- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
The problem with this scenario is that some people are so pathetic they have to be told what is wrong. It is a fantastic idea but why should some of us have to tell someone it isn't right,it would be much better if we could just teach common sense.Our ancestors survived without entitlements.
If it was only as easy as telling them I'd be all for it.
How would your bill of wrongs look?
"Except that we all have to give back a certain percentage of our points (taxes)"
Wrong again, just under 50% get back more than they pay in and there in lies the problem.
Also, the top 10% pay 80% of those said points (taxes) which is fine for school and cops but what about paying ACORN and funding union pensions that lost money or bailing out a car company that should be out of business. The top 10% would be thrilled with only paying for cops and school but the elite still determine they should pay more and will always find more to spend using schools and cops as an excuse over and over again. Go JOE
This has always been their way and understood, what is now new is that liberals in the United States are so against Christians they will defend a religion that does not believe in seperation of church and state, a liberal core belief.
Even the founders understood this- http://www.usvetdsp.com/jan07/
What a team, Islamic terrorists and liberals. Who hates America as it is today more?
Agree and to those who say it does violate religious freedoms, I cannot wait to stand beside you in a fight this Christmas season fighting for the rights of a mangier going up on public property. When was the last time you saw liberals standing up for religious rights for something Christian to be built.God Bless you all
1)Why does the state have to insure against diseases? Would not the most prudent thing to do be that an individual insure against disease?
2)Why should the state insure against un-employment? Again,would not the most prudent thing to do be for the individual to insure against this which would eliminate alot of goverment waste by having administrations upon administrations doing this? Think of the savings.
3)" It's called income tax." Companies don't pay income tax(technically).Companies take their portion from what they would have paid you and send it to the goverment.If there was no income tax,YOU would receive higher pay from your company from two sources,what you pay in income tax and also from what they take from you for their portion.The money you say is paid by companies is actually taking away from what you would be paid.
" That's called national insurance."- Again,would it not be more prudent for me to insure myself and less costly (beuracracy). It is proven that an individual will spend their own money more prudent than others would.
4)" end up with vastly more chips than the rest" Life is not a zero sum game, trade and cooperation are mutually beneficial to all parties despite differences among them in terms of capacity and talent.Everyone is made wealthier through cooperation and market economy leads to the benefit of everyone.
5) And the war on poverty has been going on for how long while the same percentage of people remain poor.
Taking over large new areas of land and populations has been done but the problem China (or any one country) would have is keeping control over that area. No large nation or army could control the people of the world through fear like China does to a portion of it's population now. Freedom would cause people in areas to fight and eventually claim independence. Freedom is set too deeply in some societies now for China to change the heart and minds of the world.
"Living someone's life for them is not."
Isn't that what you are doing by coercing me to fund someone else's life?
But you say it's moral so it's ok?
I don't think it's moral to take a hand-out and have non-essential things like a cell phone or cable tv but I can't legislate that because it's cruel correct?
Coerce the weak to be strong,take them off the public payroll. Funny thing happens when you quit paying people to sit at home,they look for work.Nowhere do people become productive by paying them to do nothing,has never happened,will never happen.
A small amount is fine, the top 20% paying 80% of the bill is not fine anymore.
"temporary assistance" is fine, sign us up. Generational welfare has got to go.
A small percentage need medical coverage,fantastic, let's set a cap and regulate it as hard as we regulate wall street.
The reaction you are seeing across the country now is a result of help not being "temporary" but expanded time after time for the sole purpose of buying votes. 99 weeks of unemployment is not acceptable anymore.
Social security was supposed to be "temporary", now if you bring that up the fear police come out screaming , "They're gonna take your social security!"Where's it going to end?
"Which do you think is more likely? That the economists are lying or that you've been manipulated by rich people into voting for their interests?"
Or you haven't been manipulated and are just in denial.
You have pieces of the truth down, taxes now are low, because the Bush tax cuts are in affect until the end of this year but they soon are going up in record numbers.Do some research.
Says dictator jessald
Why should money be coerced from half of the masses and paid to someone else who has a cell-phone payment? cable tv? smokes?
Wouldn't it be easier to coerce the weak and make them stronger through your choices than drag the strong down to the weaker of society through your coercion? Be careful with your answer here. Your coercion is good but mine would be bad right?
Why do Dems constantly credit Republicans for what they are trying to do? I hear "Republicans do it" just about as much as I hear "Let me be clear."
Why don't we just elect Republicans then instead of Dems who keep saying all they are doing is what Republicans do.