ratbert90 posted:Maybe I can help? Go look at abortion statistics for most of Europe. They have better sex education, which is the key here. In america we teach sex education way WAY to late (It should be taught around 11 - 12 years old.) And the sex education we do get is really really lovely. It's a really basic (think Psyc 101) thing here. If you teach that sex is a horrible thing, kids will still want to have sex, they just won't plan for it. One of the stats in the sourced article kind of affirms this: quote:(31.4%) believed they could not get pregnant at the time; There's no reason any female with a menstruation cycle should ever believe she can't get pregnant if she's not actively using control or using something on the spot like a condom. Even if the guy is a poo poo head and is trying to tell her otherwise, she should be educated enough to know different.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 20:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 18:05 |
|
|
Loving Life Partner posted:One of the stats in the sourced article kind of affirms this: You're vastly overestimating how much these people know about sex and the reproductive cycle. All they know is "Man puts dick in my vagaina and it feels really, really good when sticky stuff comes out of his dick.  " and some very hazy info about how the act (no details) could lead to you having a baby.
closeted republican fucked around with this message at 21:30 on Feb 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 21:26
|
|
|
Shasta Orange Soda posted:Just a few minutes ago, I bought what I initially thought was a king size Milky Way (made by Mars), and it turned out to actually be two bars, advertised as "2 To Go" on the package. The health info on the side calls each bar a single serving, and each is noticeably smaller than a regular Milky Way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2012 22:04
|
|
|
zeroprime posted:Agent provocateur! The players, janitors, food workers, and ticket sellers are all producers. Do not set the laborers against each other while there is still an ownership class.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2012 00:08
|
|
Herman Merman posted:This is why "per serving" nutritional info should be banned. The manufacturer apparently gets to make a single serving as big or as small as they like, usually intentionally misleading the customer. The only pieces of information that can't be easily tampered with are the nutritional contents of the entire item, and that of a fixed amount, say 100g, of the stuff so it's easy to see its nutritional composition. Yeah, I think your mainstream cereal is down to a half a cup of cereal with a half a cup of 2% or skim milk. Nobody eats this much cereal, ever, EVER. I'm also sick of the "part of a complete and balanced breakfast" lie as well. If my breakfast is going to be cereal, it's going to be a bowl of cereal with like 2 cups of cereal and milk to match. I'm not going to have a fried egg, toast, a glass of orange juice, some tofu, and a V8 as well. At that point I don't need the cereal anymore, I've made my own breakfast!
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2012 00:15
|
|
|
Loving Life Partner posted:Yeah, I think your mainstream cereal is down to a half a cup of cereal with a half a cup of 2% or skim milk.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2012 04:45
|
|
|
Video for President's Day; a good reminder of the faith our forefathers had, which has sustained us through generations. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwqHRkyBlQ4
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2012 16:58
|
|
|
Herman Merman posted:This is why "per serving" nutritional info should be banned. The manufacturer apparently gets to make a single serving as big or as small as they like, usually intentionally misleading the customer. The only pieces of information that can't be easily tampered with are the nutritional contents of the entire item, and that of a fixed amount, say 100g, of the stuff so it's easy to see its nutritional composition. Manufacturers here in Australia are required to do exactly that, putting the nutritional information for 100g on every food/drink/etc. Of course, they're free to put whatever serving size they want on there as well, but they have to be next to each other and in identical typefaces, so it's at least a bit easier to see when they're using ridiculous figures. My favourite is a brand of fruit cups that believes somehow that people get 2 servings out of the little pack. Suuuuuure.... iajanus fucked around with this message at 22:16 on Feb 21, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2012 22:08
|
|
|
iajanus posted:Manufacturers here in Australia are required to do exactly that, putting the nutritional information for 100g on every food/drink/etc. Of course, they're free to put whatever serving size they want on there as well, but they have to be next to each other and in identical typefaces, so it's at least a bit easier to see when they're using ridiculous figures. How do your businesses survive with such harsh regulations? Maybe you should try cutting your taxes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2012 22:36
|
|
|
modig posted:Video for President's Day; a good reminder of the faith our forefathers had, which has sustained us through generations. Yeah, Jefferson sure would have loved the loving Knights of Columbus.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2012 03:18
|
|
|
Someone wanted to refute that NYTimes article on contraception? http://www.salon.com/2012/02/21/debunking_the_rights_contraception_myths/
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2012 08:29
|
|
|
 And the snopes link to go with it: http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/microchip.asp Not even going to bother posting it. She clearly can't read. That was the best first response I have ever seen, though (not me).
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2012 15:21
|
|
|
The thing I never understand about conservative literalist Christians reacting to things like this is--wouldn't the End Times be a good thing? Sure, there'll be some crap to deal with first, but then Jesus comes back and everything is great if you're a Christian! Like "If gay marriage/implanted microchips/etc. represents the government becoming a corrupt and anti-Christian entity, and that's a sign of the End Times, and the End Times come before the Second Coming--don't you want the government to move in that direction? Why wouldn't you support gay marriage, and just not get gay married yourself? You'd get to watch the heathen world burn at your righteous feet while you party with Jesus!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2012 16:46
|
|
|
The Macaroni posted:The thing I never understand about conservative literalist Christians reacting to things like this is--wouldn't the End Times be a good thing? Sure, there'll be some crap to deal with first, but then Jesus comes back and everything is great if you're a Christian! Like "If gay marriage/implanted microchips/etc. represents the government becoming a corrupt and anti-Christian entity, and that's a sign of the End Times, and the End Times come before the Second Coming--don't you want the government to move in that direction? Why wouldn't you support gay marriage, and just not get gay married yourself? You'd get to watch the heathen world burn at your righteous feet while you party with Jesus!" Jesus actually said that you should hope that you're not alive to experience the tribulation, and should not try to hasten its arrival, like it will literally be worse than death.  Not that you should expect this person to have much actual knowledge of the Bible. babies havin rabies fucked around with this message at 17:22 on Feb 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2012 17:10
|
|
|
If you allow them to do it, you're just as bad and get to go to hell, too. Or something. I have no idea what goes on in those people's heads. Some of them actually do want to speed things along though, that's a big part of the reason they support Israel the way they do. It's seen as a necessary component of Jesus's return. I kind of wonder what people like "Lindsay" will think when two or three years from now no one has tried to implant a microchip in her forehead or hand. Then I realize she'll have completely forgotten about it by then, and be scared about something else the big evil Muslim-Atheist Black Man is not doing. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2012 17:23
|
|
|
Sarion posted:If you allow them to do it, you're just as bad and get to go to hell, too. Or something. I have no idea what goes on in those people's heads. Some of them actually do want to speed things along though, that's a big part of the reason they support Israel the way they do. It's seen as a necessary component of Jesus's return. It will either be NRA level "he hasn't done it yet because he's just biding his time" or something like "the microchip plan was aborted because we brought attention to it. Yay us!". Either way she is still right in her mind.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2012 17:28
|
|
|
Sarion posted:If you allow them to do it, you're just as bad and get to go to hell, too. Or something. I have no idea what goes on in those people's heads. Some of them actually do want to speed things along though, that's a big part of the reason they support Israel the way they do. It's seen as a necessary component of Jesus's return. In defense of Jesus Christ, Christian Dominionism should not be confused with Christianity. They are, in practice, seperate religions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2012 17:28
|
|
|
babies havin rabies posted:In defense of Jesus Christ, Christian Dominionism should not be confused with Christianity. They are, in practice, seperate religions. Fair enough, but they consider themselves Christians, which is why I specifically said "some". They don't represent most Christians, but my point was that there are people out there like what The Macaroni described: people actively seeking to cause the second coming.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2012 18:10
|
|
|
I'm not sure if this is the correct place for this, if I'm in error please point me in the right direction. It's not funny or especially crazy, except for the usual ignorance of evidence. Someone on facebook posted this old gem, and I felt like enough of a masochist to respond. DarkHorse posted:The assertion that "half of all Americans don't pay income taxes" is completely disingenuous. The correct statement would be "Federal income taxes," as sales tax, property taxes, and state income taxes are not included in that figure, among others. There's also unemployment insurance, social security, and medicare taken out of paychecks. These deductions can be an enormous fraction of your pay when you're working a minimum wage job. There were two responses, one from a stranger and the second from the original acquaintance of mine: quote:Sales taxes (in Fl) and property taxes are all state and local taxes. The federal government has payroll taxes that are supposed to pay for Medicare and Social Security INSURANCE. Meaning you are supposed to get it back. Now I know it all goes into the general fund and they misspend all of it, but they have a ceiling on how much each person can pay. I think it's only taxed up to the first $85,000. Income taxes punish those who are high achievers. The top 10% of income earners pay pay 70% of all income taxes. That is redistribution of wealth. The bottom 50% of people pay very little in taxes and receive most of the benefits. That's a problem. When people think government is free, they will never vote to shrink it. Meaning we have a government that will grow unsustainable large and we spend our way into oblivion. quote:The article is about federal level affairs, so I wouldn't say it is disingenuous. The point in any matter is that there seems to be a continuous push for the FEDERAL Government to do more to support people through social welfare programs when it is not constitutionally a federal power to do so. Any powers not specifically delineated in the constitution to the Federal Government are reserved for the States. If people want social welfare it should be a state program run by the state and financed through state taxes. The federal government needs to significantly slim down its operating budget, and given the fact that so few people pay into one of the major support systems of the Federal Government's operating budget (the federal income tax), there is even more reason to not support Federal Social Welfare Programs. Lets also not forget the Federal Income tax didn't exist until the early 1900's and was only necessitated through fractional reserve banking and expansion of Federal powers beyond what they were meant to be. (which requires additional funding) This article only highlights the pitfalls of continually pushing Federal Government where it shouldn't go. I.E. jobs decrease, income decreases and as a result less people pay the federal government which results in a financial black hole to the tune of 1.2 trillion dollars per year. This is pushing our Federal Government to the point of default in the same way that many Eurozone countries are on the verge of defaulting now. There are 2 ways to solve the Federal Budget black hole: 1. draw additional revenue through taxes or other programs, or 2. drastically reduce Federal Programs. Increasing taxes (or even widening the range of who has to pay them) will only bring about the default of the nation as increased taxes ironically bring in less revenue due to the additional strain placed on the economy. Here is my response - is there anything I could have said better, some home-run evidence I could have used, or something that's definitely wrong or inaccurate? One thing I do wish I had addressed was the whole Bigger Government thing, with this analogy: Businesses benefit from getting bigger because they benefit from economies of scale - why does this rule not also apply to government? In case anyone is wondering, I do this to beef up my rhetoric and provide evidence for those on the sidelines, not because I'm expecting to actually change minds (though that would be nice, of course.) ------------------------------------------------------------------ DarkHorse posted:Okay, I apologize for the length, but there are a lot of points I want to hit upon.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2012 18:16
|
|
|
Sarion posted:Fair enough, but they consider themselves Christians, which is why I specifically said "some". They don't represent most Christians, but my point was that there are people out there like what The Macaroni described: people actively seeking to cause the second coming. Most Christians don't represent Christians anyway with how they act. Following Jesus teachings is a hard thing to do, especially when it comes to judging other people and in general not being a preaching dick to everybody who isn't Christian.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2012 18:18
|
|
|
"Beer, cigs and candy"? I was on EBT for a few months when I was inbetween jobs and you can't buy alcohol or cigs on an EBT card, the checkout system won't let you. You can theoretically spend it all on candy but then you'd have no money for real food seeing as EBT is around $40 a week. Also I was one of those people on EBT while wearing nice clothes and using an iPhone. Y'know, things I bought before I was laid off.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2012 18:35
|
|
|
jojoinnit posted:"Beer, cigs and candy"? I was on EBT for a few months when I was inbetween jobs and you can't buy alcohol or cigs on an EBT card, the checkout system won't let you. You can theoretically spend it all on candy but then you'd have no money for real food seeing as EBT is around $40 a week. You should have sold those things and refused government assistance that you paid for through taxes until you had no home and wore potato sacks as clothing. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2012 18:38
|
|
|
jojoinnit posted:"Beer, cigs and candy"? I was on EBT for a few months when I was inbetween jobs and you can't buy alcohol or cigs on an EBT card, the checkout system won't let you. You can theoretically spend it all on candy but then you'd have no money for real food seeing as EBT is around $40 a week. Last year, one of my old roommates was shopping at a Meijer (seasonal worker, back from Alaska and unemployed at the time) when their network or ability to validate EBTs went out. To deal with the outage, management was recording EBT transactions manually. He paid for his cart and when he got home it suddenly occured to him that the manager had not excluded his 6-pack from the EBT purchase. A week later he got an angry letter from the State threatening to file charges, and they revoked his EBT card for purchasing alcohol with it. He tried to explain, but they didn't care, it was his fault that he allowed the store management to charge the alcohol to the EBT account  In conclusion, gently caress anybody who thinks that people cheat with EBTs and the State of Michigan doesn't do anything. Somebody at the DHS literally went line-item through every one of those receipts. I bet a few families lost their benefits as well if they so much as happened to have a Budweiser in their cart that day. babies havin rabies fucked around with this message at 18:55 on Feb 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2012 18:50
|
|
|
babies havin rabies posted:Last year, one of my old roommates was shopping at a Meijer (seasonal worker, back from Alaska and unemployed at the time) when their network or ability to validate EBTs went out. To deal with the outage, management was recording EBT transactions manually. He paid for his cart and when he got home it suddenly occured to him that the manager had not excluded his 6-pack from the EBT purchase.  We should collect these stories somewhere for convenient Facebook refutation. Truth in EBT usage. I wonder if anyone ever complained about me at the end of the day, this middle class looking white boy using EBT for tuna, cheese and pasta sauce, leeching off the government teat?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2012 18:59
|
|
|
jojoinnit posted:"Beer, cigs and candy"? I was on EBT for a few months when I was inbetween jobs and you can't buy alcohol or cigs on an EBT card, the checkout system won't let you. You can theoretically spend it all on candy but then you'd have no money for real food seeing as EBT is around $40 a week. There was another response, I'm typing up a reply that I'll edit in later - I'm going with the 100 cookies, 1 guy takes 40, 4 of them split 27, etc. etc. using this link: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/10/03/334156/top-five-wealthiest-one-percent/ quote:Have you ever been hired by a poor person?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2012 19:00
|
|
|
Respond with: In today's Capitalistic economy, it's like bringing in a group of people to a room with one sandwich, the rich guy takes 9 out of the 10 pieces, and then expects the other 9 people to share the last slice of that sandwich. Instead of complaining, you want to give him even more of that last piece in the hopes he feels he has too much sandwich and gives some of it to the other 9 people. Conservatism doesn't work! They need class warfare as an excuse to make lovely metaphors like the one I just made.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2012 19:07
|
|
|
DarkHorse posted:Liberalism doesn't work. Perhaps he should first learn the definition of words before he uses them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2012 19:09
|
|
|
Of course taxes are redistribution of wealth, that's part of the whole idea. But Capitalism is also redistribution of wealth. The difference is one moves wealth upwards to be held predominantly by the few, and the other redistributes it to ensure equal opportunities for all.quote:And Moody's Mark Zandi also said that Obama's stimulus package would boost the economy. We know how that turned out. It worked? This guy is just completely detatched from reality. He honestly believes we're just as bad off now as we were in Jan. 2009 and that if Obama had done nothing things wouldn't have gotten worse. quote:Government is supposed to insure equality of opportunity not equality of outcomes. I can agree with this. But does he not understand what equal opportunity means? It means everyone, regardless of their current socioeconomic status has equal access to: -A working infrastructure -Education -Food -Healthcare that doesn't financially bankrupt you -An insurance system that says, "If you work, and lose your job due to no fault of your own, society will be there to help you until you can work again." It's those "socialist" policies he hates that creates the environment of equal opportunity that he claims Government is meant to provide. No one is asking for "equal outcomes". Yeah, some businesses will be wildly successful, and their owners will reap the benefits. That is fine. Guess what, there are really rich people in Europe, too; despite being all "overtaxed" and "redistributed". But many won't. And those people that do fail to achieve their desired outcome shouldn't be left to rot because they tried and failed. That creates a system where only people who a incredibly wealthy to begin with will ever try.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2012 19:23
|
|
|
There've been a bunch of replies to this thread, so I'll just post my (tentative) response here:quote:I am well aware of zero-sum game theory and how it is inappropriate for the economy. I'd also like to respond to the sandwich allegory with one of my own, based on economic data: DarkHorse fucked around with this message at 19:49 on Feb 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2012 19:33
|
|
|
Fantastic response, I only weep because I know he won't actually read it. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2012 19:36
|
|
|
The entire point of progressive taxes is that the wealthy 1) can afford to pay higher taxes and 2) derive the most benefit from the infrastructure created by that tax system. Alternatively you can respond with Adam Smith quotes about progressive taxation. Would that person rather we cut taxes, further increasing the deficit, or should we instead raise taxes on low income households?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2012 19:39
|
|
|
Sporadic posted:Michael Moore made $19.8 million from Fahrenheit 9/11, which grossed $222 million worldwide (the most successful documentary ever released) MY GIRLFRIEND babysit's his dog and she doesn't get any healthcare. Granted, it's a temporary thing (true story... he lives in Torch Lake Michigan)
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2012 19:39
|
|
|
My friend responded, and of course it's in a completely different direction than my tentative response. I don't have the intellectual energy to respond now, but I'd appreciate input on these views. Once again, if this is inappropriate or off-topic please tell me and I'll remove it. EDIT: HAHAHA, now this is more in line with the thread topic. See the last quotes, supplied by the stranger. quote:Keeping away from the earlier political/emotional jargon discussed in two of the posts above (such as "punishment" and rich vs. poor, etc) I will try to stick strictly to a systems and constitution response. The government as it stands has veered so far from its original design that we as Americans should not be surprised that we are in the situation we are in. quote:Addendum: We should also not allow governments (Federal or State) to delve into the matter of bailing out any business or corporation, no matter the size. (Think about the bank bailouts of over $700 billion dollars... we could have financed a war that lasted 10 years for that amount) This is unfair to all taxpayers, State and Federal, and undermines the idea behind competition. The economic benefit that would have come about as the nation picked apart the decayed bones of companies like AIG and Goldman Sachs would have ended up making everyone more prosperous in the end, even if it would have meant a little pain up front. This is a perfect example of how we have deviated from the stated intention of government in my above post "The purpose of the constitution is to establish checks and balances on power distribution and to PREVENT OUTSIDE INTERFERENCE with the government." This applies to lobbyists, the military industrial complex et al. A check that was supposed to enforce this prevention of interference was to allow State Senates to APPOINT their Federal Senators so that lobbyists could not influence a congressman's vote without having to influence the entire State Senate first. We completely undermined this check by allowing Federal Congressman to be elected by popular vote, now they are beholden to the individual companies (and their voting employees) in their congressional district rather than to the nation as a whole. End rant. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Other Guy posted:There aren't just 1000 sandwiches. There are unlimited sandwiches. We can make more. Rich bankers aren't the only people that make a million dollars a year. A tax increase on people making more than $250,000 a year effects all most all small businesses. And why are people hoarding their money?... Because they are affraid of what Obama has coming down the pipe. We don't know what Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, or Obama's EPA will be like. The regulations are still being written. Uncertainty is the biggest problem with the Obama administration. All we see is a President that wants to raise taxes and create more regulations at every turn. I'm a contractor. We spend a lot of time and money just compling with EPA and DOT rules and regulations. We got find $13,000 last year because we didn't have every little piece of paper work for our 3 DOT drivers. Each driver has about 50 pages of paper work on file. We have an outside firm come in to insure we are in compliance, yet they still found something wrong. "Here's a giant fine!" We've never had an accident but the paper wasn't just right. 1 quote:Back when the tax rate was super high the effective tax rate due to deductions was still only about 30%. All of our countries problems can be traced back to liberalism. And liberals get voted in by people like you. Therefore you are at least partially responsible for our country's problems. Please stop hurting our country. quote:Lol... Didn't mean to sound so mean. I gotta say you are one of the more informed liberals I've come across. Most of them are only emotional and don't have any real argument. I've enjoyed it. Glad I'm not one of those emotional, bleeding-heart liberals? 
DarkHorse fucked around with this message at 20:36 on Feb 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2012 20:09
|
|
|
DarkHorse posted:My friend responded, and of course it's in a completely different direction than my tentative response. I don't have the intellectual energy to respond now, but I'd appreciate input on these views. Beside the fact that none of the ideas he has expressed have any grounding in fact, the idea of perfect labor mobility is hilarious. His endgame would ultimately result in destitute states (like Mississippi circa 1930s) literally lacking in education, clean water, electricity, and basic services, where people die of starvation in the streets (or washed out dirt roads as it were). That is because poor people lack the means to vote with their feet, and rich people love to get the gently caress away from the poor (read: black).
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2012 20:32
|
|
|
You make some very good points Darkhorse but let me answer you with a complete derail into my list of prepared libertarian talking points. Speaking of which, a libertarian put this on my news feed  Luckily it immediately attracted the only two left-wingers he knows to start making "drat Obama, repealing the Magna Carta!" posts.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2012 20:34
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:Beside the fact that none of the ideas he has expressed have any grounding in fact, the idea of perfect labor mobility is hilarious. His endgame would ultimately result in destitute states (like Mississippi circa 1930s) literally lacking in education, clean water, electricity, and basic services, where people die of starvation in the streets (or washed out dirt roads as it were). That is because poor people lack the means to vote with their feet, and rich people love to get the gently caress away from the poor (read: black). This whole attitude towards States' rights is based entirely on Game Theory while eschewing the whole of both US history and reality. In order to have it make sense, one would have to argue that the current level of influence from the Federal government is a hindrance to progressive policy at the State level, which is of course absurd.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2012 20:40
|
|
|
This is the right place for it, we discuss Facebook threads here a lot.quote:Going back to social welfare, this is entirely a State problem. It is a power not delineated to the Federal Government, and on paper is not a Federal right. Here is why that makes sense though… Have you ever had to teach a class? If so, then you understand the basic principle that you can always solve student learning problems better in a smaller class. (really, everything except mass production is solved more appropriately in smaller groups) Trying to teach and tutor 500 students and make them all as equally proficient as a student that was taught in a class size of 5 is simply unattainable. Because of this logical fact in human nature, it is always best to solve problems on smaller scales. Welfare (and essentially all other social problems to include drug problems) is a perfect example of this. When a state figures out how to best implement a policy to solve an issue, it can do so in a manner that is most applicable to its population, climate, culture, etc. A perfect example of this policy in action is the general difference of California from the rest of the United States. They have a large number of liberal policies, but guess what… that is their right as a state! If you don’t like it you can always move to another state. That is also another benefit of actually enforcing the Constitution: more people would be happy. You can have states that are liberal to the point of communism and states that are libertarian to the point of anarchy. Think about it, you could live in whichever state’s laws and policies best fit your beliefs. As long as their rules stay within the limits of protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (for ALL people) then they will not be overturned in a Federal Court. (Check and balance for the win) Social Security and Medicare are the only "social welfare" policies done at the Federal Level. TANF ('welfare'), SNAP ('food stamps'), and even Medicaid are managed at the State level. Different States implement these things in different ways. They each get some funding from the Federal level, but they're already run the way he claims to want them run. Also, getting rid of them would barely budge Federal Income Tax rates. Medicare and SS are paid for by FICA. Your Income tax predominantly pays for the military. After that comes the discretionary spending, of which "welfare" is only a small portion. However, there's a much bigger problem here. Every State is not equal. Saying that it's up to each State to manage their own problems on their own is just as stupid as saying it's up to every individual to BOOTSTRAP! How does a state like Alabama or South Carolina take care of it's poor? The median income in those states are so low that there are two major issues: 1) Lots of people need help, and 2) Not many people earn enough money to be taxed enough to help the people in group (1). Which is why it works better at the Federal level. Because they can tax everyone, and direct the aid to whatever parts of the country need it the most. States like Mississippi are too poor to help all the poor people leaving there. Similarly, they're too poor to educate their people or fund infrastructure on their own at adequate levels. And since our country doesn't really function like 50 different States, but rather like one big Nation, having huge sections of our country being underdeveloped and under-educated (even more under-educated than they already are) will only serve to worsen the economy for everyone. Oh, and as for the Constitution: Article 1, Section 8 posted:The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence and general Welfare of the United States; And if he claims that the Founding Fathers didn't mean that Congress was meant to have the power to spend for the benefit of the general welfare... Mr. Alexander Hamilton would like a word with him. And he can thank the Supreme Court (you know, checks and balances) for interpreting it that way. These are not, despite what he might think, new ideas. The role of government as been central to debates since before there was a government. But perhaps most important is that the government can change to fit the needs of the times. Going back to Revolutionary War period views on States and the Federal government is not useful now. People don't spend their entire lives living in one State, nearly completely shut off from the rest of the country. How Ohio educates its children has an impact on me because they're my future co-workers, employees, or customers. How Texas cares for its poor affects the rest of us. Trying to ignore that interconnection and say "everything should be done at the State level!" will not work out at all. Not to mention its incredibly inefficient. Why would you want to have 50 different programs to deal with the same problem?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2012 20:44
|
|
|
babies havin rabies posted:This whole attitude towards States' rights is based entirely on Game Theory while eschewing the whole of both US history and reality. In order to have it make sense, one would have to argue that the current level of influence from the Federal government is a hindrance to progressive policy at the State level, which is of course absurd. The best part is that people just like him get up in arms when OTHER states do things, such as Romney's health care in Mass. They crow about states rights, but then get pissed when states actually exercise their rights, because in the end, they just don't want any government to do anything ever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2012 20:49
|
|
|
Congress also has the power to quote:To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. The Necessary and Proper clause pretty much covers all social welfare spending that isn't covered by the first sentence of Article 1, Section 8. And also, you know, 150 years or more of Federal spending on social welfare.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2012 20:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 18:05 |
|
|
archangelwar posted:The best part is that people just like him get up in arms when OTHER states do things, such as Romney's health care in Mass. They crow about states rights, but then get pissed when states actually exercise their rights, because in the end, they just don't want any government to do anything ever. In their ideal world, policy in Mass. would not affect anything beyond its borders to any significant degree. Becuase of this I really only find irony in that when the person doesn't live in Mass. Seeing that I live in Michigan, that is the case 100% of the time. It is still possible to respond with "How does policy in Mass. affect you in any way? How would electing Ron Paul as President stop something 'horrible' like Romneycare from becoming a national system if each State voted on it?" This way one can easily demonstrate how the current minor movement for increased libertarianism/federalism in the United States is not intellectually consistent. babies havin rabies fucked around with this message at 20:58 on Feb 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2012 20:52
|
|