, you'll get a better education at a private school than a public one. Then the minority that you don't eliminate will be incredibly crowded and even worse. ... what? Libraries are a miniscule portion of the budget, and schools really aren't that much either in the grand scheme of things.
Libraries cannot privatize while serving the same function in the community. Nor can fire departments. Nor can schools.

The last part why not and maybe fire departments should be public, however I stand by the other two. As for health insurance for about the 10th time in a number of threads why should an adult be forced to have it or pay if we KNOW the risk of not having it?

 

[Hawisher]

The last part why not and maybe fire departments should be public, however I stand by the other two.

Then where is the evidence for your claims that education and public media services should be privatized? Moreover, are you aware that that wouldn't even come close to balancing the budget?

As for health insurance for about the 10th time in a number of threads why should an adult be forced to have it or pay if we KNOW the risk of not having it?

I don't think health insurance should be required. I think the government should provide UHC.