By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - The sad state of the US people.

akuma587 said:
TheRealMafoo said:
akuma587 said:

the Declaration of Independence says you are entitled to the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness.

 

No, it does not say that. It says you are entitled to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Life and liberty are rights that should be yours as human beings. Happiness you need to pursue. It's not to be given to you. You have to get it yourself.

It is the job of the government to make sure nothing stands in your way. We do a good job of that. No one can be denied of a job based on who they are, go to a school, own property... we all have the right to peruse happiness.

The problem is, the way you want to "help" people pursue that happiness, is by removing other peoples liberties.

They are not yours to take, and the constitution was written in a way to protect them from people like you. Sadly, someone like you is about to hold the highest office in the land. 

But you are against the government intervening in healthcare...and you claim that life is a right as a human being.

I am not against the government intervening in healthcare. I am against the government collecting funds from one group of people, to provide a service to another (and not to the people they collected it from).

If you do what you are asking, you are giving life to one group, at the expense of life and liberty of another.  Life because it takes time to earn it, and liberty because you have no choice but to do it.

In terms of the constitution, life means the government can not take it away from you. Not that it's there job to prolong it for you. I have no issues with the service in general, as long as it's a general service for all.

The only issue I then have with it, is the government sucks at everything they do, so why would they do a good job here? That's a different issue however.



Around the Network
steven787 said:

I'm not angry at my friends.  I don't see how it could have been read that way. 

I am angry at Republicans for killing them.

 

I think you mean the Republicans and Democrats. The bill passed 77-23.



TheRealMafoo said:

I am not against the government intervening in healthcare. I am against the government collecting funds from one group of people, to provide a service to another (and not to the people they collected it from).

If you do what you are asking, you are giving life to one group, at the expense of life and liberty of another.  Life because it takes time to earn it, and liberty because you have no choice but to do it.

In terms of the constitution, life means the government can not take it away from you. Not that it's there job to prolong it for you. I have no issues with the service in general, as long as it's a general service for all.

The only issue I then have with it, is the government sucks at everything they do, so why would they do a good job here? That's a different issue however.

 

Not really, it at the expense of a small portion of the wealth of another.  As far as your reasoning, it's just life; there will always be taxes.  You want to live in a country, use it's resources, it's services, it defense, etc, than you pay taxes.  Because the wealthier individuals actually use more government services, national resources, military defense, and genreally benefit more from the society they live in they pay more.

Sucks, just be glad you're not in that income bracket, if you feel that way.  I made a lot of money off the work of others when I owned my businesses, it's just the price you pay for being able to drive the new car, live in the nice house in a safe neighborhood... it didn't stop me from doing that.

When I wasn't back in school, my higher income provided me with more liberty than the taxes took away.

Let think of a hypothetical.  If there was a federal property tax or sales tax (on ALL transactions, not like states sales tax) the wealthy would still be paying a higher percentage of taxes than the poor compared to there income.



I would cite regulation, but I know you will simply ignore it.

Thanks, it's fixed now.



I would cite regulation, but I know you will simply ignore it.

steven787 said:
TheRealMafoo said:

I am not against the government intervening in healthcare. I am against the government collecting funds from one group of people, to provide a service to another (and not to the people they collected it from).

If you do what you are asking, you are giving life to one group, at the expense of life and liberty of another.  Life because it takes time to earn it, and liberty because you have no choice but to do it.

In terms of the constitution, life means the government can not take it away from you. Not that it's there job to prolong it for you. I have no issues with the service in general, as long as it's a general service for all.

The only issue I then have with it, is the government sucks at everything they do, so why would they do a good job here? That's a different issue however.

 

Not really, it at the expense of a small portion of the wealth of another.  As far as your reasoning, it's just life; there will always be taxes.  You want to live in a country, use it's resources, it's services, it defense, etc, than you pay taxes.  Because the wealthier individuals actually use more government services, national resources, military defense, and genreally benefit more from the society they live in they pay more.

Sucks, just be glad you're not in that income bracket, if you feel that way.  I made a lot of money off the work of others when I owned my businesses, it's just the price you pay for being able to drive the new car, live in the nice house in a safe neighborhood... it didn't stop me from doing that.

When I wasn't back in school, my higher income provided me with more liberty than the taxes took away.

Let think of a hypothetical.  If there was a federal property tax or sales tax (on ALL transactions, not like states sales tax) the wealthy would still be paying a higher percentage of taxes than the poor compared to there income.

 

I will assume you didn't read all of my replies on this page, so I will say it again :).

I don't mind paying taxes. I don't mind paying more taxed then the poor. I don't mind paying more of my share then the poor pay.

I do mind paying for services I can not take advantage of, and solely because the president says we need to "share the wealth".

Again, like in my OP, I am more concerned that more Americans are not worried that our next president feels this way.



Around the Network
TheRealMafoo said:

I am not against the government intervening in healthcare. I am against the government collecting funds from one group of people, to provide a service to another (and not to the people they collected it from).

If you do what you are asking, you are giving life to one group, at the expense of life and liberty of another.  Life because it takes time to earn it, and liberty because you have no choice but to do it.

In terms of the constitution, life means the government can not take it away from you. Not that it's there job to prolong it for you. I have no issues with the service in general, as long as it's a general service for all.

The only issue I then have with it, is the government sucks at everything they do, so why would they do a good job here? That's a different issue however.

I see your point, but isn't most employer healthcare optional in that you have to pay a fee somewhere along the line to get it?  You could choose simply to not pay the fee.  Whenever I have heard of employees getting healthcare from their job they still have to pay something for it.

Your logic kind of falls apart though, I don't use roads in the southern half of Texas, but I still have to pay taxes to help build them.  My house has never caught on fire, but I still have to pay for firefighters.  I have never had someone break into my house, but I still have to pay police officers. 

There are all kinds of government services available to everyone, such as museums, libraries, etc., which many people never use but that are still available to them.  They still have to pay for them though.

Government healthcare would still be available to you even if you choose not to use it.

As for your last point, the best healthcare systems in the world are in countries with socialized medicine, but I do concede that the US is too cheap of a country to adequately fund state healthcare.  To do so, people would just have to accept that there taxes would be higher. 

But in the end most people would actually pay less overall as paying for insurance would generally be more expensive than paying the government for healthcare.  Insurance companies have a lot of overhead, and essentially provide no real service.  Insurance companies in terms of healthcare are the ultimate middle man, and they just leech money out of the market.

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

yay!! let the richs get richer
yay!! it's so sad when they cannot afford their 20millions $ house
yay!! to ceos getting paid 50 millions a year while their employees are paid an average 50k a year
yay!! lets do that while people are still dying of unger in the 21 century
There is a limited amount of wealth out there and when 5% get 80% of the wealth something ain't right, if there isn't redistributions gest what will happen : people will get mad, real mad look at history to know what a mad group of people can do ( french revolution)
i don't know anybody that can produce 1millions$ worth of work in a year, you do know people get rich over the back of others. so now lets ride over the back of rich people that's simple



Bet reminder: I bet with Tboned51 that Splatoon won't reach the 1 million shipped mark by the end of 2015. I win if he loses and I lose if I lost.

Ok, I just got here, so I may be off on some things. But it would seem that Mafoo is angry about welfare, or rather the collecting of taxes from one group that uses it to provide for another group that he cannot benefit from correct?

I gather that from this specifically

"I don't mind paying taxes. I don't mind paying more taxed then the poor. I don't mind paying more of my share then the poor pay.

I do mind paying for services I can not take advantage of, and solely because the president says we need to "share the wealth"."

Ok, fair enough. But you do know that you can benefit from welfare right? If you suddenly lost a ton of money in some stupid business decision, you can get food stamps, government housing, welfare checks, ect. You are perfectly capable of benefiting from that.

To be angry at that you'd have to also abolish say...social security. It's paying for old people that didn't plan ahead. Say...government run free clinics. You almost certainly are not going to be going to a hell hole free clinic if you have health insurance, or even moderately reasonable income. Government funding of stem cell research, you don't have parkinsons, why the hell should you pay for those jittery bastards hope?

You pay for aaaallll sorts of things that you will never use, things that are of no use to you, things that are only for some backwoods yokel that lives in Alaska are going to make use of. The things you're complaining about you can actually use if the circumstances happen to move that way.

I don't like welfare, but not because of it's existence but because of it's sloppy implementation. It's a good program, and one that should exist, it's just one that gets taken advantage of too much.



You can find me on facebook as Markus Van Rijn, if you friend me just mention you're from VGchartz and who you are here.

screw the poor let them die that will teach for being poor
why pay taxes to found the fire departement? my house never catch on fire, yet
why pay for them donuts eating pigs i never got rob or murdered, yet
well am just saying



Bet reminder: I bet with Tboned51 that Splatoon won't reach the 1 million shipped mark by the end of 2015. I win if he loses and I lose if I lost.

steven787 said:
Cueil said:
steven787 said:
Cueil said:
steven787 said:
Because he was a sweet old man. How is anyone going to bad mouth a sweet old man...

He ended the cold war and got us back to hot wars...

 

Ask your parents how fun it was to have air raid drills and watch videos of people being blown to shit by Abombs... I'm sure if they were in school in the Cold War they went through some of that... I think Lewis Black said it best... "That was a scarcy fucking time to"

 

Ask me if I like buildings being crashed into, or friends dying because they joined the military to fight terrorism and get sent to Iraq for no reason at all.  This is called the age of Regeanism for a reason.

 

Your friends are obviously better than you... I wont go so far as to call you trash, but you lean dangerously close to being so.  More people die from idiots in the US every year than have died from both the attack and the war... you can't seriously be angry that your "friends" had the sense of patriotism to join a military that fights to protect you.  Regaurdless of where they are at now that is where their hearts where at and that's why they join.  And they don't get sent to Iraq for no reason... if you still think we are not there for a reason you have mental issues... we went in there for the wrong reasons, but we are certainlly not still there for the wrong reasons.

I'm not angry at my friends.  I don't see how it could have been read that way. 

I am angry at Republicans for killing them because they refuse to end the illegal occupation of another country, apologize to the world, and admit they were wrong.

 

Actually we are still in Iraq for the wrong reasons.  Because the administration was so hell bent on having it their way, they would not listen to anyone that had a different opinion on how it should be fought. If we just left today, except for a training group and equipment, the Iraqis would be better off.  Most of the attacks today in Iraq are solely as a statement to get the U.S. out.

 

You are right about more people dying from stupid stuff.  Let's look at some of the main causes.

Cancer: Republicans prevent research and encourage supersticious education.

Gun violence: Republicans oppose restrictions on use and sales of guns.

Automobiles deaths: Republicans opposed almost every motor vehicle safety regulation.


There are two reasons why people stoop to name calling: 1. They are unable to express there opinions in words how they feel, or 2. they are hateful, jealous, or angry.

Says the person who said Palin is going to open up death camps.