TeenHelp
Support Forums Today's Posts


Get Advice Connect with TeenHelp Resources
HelpLINK Facebook     Twitter     Tumblr Hotlines

You are not registered or have not logged in

Hello guest! (Not a guest? Log in above!)

As a guest on TeenHelp you are only able to use some of our site's features. By registering an account you will be able to enjoy unlimited access to our site, and will be able to:

Signing up is free, anonymous and will only take a few moments, so click here to register now!



Current Events and Debates For discussions and friendly debates about politics and current events, check out this forum.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
  (#81 (permalink)) Old
The ANTI-Troll Offline
Banned
Experienced TeenHelper
******
 
The ANTI-Troll's Avatar
 
Name: ..........
Age: 24
Gender: Trans
Location: nowhere

Posts: 707
Join Date: January 30th 2010

Re: the welfare system - June 23rd 2010, 06:54 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosty View Post
again in this thread the one about welfare... anyways im done with this i agree with arc about you..
   
  (#82 (permalink)) Old
Frosty Offline
Member
Senior TeenHelper
*******
 
Frosty's Avatar
 
Age: 23

Posts: 790
Join Date: January 7th 2009

Re: the welfare system - June 23rd 2010, 07:02 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by -ArcAngel- View Post
Are you serious? Privatize a forest?!
And have you ever SEEN even ANYTHING about how big forest fires can get?

British Columbia has forest fires EVERY YEAR, once it gets to be summertime. No one would want to purchase such liable land, so what do you propose, let it burn down?
If the cost of saving it wouldn't justify it for private owners, how is it justified under public ownership?

Quote:
Originally Posted by -ArcAngel- View Post
And in Victoria, Australia, they had a HUGE forest fire that KILLED a bunch of people, along with injuring alot of people. So someone should purchase the insurance for that and have to pay the costs for it all out of their pockets? No one would!
Well maybe they shouldn't have been living in fire-prone areas if the costs of stopping any fires is too great for them to bear.
   
  (#83 (permalink)) Old
Frosty Offline
Member
Senior TeenHelper
*******
 
Frosty's Avatar
 
Age: 23

Posts: 790
Join Date: January 7th 2009

Re: the welfare system - June 23rd 2010, 07:04 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by EternalDark View Post
again in this thread the one about welfare...
Silly me. And here I was quoting a sticky that applies to the entire forum.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EternalDark View Post
anyways im done with this i agree with arc about you..
So what about my last points? Bailing because you can't reconcile your silly legal positivism with genocide?
   
  (#84 (permalink)) Old
Batman. Offline
Protector of Gotham
I can't get enough
*********
 
Batman.'s Avatar
 
Name: Julz
Age: 26
Gender: Female
Location: Ontario, Canada

Posts: 2,760
Join Date: December 14th 2009

Re: the welfare system - June 23rd 2010, 08:01 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosty View Post
If the cost of saving it wouldn't justify it for private owners, how is it justified under public ownership?
Gee, I wonder... Maybe because the forest is USED PUBLICALLY?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosty View Post
Well maybe they shouldn't have been living in fire-prone areas if the costs of stopping any fires is too great for them to bear.
Because you know, forest fires can't spread or anything. And you know, not like people could be walking through the forest and coincidentally get trapped in a fire. And you know, its not like forest fires are mostly caused by dry conditions and campers lighting a fire without soaking the forest around them.

You seriously think it'd make sense for a whole chunk of a continent to be evacuated, causing massive overcrowding in the other parts that are nowhere near forests? Southern Australia has alot of forests, and they're prone to fire in drought seasons. Evacuating people from that general area because a few people have an issue with paying taxes for fire services would be ridiculous!


Dare to be Different, to be Weird, to be a Freak.
Overall, Dare to be yourself.

Stamp Out Prejudice Hatred and Intolerance Everywhere
The Sophie Lancaster Foundation



   
  (#85 (permalink)) Old
The ANTI-Troll Offline
Banned
Experienced TeenHelper
******
 
The ANTI-Troll's Avatar
 
Name: ..........
Age: 24
Gender: Trans
Location: nowhere

Posts: 707
Join Date: January 30th 2010

Re: the welfare system - June 23rd 2010, 08:02 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosty View Post
Silly me. And here I was quoting a sticky that applies to the entire forum.


So what about my last points? Bailing because you can't reconcile your silly legal positivism with genocide?
nope im not gonna argue with someone who takes debates way off topic ... and starts saying my views are racist generalization
   
  (#86 (permalink)) Old
Frosty Offline
Member
Senior TeenHelper
*******
 
Frosty's Avatar
 
Age: 23

Posts: 790
Join Date: January 7th 2009

Re: the welfare system - June 23rd 2010, 12:05 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by -ArcAngel- View Post
Gee, I wonder... Maybe because the forest is USED PUBLICALLY?
What uses exist under public ownership that can't exist under private ownership?

Quote:
Originally Posted by -ArcAngel- View Post
Because you know, forest fires can't spread or anything. And you know, not like people could be walking through the forest and coincidentally get trapped in a fire. And you know, its not like forest fires are mostly caused by dry conditions and campers lighting a fire without soaking the forest around them.

You seriously think it'd make sense for a whole chunk of a continent to be evacuated, causing massive overcrowding in the other parts that are nowhere near forests? Southern Australia has alot of forests, and they're prone to fire in drought seasons. Evacuating people from that general area because a few people have an issue with paying taxes for fire services would be ridiculous!
You seriously think it makes sense for people living in fire prone areas to be subsidised by taxpayers living outside of these areas? Why the special treatment for people who want to live in fire prone areas? If I want to live in a beachside mansion, but am unwilling/unable to cover the cost of doing so, should I get subsidised? If not, why the difference between wanting to live in a beachside mansion vs. wanting to live out in the bush in fire prone areas?

Quote:
Originally Posted by EternalDark View Post
nope im not gonna argue with someone who takes debates way off topic
Where did I go off topic?

Quote:
Originally Posted by EternalDark View Post
and starts saying my views are racist generalization
Your claim was essentially that you walked onto a construction site full of hispanics and immediately assumed they were all illegal. What else do you want me to call that other than a racist generalisation?
   
  (#87 (permalink)) Old
Xujhan Offline
Resident Atheist
I can't get enough
*********
 
Xujhan's Avatar
 
Name: Fletcher
Age: 24
Gender: Male
Location: Ontario, Canada

Posts: 2,038
Join Date: January 17th 2009

Re: the welfare system - June 23rd 2010, 01:50 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurricane View Post
Everyone does have a right to food, shelter, and basic health care and education IF THEY WORK FOR IT. Why is it that some of us have to work for it, while the rest of us get it handed to us for free? That's not fair. People talk about poverty like it's a disease, like it's something we have no control over. But that's not true. The majority of people who are poor dropped out of high school, chose not to continue their education, and are in their predicament because they chose not to work towards success. Yet they feel the right to take money from the people who actually worked for their success, and they act like it's their right. They're right, when they did nothing to earn that money. Money is to be earned. Not handed away. People should be helped, yes. But the person who does the helping shouldn't be forced; they should help by choice. Forcing people to give their money to others isn't making the world a better less greedy place. It is taking away our freedoms and giving money to people who have done nothing to earn it.

Charities are noble, but not once in history has the help provided by charity ever been enough to provide even a fraction of the help needed in the world. It humans were that generous by nature, communism would work. Even if you're right that the majority of people on welfare are lazy bums who couldn't care less - an assertion I still challenge you to find any support for past wild supposition - that still leaves a minority of people who legitimately need help through no fault of their own. The only legitimate stance under which your right to a third television takes precedence their right to eat simply because you worked for the money is Frosty's much-cherished, totally unrealistic anarchism. No one is self-sufficient; we all survive because of millions of other people all working in a society based on sharing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurricane View Post
That's how kids SHOULD be raised. That's the way it's supposed to be. People badmouth religion saying that kids are brainwashed into it, but that's not the case at all. It's not a cult. I'm a christian, and I plan on raising my kids in a Christian environment, baptizing them and taking them to church. Because I think that kids should be raised knowing the truth. When they get older and want to think for themselves, then they can decide not to be Christians. But when they're little, I think it's important to raise them as Christians. That is no where near the same thing as what I said about welfare. You might see raising kids in a faith as a negative thing, and that's how I see welfare for children. I see it as handing them a truth - this is money that you need to survive, and if you don't want to get an education and work for this money, it will be handed to you. That vs. This is God, he wants you to do good in the world and become successful and help others, to be strong and fight the evil in the world by believing? Which sounds like a better example to you?
Can you not even see the sheer hypocrisy in what you're saying? Sadly this is veering off topic from the debate at hand, but I will very happily make a thread about this in the religion forum, and I invite you to join me there.

EDIT: Thread created: http://www.teenhelp.org/forums/f39-r...on/#post412695


The atoms that make up you and me were born in the hearts of suns many times greater than ours, and in time our atoms will once again reside amongst the stars. Life is but an idle dalliance of the cosmos, frail, and soon forgotten. We have been set adrift in an ocean whose tides we are only beginning to comprehend and with that maturity has come the realization that we are, at least for now, alone. In that loneliness, it falls to us to shine as brightly as the stars from which we came.

Last edited by Xujhan; June 23rd 2010 at 03:22 PM.
  Send a message via MSN to Xujhan  
  (#88 (permalink)) Old
Xujhan Offline
Resident Atheist
I can't get enough
*********
 
Xujhan's Avatar
 
Name: Fletcher
Age: 24
Gender: Male
Location: Ontario, Canada

Posts: 2,038
Join Date: January 17th 2009

Re: the welfare system - June 23rd 2010, 01:54 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosty View Post
What uses exist under public ownership that can't exist under private ownership?
Re-oxygenation of the air. We're having trouble with serious deforestation even with government safeguards; without governments what's to stop private companies from choking us all within a generation? Seriously, dwell on that for a few minutes before you reply. The most money that a company can make from a forest is by cutting it down. There's always a huge demand for cheap lumber. But, ultimately, we need forests to breathe. In an anarchist society, who would keep that in check?


The atoms that make up you and me were born in the hearts of suns many times greater than ours, and in time our atoms will once again reside amongst the stars. Life is but an idle dalliance of the cosmos, frail, and soon forgotten. We have been set adrift in an ocean whose tides we are only beginning to comprehend and with that maturity has come the realization that we are, at least for now, alone. In that loneliness, it falls to us to shine as brightly as the stars from which we came.
  Send a message via MSN to Xujhan  
  (#89 (permalink)) Old
Frosty Offline
Member
Senior TeenHelper
*******
 
Frosty's Avatar
 
Age: 23

Posts: 790
Join Date: January 7th 2009

Re: the welfare system - June 23rd 2010, 02:08 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xujhan View Post
Re-oxygenation of the air. We're having trouble with serious deforestation even with government safeguards; without governments what's to stop private companies from choking us all within a generation? Seriously, dwell on that for a few minutes before you reply. The most money that a company can make from a forest is by cutting it down. There's always a huge demand for cheap lumber. But, ultimately, we need forests to breathe. In an anarchist society, who would keep that in check?
Cutting them down and then what? Growing something else more than likely. Plants don't just stop producing oxygen because they're privately planted.

In addition:
Quote:
Originally Posted by [URL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_role_of_oxygen#Photosynthesis[/url]]Green algae and cyanobacteria in marine environments provide about 70% of the free oxygen produced on earth.[1] The remainder is produced by terrestrial plants, although for example, almost all oxygen produced in tropical forests is consumed by organisms living there.[2]
   
  (#90 (permalink)) Old
Xujhan Offline
Resident Atheist
I can't get enough
*********
 
Xujhan's Avatar
 
Name: Fletcher
Age: 24
Gender: Male
Location: Ontario, Canada

Posts: 2,038
Join Date: January 17th 2009

Re: the welfare system - June 23rd 2010, 02:40 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosty View Post
Cutting them down and then what? Growing something else more than likely. Plants don't just stop producing oxygen because they're privately planted.
Why replant when you can just move on to the next forest? Surely that would be cheaper and more profitable.

Even if we lose, say, just 5% of the planet's ability to convert carbon dioxide to oxygen, what would the repercussions of that be? It wouldn't mean that our atmosphere just has 5% less oxygen in it - though even that could easily have dangerous ramifications. That change will be cumulative over time.

The question's a general one though. There are endless ways that a company can do something that might be damaging to the world somewhere down the line, and with no laws or governments in place, what's to stop that from happening?


The atoms that make up you and me were born in the hearts of suns many times greater than ours, and in time our atoms will once again reside amongst the stars. Life is but an idle dalliance of the cosmos, frail, and soon forgotten. We have been set adrift in an ocean whose tides we are only beginning to comprehend and with that maturity has come the realization that we are, at least for now, alone. In that loneliness, it falls to us to shine as brightly as the stars from which we came.
  Send a message via MSN to Xujhan  
  (#91 (permalink)) Old
Frosty Offline
Member
Senior TeenHelper
*******
 
Frosty's Avatar
 
Age: 23

Posts: 790
Join Date: January 7th 2009

Re: the welfare system - June 23rd 2010, 04:03 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xujhan View Post
Why replant when you can just move on to the next forest? Surely that would be cheaper and more profitable.
Most of the deforestation I'm aware of (granted, other than that for pasture) involves making plantations of the type of wood they want to get to the market. Most uses of wood demand specific types, not random mixes of whatever the company stumbled upon in the forest somewhere. Besides, what could be profitable about leaving behind land that they have presumably spent money on providing infrastructure for (like roads etc.) and bulldozing your way somewhere else?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xujhan View Post
Even if we lose, say, just 5% of the planet's ability to convert carbon dioxide to oxygen, what would the repercussions of that be? It wouldn't mean that our atmosphere just has 5% less oxygen in it - though even that could easily have dangerous ramifications. That change will be cumulative over time.
I seem to recall hearing somewhere that the level of oxygen is largely self regulating - if oxygen gets significantly higher, more forests are destroyed in fires, and the opposite if it gets lower.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xujhan View Post
The question's a general one though. There are endless ways that a company can do something that might be damaging to the world somewhere down the line, and with no laws or governments in place, what's to stop that from happening?
Generally, through strict property rights. There's no better way to make people not give a shit about the condition of some piece of the environment then not allowing anyone to own it. See: tragedy of the commons.
   
  (#92 (permalink)) Old
Noctis Offline
Scary Sharp
Average Joe
***
 
Noctis's Avatar
 
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Location: At work.

Posts: 103
Join Date: January 11th 2009

Re: the welfare system - June 23rd 2010, 06:53 PM

Off....

Topic....

Anyways, while there are numerous ways to improve the welfare system, none of them are put into practice because it would lead to increased spending.

The thing is, they don't seem to realize that I would much rather have my money utilized in providing more jobs for welfare employees rather than spoon-feeding useless human trash.

But then, there's the ever impressive government spending of your tax dollars.

The root of the problem is that assuming that each welfare abuser has 3 or more kids, the growth is exponential. The kids will see what mommy and daddy did and will do the same(monkey see, monkey do). I hate to blame children for the crimes of the parents(for that is a religious fanatic "thing"), the fact of the matter is, bad parenting will lead to bad people.

I think the quickest and simplest solution is to give everyone a birth control shot every month or else their EBT cards don't get reloaded or they don't get their welfare checks.

Some might call it inhumane, I say "be glad I'm not cutting your balls off".


"I am the shadow cast by the light of science."
   
  (#93 (permalink)) Old
Jesus paid it ALL.
I've been here a while
********
 
ALLorNOTHINGforCHRIST's Avatar
 
Name: Emily
Age: 23
Gender: Female
Location: Georgia( the U.S. state)

Posts: 1,945
Join Date: June 6th 2010

Re: the welfare system - June 23rd 2010, 09:11 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noctis View Post
Off....

Topic....

Anyways, while there are numerous ways to improve the welfare system, none of them are put into practice because it would lead to increased spending.

The thing is, they don't seem to realize that I would much rather have my money utilized in providing more jobs for welfare employees rather than spoon-feeding useless human trash.

But then, there's the ever impressive government spending of your tax dollars.

The root of the problem is that assuming that each welfare abuser has 3 or more kids, the growth is exponential. The kids will see what mommy and daddy did and will do the same(monkey see, monkey do). I hate to blame children for the crimes of the parents(for that is a religious fanatic "thing"), the fact of the matter is, bad parenting will lead to bad people.

I think the quickest and simplest solution is to give everyone a birth control shot every month or else their EBT cards don't get reloaded or they don't get their welfare checks.

Some might call it inhumane, I say "be glad I'm not cutting your balls off".
And what happens if the birth control fails? Trust me I know at LEAST two women that has happened to.
   
  (#94 (permalink)) Old
ThrashAttack Offline
Banned
I've been here a while
********
 
ThrashAttack's Avatar
 
Name: Will
Age: 23
Gender: Male
Location: Edge of Oblivion

Posts: 1,380
Join Date: January 10th 2009

Re: the welfare system - June 23rd 2010, 09:31 PM

. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ,.-‘”. . . . . . . . . .``~.,
. . . . . . . .. . . . . .,.-”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .“-.,
. . . . .. . . . . . ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ”:,
. . . . . . . .. .,?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\,
. . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,}
. . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`.}
. . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:”. . . ./
. . . . . . .?. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . ./
. . . . . . . /__.(. . .“~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./
. . . . . . /(_. . ”~,_. . . ..“~,_. . . . . . . . . .,:`. . . . _/
. . . .. .{.._$;_. . .”=,_. . . .“-,_. . . ,.-~-,}, .~”; /. .. .}
. . .. . .((. . .*~_. . . .”=-._. . .“;,,./`. . /” . . . ./. .. ../
. . . .. . .\`~,. . ..“~.,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../
. . . . . .(. ..`=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-”
. . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..\. . /\
. . . . . . \`~.*-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|,./.....\,__
,,_. . . . . }.>-._\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . ..`=~-,
. .. `=~-,_\_. . . `\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `\. . . . . . ..__
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`=-,. . . . . . . . . .,%`>--==``
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _\. . . . . ._,-%. . . ..`


At this whole thread
  Send a message via MSN to ThrashAttack  
1 user(s) liked this post or found it helpful.
  (#95 (permalink)) Old
Noctis Offline
Scary Sharp
Average Joe
***
 
Noctis's Avatar
 
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Location: At work.

Posts: 103
Join Date: January 11th 2009

Re: the welfare system - June 23rd 2010, 09:32 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by I love dogs View Post
And what happens if the birth control fails? Trust me I know at LEAST two women that has happened to.
Of course, nothing is absolute.

It is however, more effective than giving them free condoms and actually expecting them to use it like an ignorant parent would.

I would think that birth control would be better than nothing. It's certainly cheaper than surgically removing their reproductive organs(much more "humane" too).

Perhaps it's a small and shaky step forward made by a drunk dog onto the surface of a recently frozen lake, but it's a step forward at least.


"I am the shadow cast by the light of science."
   
  (#96 (permalink)) Old
Batman. Offline
Protector of Gotham
I can't get enough
*********
 
Batman.'s Avatar
 
Name: Julz
Age: 26
Gender: Female
Location: Ontario, Canada

Posts: 2,760
Join Date: December 14th 2009

Re: the welfare system - June 23rd 2010, 09:52 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosty View Post
What uses exist under public ownership that can't exist under private ownership?
Private ownership means that the owner could easily put up a "No Trespassing" sign and people can get charged for stepping even a bit into the forest (true story, it happened to one of the forests around here!). And no private owner in their right mind would have the forest still be public access, considering every time an accident happens, the insurance goes up. So every time someone doesn't monitor their campfire close enough, and the forest burns down, thats money the private owner has to keep putting out.
Your idea makes absolutely no common sense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosty View Post
You seriously think it makes sense for people living in fire prone areas to be subsidised by taxpayers living outside of these areas? Why the special treatment for people who want to live in fire prone areas? If I want to live in a beachside mansion, but am unwilling/unable to cover the cost of doing so, should I get subsidised? If not, why the difference between wanting to live in a beachside mansion vs. wanting to live out in the bush in fire prone areas?
*Facepalm* Its more logical to pay a bit more in taxes for firefighters than it does for people to move out of a large chunk of a country, and over-crowd the other part, just for the sake of saving a few bucks on taxes.


Dare to be Different, to be Weird, to be a Freak.
Overall, Dare to be yourself.

Stamp Out Prejudice Hatred and Intolerance Everywhere
The Sophie Lancaster Foundation



   
  (#97 (permalink)) Old
Zyzz Offline
Superman
I've been here a while
********
 
Zyzz's Avatar
 
Gender: Male

Posts: 1,007
Join Date: January 6th 2009

Re: the welfare system - June 23rd 2010, 10:08 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThrashAttack View Post
. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ,.-. . . . . . . . . .``~.,
. . . . . . . .. . . . . .,.-. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .-.,
. . . . .. . . . . . ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :,
. . . . . . . .. .,?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\,
. . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,}
. . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`.}
. . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:. . . ./
. . . . . . .?. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . ./
. . . . . . . /__.(. . .~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./
. . . . . . /(_. . ~,_. . . ..~,_. . . . . . . . . .,:`. . . . _/
. . . .. .{.._$;_. . .=,_. . . .-,_. . . ,.-~-,}, .~; /. .. .}
. . .. . .((. . .*~_. . . .=-._. . .;,,./`. . / . . . ./. .. ../
. . . .. . .\`~,. . ..~.,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../
. . . . . .(. ..`=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-
. . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..\. . /\
. . . . . . \`~.*-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|,./.....\,__
,,_. . . . . }.>-._\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . ..`=~-,
. .. `=~-,_\_. . . `\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `\. . . . . . ..__
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`=-,. . . . . . . . . .,%`>--==``
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _\. . . . . ._,-%. . . ..`


At this whole thread
i agree with this one
   
  (#98 (permalink)) Old
Casey. Offline
Dance with me
I can't get enough
*********
 
Casey.'s Avatar
 
Name: Casey
Age: 24
Gender: Female
Location: Somewhere in my mind

Posts: 2,357
Join Date: January 6th 2009

Re: the welfare system - June 24th 2010, 12:29 AM

Let's try to get back on topic please. If you want to debate, without attacking each other, your views on whether we should have taxes, make another thread. I know welfare and taxes tie together in a sense, it'd keep things more organized and on topic if we didn't debate whether we need taxes here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurricane
Everyone does have a right to food, shelter, and basic health care and education IF THEY WORK FOR IT
So, I'm going to take what you said out of context. Does your statement apply to yourself? You do not work, so do you have a right to food, shelther, education, and health care? Does anyone under sixteen? Sure, their parents should care for them, burt since they are human beings too, they shouldn't be an exception to having to work for a living.

I'll put this nicely. There aren't enough jobs to go around. We need taxes to keep this country running, unless you want to do away with the government system and democracy too. The US is close to getting UHC, which is awesome, because many can't afford to be insured. But, I bet you'd say that's their problem and they don't work hard enough. And that's all I'm going to say on this thread.


She whispered to her own reflection "I will be strong."

"I am not what has happened to me.I am what I have chosen to become."- Carl Jung

"If ye harm none, do as ye wish."

Sometimes things just happen.


Smile through the tears.


PM me


Last edited by Casey.; June 24th 2010 at 12:39 AM.
  Send a message via Yahoo to Casey.  
  (#99 (permalink)) Old
Jesus paid it ALL.
I've been here a while
********
 
ALLorNOTHINGforCHRIST's Avatar
 
Name: Emily
Age: 23
Gender: Female
Location: Georgia( the U.S. state)

Posts: 1,945
Join Date: June 6th 2010

Re: the welfare system - June 24th 2010, 01:09 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Casey. View Post
Let's try to get back on topic please. If you want to debate, without attacking each other, your views on whether we should have taxes, make another thread. I know welfare and taxes tie together in a sense, it'd keep things more organized and on topic if we didn't debate whether we need taxes here.


So, I'm going to take what you said out of context. Does your statement apply to yourself? You do not work, so do you have a right to food, shelther, education, and health care? Does anyone under sixteen? Sure, their parents should care for them, burt since they are human beings too, they shouldn't be an exception to having to work for a living.

I'll put this nicely. There aren't enough jobs to go around. We need taxes to keep this country running, unless you want to do away with the government system and democracy too. The US is close to getting UHC, which is awesome, because many can't afford to be insured. But, I bet you'd say that's their problem and they don't work hard enough. And that's all I'm going to say on this thread.
I don't know about getting UHC whatever that is because if it's what I think it is there is A LOT of objection to it and to be frank I am one that imposes it.
   
  (#100 (permalink)) Old
Batman. Offline
Protector of Gotham
I can't get enough
*********
 
Batman.'s Avatar
 
Name: Julz
Age: 26
Gender: Female
Location: Ontario, Canada

Posts: 2,760
Join Date: December 14th 2009

Re: the welfare system - June 24th 2010, 01:23 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Casey. View Post
I'll put this nicely. There aren't enough jobs to go around. We need taxes to keep this country running, unless you want to do away with the government system and democracy too. The US is close to getting UHC, which is awesome, because many can't afford to be insured. But, I bet you'd say that's their problem and they don't work hard enough. And that's all I'm going to say on this thread.
Agreed, its hard to find work in some areas, especially if its an area heavy in teenagers and an adult wants a job. Considering that Minimum Wage is different for Students than Adults, people will be more willing to hire Teenagers over Adults, since it's cheaper.

And Universal Health Care is a good idea, but if its executed right. Like, if Health Cards are issued to legal citizens, so Illegal citizens can't walk in and get cheap medicines and free doctor appointments, without paying their part of the taxes.

Before anyone says anything about people on Welfare not contributing, its true. However, they're also limited. They have to go through many steps to be prescribed a medication, especially if its one that can be abused. They have to go to their Social Worker, and have proof from a doctor that they do, in fact, need a medication, and need money to pay for that medication. So its not like they can start abusing prescription drugs, unless they have a doctor who writes out fake prescriptions (which isn't frequent, but it does happen).

So it's not like Universal Health Care (as long as it's done right) is a handout, it's a useful service. Think about it, even if you're a working person, you honestly think if you have a medical emergency, you'll have thousands of dollars in your pocket to pay before you can be treated? Or that if you happen to be laid off due to a broken leg, and get considerably less from your Unemployment (or whatever you call the money to compensate for your broken leg), that you should have to go into debt over Hospital Bills?


Dare to be Different, to be Weird, to be a Freak.
Overall, Dare to be yourself.

Stamp Out Prejudice Hatred and Intolerance Everywhere
The Sophie Lancaster Foundation



   
  (#101 (permalink)) Old
Jesus paid it ALL.
I've been here a while
********
 
ALLorNOTHINGforCHRIST's Avatar
 
Name: Emily
Age: 23
Gender: Female
Location: Georgia( the U.S. state)

Posts: 1,945
Join Date: June 6th 2010

Re: the welfare system - June 24th 2010, 01:29 AM

Before you say anything about ME being aganist UHC I AM on medicade (GOVERNMENT insurance) due to being disabled.
   
  (#102 (permalink)) Old
Batman. Offline
Protector of Gotham
I can't get enough
*********
 
Batman.'s Avatar
 
Name: Julz
Age: 26
Gender: Female
Location: Ontario, Canada

Posts: 2,760
Join Date: December 14th 2009

Re: the welfare system - June 24th 2010, 02:06 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by I love dogs View Post
Before you say anything about ME being aganist UHC I AM on medicade (GOVERNMENT insurance) due to being disabled.
But don't you think that Universal Health Care (as I've said, if executed properly), could potentially save money in the long run?

In fact, it'd possibly help with the welfare issue too. Say someone on Welfare injures themselves. Instead of having to pay thousands of dollars, and continue to be in debt, thus making them more likely to stay on the system forever, that'd be one less expense stopping them from advancing.

It'd also save a handful of lawsuits from happening. I've seen episodes of Judge Judy, with American citizens suing each other over these HUGE medical bills. And there are probably a hell of alot more cases of this in the civil courts. If taxes are paid for Health Care, taxes to pay for the courts to run could be cut down as well.

I don't get why everyone would be so opposed to it. I mean, I'm in Canada, where we have Universal Health Care, AND the options for insurance, to cover expenses Universal Health Care doesn't (i.e. Specialists, Prescriptions, etc. though, our Prescriptions ARE cheaper, they're certainly not FREE!).

Lets put it this way. Here, if you have a Doctor's Appointment, it's free. If you need a Chiropractor, it costs money. If you have Health Insurance through work, you can get the Chiropractor considerably cheaper, or even Free.
If you have to go to the Emergency Room at the hospital, you have to show your health card (as well as having to show the health card at your Doctor's office), and the Emergency service is free. But if your Emergency turns out to be, let's say, Bronchitus, you have to pay for the Antibiotics. But if you have insurance through where you work (which usually covers a spouse and your kids), the prescription is drastically lowered in price, or even free.
When I was under my dad's Health Insurance, my birth control was FREE, completely. My friend's mom had a lower-paying job, thus paid less into Health insurance, so hers was either $5 or $10 (I forget, this was a few years ago). Now that I'm uninsured, my birth control costs about $20. So as you can imagine, its not really expensive, but it can potentially be free. The appointment to get it prescribed, however, is completely free, except the taxes paid.

Does that clear things up a little bit?


Dare to be Different, to be Weird, to be a Freak.
Overall, Dare to be yourself.

Stamp Out Prejudice Hatred and Intolerance Everywhere
The Sophie Lancaster Foundation



   
  (#103 (permalink)) Old
Frosty Offline
Member
Senior TeenHelper
*******
 
Frosty's Avatar
 
Age: 23

Posts: 790
Join Date: January 7th 2009

Re: the welfare system - June 24th 2010, 03:37 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by -ArcAngel- View Post
Private ownership means that the owner could easily put up a "No Trespassing" sign and people can get charged for stepping even a bit into the forest (true story, it happened to one of the forests around here!). And no private owner in their right mind would have the forest still be public access, considering every time an accident happens, the insurance goes up. So every time someone doesn't monitor their campfire close enough, and the forest burns down, thats money the private owner has to keep putting out.
Your idea makes absolutely no common sense.
So what you're saying is, the cost of putting out fires can't be justified by what people gain by using it? Again you're just assuming these cost vs. benefits magically change under publiic ownership.

Quote:
Originally Posted by -ArcAngel- View Post
*Facepalm* Its more logical to pay a bit more in taxes for firefighters than it does for people to move out of a large chunk of a country, and over-crowd the other part, just for the sake of saving a few bucks on taxes.
Make up your mind. Is it a bit more in taxes, or some enourmous insurance fee no one would be willing to pay? It can't be both unless your government is either a) magic and can pull resources out of nowhere or b) forcing a much larger segment of the population to subsidise those living in dangerous areas.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Casey. View Post
So, I'm going to take what you said out of context. Does your statement apply to yourself? You do not work, so do you have a right to food, shelther, education, and health care? Does anyone under sixteen? Sure, their parents should care for them, burt since they are human beings too, they shouldn't be an exception to having to work for a living.
I think the general idea is that unless someone voluntarily supports you (or has a sort of parental obligation I guess) you need to support yourself. Kids fall into the former category.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Casey. View Post
I'll put this nicely. There aren't enough jobs to go around.
Stop the government from interfering with the price mechanism and there's no reason the market shouldn't be able to clear.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Casey. View Post
We need taxes to keep this country running, unless you want to do away with the government system and democracy too.
Yes please!
   
  (#104 (permalink)) Old
Batman. Offline
Protector of Gotham
I can't get enough
*********
 
Batman.'s Avatar
 
Name: Julz
Age: 26
Gender: Female
Location: Ontario, Canada

Posts: 2,760
Join Date: December 14th 2009

Re: the welfare system - June 24th 2010, 04:18 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosty View Post
So what you're saying is, the cost of putting out fires can't be justified by what people gain by using it? Again you're just assuming these cost vs. benefits magically change under publiic ownership.
If the fires are happening frequently, the insurance would drastically go up. If someone/something is accident-prone, the insurance rate for such is going to go up. That is, after all, how insurance works.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosty View Post
Make up your mind. Is it a bit more in taxes, or some enourmous insurance fee no one would be willing to pay? It can't be both unless your government is either a) magic and can pull resources out of nowhere or b) forcing a much larger segment of the population to subsidise those living in dangerous areas.
First of all, it's not my government. Second of all, as I said above, the insurance goes up with every incident! The taxes won't change based on the amount of fires the fire service has to put out, unless it happens to go WAY over-budget somehow, keeping in mind that taxes also vary based on if you live in a fire-prone area or not. I know in Canada, taxes are different for different provinces, so I don't see why areas more prone to fires wouldn't have people paying more for their fire service anyways.

Yet privately insuring won't happen. No one will want to take on something so risky, that the cost will increase everytime a fire happens. And people would be outraged if they were charged to use the forests by a private buyer, trying to compensate for the insurance costs anyways.

So either way, it's not going to go over well with the public, or the private buyer, if someone took on the insurance privately. Safe to say, people in those areas would rather pay the taxes to be able to use the forest as they wish, without paying a fee or worrying about some private buyer.


Dare to be Different, to be Weird, to be a Freak.
Overall, Dare to be yourself.

Stamp Out Prejudice Hatred and Intolerance Everywhere
The Sophie Lancaster Foundation



   
  (#105 (permalink)) Old
Frosty Offline
Member
Senior TeenHelper
*******
 
Frosty's Avatar
 
Age: 23

Posts: 790
Join Date: January 7th 2009

Re: the welfare system - June 24th 2010, 04:38 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by -ArcAngel- View Post
If the fires are happening frequently, the insurance would drastically go up. If someone/something is accident-prone, the insurance rate for such is going to go up. That is, after all, how insurance works.
This is because the insurance is going to accurately reflect the costs associated. If fires are happening frequently, it's going to impose a cost whether it's privately owned or publicly owned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by -ArcAngel- View Post
First of all, it's not my government.
I don't care.

Quote:
Originally Posted by -ArcAngel- View Post
Second of all, as I said above, the insurance goes up with every incident! The taxes won't change based on the amount of fires the fire service has to put out, unless it happens to go WAY over-budget somehow,
No, the insurance merely varies with the risks associated. You're probably thinking about car insurance, and extrapolating this to everything else, where with car insurance, accidents raise your premium because they demonstrate you to be a poor driver. So yeah, the insurance is going to vary based on the costs of the fires and the risks, which is the exact same thing which is going to happen if taxes deal with it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by -ArcAngel- View Post
keeping in mind that taxes also vary based on if you live in a fire-prone area or not. I know in Canada, taxes are different for different provinces, so I don't see why areas more prone to fires wouldn't have people paying more for their fire service anyways.
Well in that case, if noone is subsidising them, why would paying for fire protection via insurance cost so much more than paying for it through tax?

Quote:
Originally Posted by -ArcAngel- View Post
Yet privately insuring won't happen. No one will want to take on something so risky, that the cost will increase everytime a fire happens.
If the cost of protection is too great to justify living there, this is going to be the case no matter how fire protection is provided. Unless, as I said, those in danger are subsidised by those not in danger.

Quote:
Originally Posted by -ArcAngel- View Post
And people would be outraged if they were charged to use the forests by a private buyer, trying to compensate for the insurance costs anyways.
People annoyed they now have to face the costs of their behaviour and not be subsidised by the taxpayer. Boo freakin' hoo.

Quote:
Originally Posted by -ArcAngel- View Post
Safe to say, people in those areas would rather pay the taxes to be able to use the forest as they wish, without paying a fee or worrying about some private buyer.
Like I keep telling you, either they are paying at least as much in tax, or they're just being subsidised by people not utilising the services but still paying tax.
   
  (#106 (permalink)) Old
Batman. Offline
Protector of Gotham
I can't get enough
*********
 
Batman.'s Avatar
 
Name: Julz
Age: 26
Gender: Female
Location: Ontario, Canada

Posts: 2,760
Join Date: December 14th 2009

Re: the welfare system - June 24th 2010, 05:57 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosty View Post
This is because the insurance is going to accurately reflect the costs associated. If fires are happening frequently, it's going to impose a cost whether it's privately owned or publicly owned.
No, because as I said, the taxes for firefighting services are a budget for the fire department. They aren't supposed to go over that budget. And if they do, then people are increasingly taxed. The money not only goes towards the work itself, but the vehicles, upkeep of such, the hydrants, the uniforms (making sure they're in good condition), making sure fire halls are up-to-date as far as building standards, equipment, alarms, communications, etc. go.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosty View Post
No, the insurance merely varies with the risks associated. You're probably thinking about car insurance, and extrapolating this to everything else, where with car insurance, accidents raise your premium because they demonstrate you to be a poor driver. So yeah, the insurance is going to vary based on the costs of the fires and the risks, which is the exact same thing which is going to happen if taxes deal with it.
No, all insurance increases when something happens that it's needed. If your house is bound to get robbed, the insurance is going to increase.
And I explained the differences between the taxes and the insurance. The only way the taxes would go up is if the amount of fires went up drastically. Like, lets say there have been between 10-15 forest fires a year. Then it shoots up to 30. Then taxes would increase, because well, are they going to keep track of the exact people who started the additional 15 fires? Doubt it. Especially since it's not always an isolated incident, but rather could be multiple fires for a Holiday weekend, or summer vacations, that cause the problems.
THATS the only way the taxes would increase.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosty View Post
Well in that case, if noone is subsidising them, why would paying for fire protection via insurance cost so much more than paying for it through tax?
I've explained this above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosty View Post
If the cost of protection is too great to justify living there, this is going to be the case no matter how fire protection is provided. Unless, as I said, those in danger are subsidised by those not in danger.
*points up to explanations*

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosty View Post
People annoyed they now have to face the costs of their behaviour and not be subsidised by the taxpayer. Boo freakin' hoo.
More accurately, people having to pay to use something that used to be free. That'd be the issue. If the toilets at your school were flooded by some smart-ass kids, wouldn't you be annoyed if you had to pay $1 each time to use them? But eh, they took $50 off your tuition because the janitor doesn't need to be paid through the school, but through the students using the bathroom.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosty View Post
Like I keep telling you, either they are paying at least as much in tax, or they're just being subsidised by people not utilising the services but still paying tax.
They would probably end up paying less in taxes. It'll be less likely that people would even innocently stroll through the forest if they had to pay a "Just in case you decide to have a cigarette or a campfire" fee, so the ones who do plan on having campfires would have to pay more, which would annoy them. And the people who can't stroll due to other people's actions would be annoyed too. I'm sure they'd rather pay a few bucks in taxes than a few bucks per forest use.


Dare to be Different, to be Weird, to be a Freak.
Overall, Dare to be yourself.

Stamp Out Prejudice Hatred and Intolerance Everywhere
The Sophie Lancaster Foundation



   
  (#107 (permalink)) Old
Frosty Offline
Member
Senior TeenHelper
*******
 
Frosty's Avatar
 
Age: 23

Posts: 790
Join Date: January 7th 2009

Re: the welfare system - June 24th 2010, 09:08 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by -ArcAngel- View Post
No, because as I said, the taxes for firefighting services are a budget for the fire department. They aren't supposed to go over that budget. And if they do, then people are increasingly taxed. The money not only goes towards the work itself, but the vehicles, upkeep of such, the hydrants, the uniforms (making sure they're in good condition), making sure fire halls are up-to-date as far as building standards, equipment, alarms, communications, etc. go.
I don't even know how you intend for this to make sense. You can't just take out part of the cost under public ownership, label it as "a budget for the fire department" and pretend that this cost doesn't exist. Either way the fire department has to be maintained, whether owned by government or run privately, and either way, someone has to finance it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by -ArcAngel- View Post
No, all insurance increases when something happens that it's needed. If your house is bound to get robbed, the insurance is going to increase.
Insurance is dependant on the risk. They aren't just going to step in, offer rates of 0, and then every time another fire happens think "huurr duur maybe we should've charged them more".

Quote:
Originally Posted by -ArcAngel- View Post
No, all insurance increases when something happens that it's needed. If your house is bound to get robbed, the insurance is going to increase.
And I explained the differences between the taxes and the insurance. The only way the taxes would go up is if the amount of fires went up drastically. Like, lets say there have been between 10-15 forest fires a year. Then it shoots up to 30. Then taxes would increase, because well, are they going to keep track of the exact people who started the additional 15 fires? Doubt it. Especially since it's not always an isolated incident, but rather could be multiple fires for a Holiday weekend, or summer vacations, that cause the problems.
THATS the only way the taxes would increase.
I'm talking about the total cost here. You can't compare some concept of increased taxes with total costs for a private service, and I don't even know how it got into your head that you could make such a comparison fairly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by -ArcAngel- View Post
More accurately, people having to pay to use something that used to be free.
There's no such thing as free. It can only be made to appear that way by forcing taxpayers to cover the cost of people's actions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by -ArcAngel- View Post
They would probably end up paying less in taxes. It'll be less likely that people would even innocently stroll through the forest if they had to pay a "Just in case you decide to have a cigarette or a campfire" fee, so the ones who do plan on having campfires would have to pay more, which would annoy them.
BUT I WANT OTHER PEOPLE TO ASSUME THE RISKS OF MY ACTIVITIES!!!
   
  (#108 (permalink)) Old
ThrashAttack Offline
Banned
I've been here a while
********
 
ThrashAttack's Avatar
 
Name: Will
Age: 23
Gender: Male
Location: Edge of Oblivion

Posts: 1,380
Join Date: January 10th 2009

Re: the welfare system - June 24th 2010, 09:36 AM

Lol this Thread should be renamed to 'Frosty and ArchAngel's epic flame war'
  Send a message via MSN to ThrashAttack  
  (#109 (permalink)) Old
Frosty Offline
Member
Senior TeenHelper
*******
 
Frosty's Avatar
 
Age: 23

Posts: 790
Join Date: January 7th 2009

Re: the welfare system - June 24th 2010, 10:11 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThrashAttack View Post
Lol this Thread should be renamed to 'Frosty and ArchAngel's epic flame war'
This thread? You should look around the board some more, the other one is WAY more tl;dr.
   
  (#110 (permalink)) Old
Batman. Offline
Protector of Gotham
I can't get enough
*********
 
Batman.'s Avatar
 
Name: Julz
Age: 26
Gender: Female
Location: Ontario, Canada

Posts: 2,760
Join Date: December 14th 2009

Re: the welfare system - June 24th 2010, 10:50 PM

Frosty, before you assume I've "backed down", I'm just here to say that my membership and privileges on this forum are more important than this wasteful, roundabout argument with you.


Dare to be Different, to be Weird, to be a Freak.
Overall, Dare to be yourself.

Stamp Out Prejudice Hatred and Intolerance Everywhere
The Sophie Lancaster Foundation



   
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Tags
system, welfare

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





All material copyright 1998-2014, TeenHelp.
Terms | Legal | Privacy | Conduct

Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000-2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search engine optimization by vBSEO.
Theme developed in association with vBStyles.