"Pulling your own weight does not mean providing for the lazy asses of society." No it doesn't, but you appear to want to stop paying for those that do need providing for because of those that abuse the system, rather than fix the problem.

"People think that their needs constitute a right." Who are these people? I've never met someone who didn't genuinely deserve help who thought they had a right to benefits. Those benefit frauds I have known are all scum suckers who would rather keep their heads down and carry on abusing the system than risk rocking the boat.

"pull their own weight" you mean like actually helping society in general? Like paying taxes which in turn is distributed to help those less fortunate; like those that need it?

Have you ever thought that the people are willing to pay extra for it? And like I said, if you stopped funding the military you'd be able to pay for it and get money back.

Sorry who claims it's a free society? Your idea of a free society wouldn't actually be a society would it?

I doubt anyone on "benies" would vote themselves extras at the cost of reducing the overall standard of living. Maybe they'd vote to stop the military spending (in the US) which is destroying the standard of living of others rather than worry about taking more from the already honest hard working tax dodgers.

Not exactly complaining is it, just explaining your situation? Kukla also states that she's not taking money from anyone else (or sounds like she feels she's owed it).

And, by the way, it's not wrong to want better for yourself, it's not greedy it's generally what everyone wants, it's the fuggin "American Dream" is isn't it?

"The "needy" claim that the able bodies are a bunch of greedy SOBs and that's why they have a "right" to the able bodies' wages. "

Says who. Lots of "claims" going on with little in the way of proof. I put it to you that the benefits offered to the "needy" were more likely put forward by "able" people who actually just give a shit about others.

"But there's no evidence to support this. "

Oh, OK so make a wild statement, then quietly add that it's unprovable.

"It's a deplorable system that punishes the able bodies for being able."

WHAT? No. How is helping out people who need it deplorable? Quite the opposite, it is admirable that society helps those who need it. I don't feel like I'm being punished, especially as I'm paying the same small contribution as everyone else.

My girlfriend worked in a state run home for people who can't look after themselves, they cannot work, they masturbate all day and eat their own shit, I don't think anyone thinks the right thing to do is to make them work.

The kind of people who can't find jobs after a year would be people in the midst of a recession, depression, people whose chosen industry has collapsed. Whole communities which were built up on one industry, which is removed almost overnight, cannot get jobs immediately flipping burgers for each other.

I am imagining that you're in the position where your job has helped pay for your kids to be looked after, or your job provides such things, I am also imagining (guessing) that you have a pretty good job and are fairly skilled. Some people aren't and don't have such fortune.

I did not say forever for these people either, but an arbitrary limit of a year is silly, mothers get 12 months maternity leave alone in the UK, that's if they were employed before they got pregnant, is it fair to demand more from mothers/fathers who are on welfare (or that they deserve less)?

I think (I hope) we're meeting somewhere in the middle on this one anyway, so I'll make this the last one on this thread (unless you post something really inflammatory :)

- I am (again) not for people being on welfare permanently (again they are lazy) or people being given it unfairly, but it's better to catch a few pretenders who don't need it than it is to fail those who do.

No, people with behavioural difficulties, people with medical conditions, single parents bringing up young kids, people who can't find jobs, full time carers looking after relatives who aren't self sufficient. Cutting off cheques to people who need it would not be beneficial, and would more than likely prove detrimental to society overall.

What about people who can't work, people who shouldn't work, people who can't find work?

There are assessments (in the UK anyway) for eligibility for most types of welfare, but even those who are "lazy", the cost of supporting them is probably insignificant to the benefits in standards of life for those that do need it, and is probably infinitesimal compared to the revenues lost (which you have to make up for) from powerful companies and people who avoid paying tax.

I think I covered this in my previous argument. Yes lazy people are lazy (?) I would not wish to see my taxes going to support their lifestyle either. But the point I was getting at, which you seem to have missed, is that the welfare system is there to help those who cannot help themselves. I'd rather resolve the problem of people sponging of the system - those who feel no social responsiblity, I am not denying that - than stop the welfare system (in favour of self), which appears to be the thrust of your argument(s)/debates.

They are considered lazy, generally chastised as such, and are unlikely to better themselves, they are more than likely to be on the poverty line, they have, and will probably always have, less than you. If that's the crappy existence they choose, fuck them they can have it, it's shitty.

I think that such people are a side effect of a welfare system, but the welfare system is there for those who can't work for whatever reason, and to help people out of poverty. Such systems are what can make countries great. Leaving people to rot while you enjoy the fruits of your labour isn't what makes a great country. Without some kind of social responsibility you're not making a country you're making lots of selfish individuals.

1, So? You'd have worked just as hard under British sovereignty. The defining thing which makes the US stand out are the principles it set-up after independence.

2. Every country in the world has corporations. The ones in the US are no different, or make it stand out as something that US "hard work" has helped to produce any more than any other nation.

3. Again, "working hard" for technological advancements doesn't make the country great, maybe some of those advancements do. But "Hard work" simply isn't enough. The framework within which those advancements are made may make it great, for instance a "ban" on stem cell research would stop such advancements. Funding them would be great (if they turned out to be useful). Hard work will go on with or without such frameworks.

Actually no, you cannot avoid "hard work" (which is my point!) without it you'd have.. er actually a much harder life trying to survive; we worked hard to make our lives easier. Hard work is not enough to make a nation great.

And no, under Britain (not England the act of union, the second one even, pre-dates the US' independence by a few years) why would you not have corporations or technological advancements? What a load of claptrap.

I think it's about what is meant by "hard work". Really you could say everything takes hard work, making a bad constitution could take hard work, being guided by god, hiding from Indians, working and being taxed by a colonial/punitive power (no one's going to fight for independence if you've got an easy life already). So, again, hard work does not by itself make a nation great.

I meant, and I think MKIced means, patriotism as it is used more widely today (I might be wrong MKIced, so correct me if I am) as roughly: pride in your country. If anyone uses any of its older meanings (esp. in the media) I'd be blown away.

The only thing accomplished without hard work is indifference... which allowed the holocaust.

What? Yes that's it, simple indifference allowed the holocaust. Took a lot of hard work I reckon. I am being flippant, and I think such statements fail for trying to gain righteousness by oversimplifying/ignoring the actual issues around the holocaust.

Not wanting to labour the point, but that's exactly my argument. The Iranians who are working hard, again I'm just picking on them as current baddies - not because I think they're wrong, aren't making their nation great by working hard, they're making it worse because it's towards the wrong direction. It's the principles behind the hard work which makes it great.

And I understand your point about perspective. But again patriotism (OK I think it's a bad thing) blinds people to whether their country really is "great".

Maybe we should define what "great" means to people. Or start a debate about which is the greatest nation - that'd be fun.

Great points. My opinion of the US is in general so low I am occasionnally shocked at myself. It does have some great things going for it, and some amazingly good people and events in its history.

I have to admit I am confused by your point:

- The people who actually cared about America instead of blindly proclaiming it's greatness (Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, Ben Franklin, etc.).

It reads as if you're stating that Mr Jefferson only blindly proclaimed its greatness? Shurely shome mishtake?

I think there are great things happening in the US (within living memory - which is a bloody short amount of time): space exploration, WWII, which is a serious candidate for the most defining good vs bad event in human history, the genome project, microchips etc, etc.

Saying that nothing's happening now is jumping the gun, it's too early to say what will be the "great" things going forward. I personally think gene research, but like I said it's too early to tell.

Just enough is exactly what it means, for example not recycling isn't an example of just enough; it's an example of not enough or laziness. The same goes for your other points as well, I am not implying that.

Your examples are what I would describe as enough, not hard work. And I don't see, if that's what you think constitutes hard work, how that would make a nation great? Nice yes, but really great? I didn't think that's what Joe meant by "Hard Work" which is why I said he should have tagged Selfishness.

I see your point. I am still not convinced that they are what make the US great (which I suppose is debatable in itself).

Hard work and patriotism are only forces for good if they're well guided and intentioned. They are not in themselves features which make a country great (in my eyes anyway). Iran (to pick the current "bad guy") for instance has lots of people working hard, (towards Nuclear power). And I've never met a non patriotic Israeli yet. Neither country in my eyes is anything close to great.

If they were coupled with good leadership and something like a good set of principles then hard work and patriotism can get those principles established and even exported, but it is those principles that make or break the greatness.

That's two not one. But either way I'm not a big fan of patriotism, being patriotic when your country's in the wrong or doing bad things is, well, wrong if not worse.

Just as a matter of interest, what's wrong with not wanting to work hard? Why not work "just enough"? Who cares how hard you work? And how has "hard work" made the US great?

The preamble (which lets face it is actually an initial argument) and your argument posted are tagged wrong. You're really moaning (yet again) about paying for other peoples benefits, and yet you've tagged your argument as "hard work". What you should have tagged your argument as, considering the diatribe you wrote in the preamble, is "Selfishness"

Your Bill of Rights. Which at the time was an incredibly liberal piece of legislation. Sadly let down by dogmatic refusal to alter parts of it ever since.

The debate intro is such an unstructured rant as to make any sensible response to it impossible. You seem to be arguing that government has too much control, then not enough, that you're forced into enrolment, then that people are going to be excluded, that the funding is going to far, that the government shouldn't be allowed to make HC affordable. Shame.