Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Who paid for your schooling?Also, why should someone who doesn't have children pay the same in property taxes as someone who does? If you don't have children using the school system then you shouldn't pay as much. If you eventually have a child then your tax bill increases accordinglySometimes yes, sometimes, no. Would you take a child from his family because his family can't afford life insurance?So you think it's more humane to leave kids with people who can't or wont care for them
Got it
I never said life insurance was a requirement but responsible parents do.
So here we go again
If you can't afford to provide food , shelter, clothing, and yes medical care for your children then you should not have kids.
Why should anyone expect other parents who do all of the above for their children to give money that could be used for the welfare of their own children to someone else who refuses to provide all those things for his own family?
I don't have kids so why should I have to pay more of the money I earn so people who have kids they never should have had can get a check?
You shouldn't. When they're done they're done you paid those dues.Who paid for your schooling?Also, why should someone who doesn't have children pay the same in property taxes as someone who does? If you don't have children using the school system then you shouldn't pay as much. If you eventually have a child then your tax bill increases accordinglySometimes yes, sometimes, no. Would you take a child from his family because his family can't afford life insurance?So you think it's more humane to leave kids with people who can't or wont care for them
Got it
I never said life insurance was a requirement but responsible parents do.
So here we go again
If you can't afford to provide food , shelter, clothing, and yes medical care for your children then you should not have kids.
Why should anyone expect other parents who do all of the above for their children to give money that could be used for the welfare of their own children to someone else who refuses to provide all those things for his own family?
I don't have kids so why should I have to pay more of the money I earn so people who have kids they never should have had can get a check?
It seems way more fair to pay less taxes when you're young and trying to raise a family and to pay more when you're older and richer. Using your model I shouldn't pay for schools since my kids no longer go to public schools.
Because you know squat about their sub-culture.Nope. Not sure why you care?Hob nob or work with any Hoodies?Currently about 3-6 miles depending on your definition.How far away are you from the closest Hood?Just the opposite for me. I went to public school and I sent my kids to public school.Always say “No!” to unconditional public assistance when you are able bodied.
Everyone should have the right to have access to healthcare! Ok so what if we were to tweak the definition of right to choice to have healthcare or not? Of course not because people would probably choose the option to go uninsured because they don’t want to have to deal with the insurance companies or the bills. In my opinion and, frankly it’s one of the numerous issues that I have some concerns about is what will happen if this idea doesn’t cover everything? The progressive democrats are going to rush to yes it’ll ! Is anyone here who is on Medicare I’m curious what does Medicare doesn’t cover
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Is anyone here who is on Medicare I’m curious what does Medicare doesn’t cover
It doesn't cover my bicycle. It covers 80% just like it says. It also negotiates process down which is huge.
I'm guessing that, however bad the foster care system, if you had gotten sick or had an accident, it would have covered your expenses. It seems that if you're already paying for healthcare for foster children, paying healthcare of other children but not removing them from their families, is both more humane and more cost effective.You if anyone should know the answer to that question. Paying your debt to the society that took care of you when your own parents couldn't.I don't have kids so why should I have to pay more of the money I earn so people who have kids they never should have had can get a check?
And I already pay for that system as I have said before
You want people to pay even more to parents who don't care for their children
And I don't have a debt to "society"
y foster parents were complete assholes and in fact even though I petitioned family court to be emancipated at 17 I was basically on my own since I was 14. I got a job saved every penny and was away from the foster home most of the time sleeping on couches in my friends houses. I paid for all my own food and clothing too.
So don't think you know what "society" gave me.
Property taxes are based on the market value of the property. WHat the state uses those revenues for is irrelevantAlso, why should someone who doesn't have children pay the same in property taxes as someone who does? If you don't have children using the school system then you shouldn't pay as much. If you eventually have a child then your tax bill increases accordinglySometimes yes, sometimes, no. Would you take a child from his family because his family can't afford life insurance?So you think it's more humane to leave kids with people who can't or wont care for them
Got it
I never said life insurance was a requirement but responsible parents do.
So here we go again
If you can't afford to provide food , shelter, clothing, and yes medical care for your children then you should not have kids.
Why should anyone expect other parents who do all of the above for their children to give money that could be used for the welfare of their own children to someone else who refuses to provide all those things for his own family?
I don't have kids so why should I have to pay more of the money I earn so people who have kids they never should have had can get a check?
You're right. So what's your point?Because you know squat about their sub-culture.Nope. Not sure why you care?Hob nob or work with any Hoodies?Currently about 3-6 miles depending on your definition.How far away are you from the closest Hood?Just the opposite for me. I went to public school and I sent my kids to public school.
You're not describing the country I want to live in. I truly love the idea of the Founding Fathers that everyone is created equal. They may have only been referring to the law but I think it should include equal opportunity for every child. That means every child gets an adequate education, health care, food, and a safe place to live. If the parents can't or won't provide these, it falls on the rest of us to step up. What I don't want is the strict class system of ages past.You shouldn't. When they're done they're done you paid those dues.Who paid for your schooling?Also, why should someone who doesn't have children pay the same in property taxes as someone who does? If you don't have children using the school system then you shouldn't pay as much. If you eventually have a child then your tax bill increases accordinglySometimes yes, sometimes, no. Would you take a child from his family because his family can't afford life insurance?So you think it's more humane to leave kids with people who can't or wont care for them
Got it
I never said life insurance was a requirement but responsible parents do.
So here we go again
If you can't afford to provide food , shelter, clothing, and yes medical care for your children then you should not have kids.
Why should anyone expect other parents who do all of the above for their children to give money that could be used for the welfare of their own children to someone else who refuses to provide all those things for his own family?
I don't have kids so why should I have to pay more of the money I earn so people who have kids they never should have had can get a check?
It seems way more fair to pay less taxes when you're young and trying to raise a family and to pay more when you're older and richer. Using your model I shouldn't pay for schools since my kids no longer go to public schools.
I don't think anyone wants duplication of services. Everyone, right or left, wants gov't to be as efficient as possible, and only large enough to do the job.Right I'm already paying for it so I do not think I need to pay more.
That has been my point all along.
You want the people who already pay for the system we have in place to pay more for a different system and keep paying for the system we already have
We agree. The problem we have is our society is not going libertarian any time soon. I too would love to see government out of our lives and stick to it’s original mandate of solely protecting our rights. However, this is not going to happen.You missed my point about people. Yes most people can take care of themselves, but you must know that some can’t or they make dumb decisions, that result in living in poverty.People make bad choices. It’s only human. Would you rather they not be supported and die in the gutter?
Here's a crazy thought. It's going to be a shock to your world view, so you might want to have a seat. The thing is - it's really not a choice between government dictating things and people dying in the gutter. Believe it or not, we can take care of ourselves, we can take care of our families, our friends, our community, without resorting to legal mandates. True story™.
The problem today is government and big business are one. Their goal is profit and power. The people have no protections from these two criminal enterprises.
Well, they're not quite "one", yet. But they're getting there. Business and government merging into one entity is called socialism.
I would love a libertarian society, but it ain’t going to happen in the quasi Fascist State we live in today.
Agreed. We need an awakening - a realization among the public that government is a terrible way to make most decisions. Without that, we're pretty much destined to go down the state socialism slavery route.
Right. And "we" can take care of those people without resorting to legal mandates. Which was my point. That you missed.
Secondly, the extreme wealthy are well cared for by big government. I find this reprehensible when we know millions of Americans are suffering. Socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor. Is that your motto?
Nope. Government shouldn't be "taking care" of anyone. That's not its purpose. Using it for that is an abuse of the grant of sovereignty.
Socialism is the government taking control of business, rather than colluding.
And? The point is, they merge. Government and business become one. Business leaders will be politicians, and politicians will decide what kind of health care you get, what kind of food is available, what you do for a living, where you live, pretty much every. god. damned. thing.
Agree, but I tend to think it’s too late. We are already in a feudal class system of rich and poor, with minor exceptions.You're not describing the country I want to live in. I truly love the idea of the Founding Fathers that everyone is created equal. They may have only been referring to the law but I think it should include equal opportunity for every child. That means every child gets an adequate education, health care, food, and a safe place to live. If the parents can't or won't provide these, it falls on the rest of us to step up. What I don't want is the strict class system of ages past.You shouldn't. When they're done they're done you paid those dues.Who paid for your schooling?Also, why should someone who doesn't have children pay the same in property taxes as someone who does? If you don't have children using the school system then you shouldn't pay as much. If you eventually have a child then your tax bill increases accordinglySometimes yes, sometimes, no. Would you take a child from his family because his family can't afford life insurance?
I never said life insurance was a requirement but responsible parents do.
So here we go again
If you can't afford to provide food , shelter, clothing, and yes medical care for your children then you should not have kids.
Why should anyone expect other parents who do all of the above for their children to give money that could be used for the welfare of their own children to someone else who refuses to provide all those things for his own family?
I don't have kids so why should I have to pay more of the money I earn so people who have kids they never should have had can get a check?
It seems way more fair to pay less taxes when you're young and trying to raise a family and to pay more when you're older and richer. Using your model I shouldn't pay for schools since my kids no longer go to public schools.
You sound a lot like Marx and Lenin.Agree, but I tend to think it’s too late. We are already in a feudal class system of rich and poor, with minor exceptions.
Our central government with it’s massive power and budgets, is completely captured by the extreme wealthy as are most of our politicians. The central government exists primarily to enrich the extreme rich....the Ruling Class.
The actions of our central government this past decade should relieve all Americans of the idea that our government is of by and for the people. Amazingly, many Americans still don’t comprehend this and continue to believe the statist propaganda, for the benefit of the Ruling Class and to their own detriment.
And the democrats don't use social issues to manipulate their base?You sound a lot like Marx and Lenin.Agree, but I tend to think it’s too late. We are already in a feudal class system of rich and poor, with minor exceptions.
Our central government with it’s massive power and budgets, is completely captured by the extreme wealthy as are most of our politicians. The central government exists primarily to enrich the extreme rich....the Ruling Class.
The actions of our central government this past decade should relieve all Americans of the idea that our government is of by and for the people. Amazingly, many Americans still don’t comprehend this and continue to believe the statist propaganda, for the benefit of the Ruling Class and to their own detriment.
You see our gov't as a occupying force, while I see it as the gov't we deserve. Deserve, not want. I see the GOP as the party of the rich, the party that wants to keep the economic structures intact to the detriment of the majority of the population. They have been masterful at using social issues, e.g., abortion, to get people to vote for the GOP and against their own economic interests.
"What about"ism is no defense. The Dems are no better than the GOP but their economic priorities are more aimed at the lower and middle classes than are the GOP's priorities.And the democrats don't use social issues to manipulate their base?You sound a lot like Marx and Lenin.Agree, but I tend to think it’s too late. We are already in a feudal class system of rich and poor, with minor exceptions.
Our central government with it’s massive power and budgets, is completely captured by the extreme wealthy as are most of our politicians. The central government exists primarily to enrich the extreme rich....the Ruling Class.
The actions of our central government this past decade should relieve all Americans of the idea that our government is of by and for the people. Amazingly, many Americans still don’t comprehend this and continue to believe the statist propaganda, for the benefit of the Ruling Class and to their own detriment.
You see our gov't as a occupying force, while I see it as the gov't we deserve. Deserve, not want. I see the GOP as the party of the rich, the party that wants to keep the economic structures intact to the detriment of the majority of the population. They have been masterful at using social issues, e.g., abortion, to get people to vote for the GOP and against their own economic interests.
if you won't, you should be jailed. If you can't, then the kids need to be removed from your care.True but if I can't or won't take care of my own kids, what then? Until you can come up with something better than 'let them suffer and die' Libertarians will never be more than a radical fringe party.No, take care of your OWN kids-it is YOUR responsibility.I'm fine with letting adults make bad choices but every child in this country should have access to quality healthcare. If that means we all chip in, so be it. I have no issue with private insurance and providers and Medicare for all doesn't mean the end of the private sector.
If you think this country is not already on the left when it comes to health care, try ending Medicare and see where that goes.
That is not out of a sense of compassion. They aim their policies at the lower class for power and money because it is a larger demographic than the middle or upper class.."What about"ism is no defense. The Dems are no better than the GOP but their economic priorities are more aimed at the lower and middle classes than are the GOP's priorities.And the democrats don't use social issues to manipulate their base?You sound a lot like Marx and Lenin.Agree, but I tend to think it’s too late. We are already in a feudal class system of rich and poor, with minor exceptions.
Our central government with it’s massive power and budgets, is completely captured by the extreme wealthy as are most of our politicians. The central government exists primarily to enrich the extreme rich....the Ruling Class.
The actions of our central government this past decade should relieve all Americans of the idea that our government is of by and for the people. Amazingly, many Americans still don’t comprehend this and continue to believe the statist propaganda, for the benefit of the Ruling Class and to their own detriment.
You see our gov't as a occupying force, while I see it as the gov't we deserve. Deserve, not want. I see the GOP as the party of the rich, the party that wants to keep the economic structures intact to the detriment of the majority of the population. They have been masterful at using social issues, e.g., abortion, to get people to vote for the GOP and against their own economic interests.
"What about"ism is no defense. The Dems are no better than the GOP but their economic priorities are more aimed at the lower and middle classes than are the GOP's priorities.And the democrats don't use social issues to manipulate their base?You sound a lot like Marx and Lenin.Agree, but I tend to think it’s too late. We are already in a feudal class system of rich and poor, with minor exceptions.
Our central government with it’s massive power and budgets, is completely captured by the extreme wealthy as are most of our politicians. The central government exists primarily to enrich the extreme rich....the Ruling Class.
The actions of our central government this past decade should relieve all Americans of the idea that our government is of by and for the people. Amazingly, many Americans still don’t comprehend this and continue to believe the statist propaganda, for the benefit of the Ruling Class and to their own detriment.
You see our gov't as a occupying force, while I see it as the gov't we deserve. Deserve, not want. I see the GOP as the party of the rich, the party that wants to keep the economic structures intact to the detriment of the majority of the population. They have been masterful at using social issues, e.g., abortion, to get people to vote for the GOP and against their own economic interests.
You sound a lot like Marx and Lenin.Agree, but I tend to think it’s too late. We are already in a feudal class system of rich and poor, with minor exceptions.
Our central government with it’s massive power and budgets, is completely captured by the extreme wealthy as are most of our politicians. The central government exists primarily to enrich the extreme rich....the Ruling Class.
The actions of our central government this past decade should relieve all Americans of the idea that our government is of by and for the people. Amazingly, many Americans still don’t comprehend this and continue to believe the statist propaganda, for the benefit of the Ruling Class and to their own detriment.
You see our gov't as a occupying force, while I see it as the gov't we deserve. Deserve, not want. I see the GOP as the party of the rich, the party that wants to keep the economic structures intact to the detriment of the majority of the population. They have been masterful at using social issues, e.g., abortion, to get people to vote for the GOP and against their own economic interests.
You have it backwards. The power and money reside in the upper class and the lower class generally don't vote so their numbers are meaningless.That is not out of a sense of compassion. They aim their policies at the lower class for power and money because it is a larger demographic than the middle or upper class.."What about"ism is no defense. The Dems are no better than the GOP but their economic priorities are more aimed at the lower and middle classes than are the GOP's priorities.
Workers of the world unite! Happily there are very few Americans just like you, wanting to burn it all down and replace it with anarchy. How many guns do you own?The Ruling Class loves people like you. You see things along political party lines, unaware of the bigger picture. Sadly, there are way too many Americans just like you.
This is how the Ruling Class keeps winning. Americans are divided along party lines, when the reality is both parties are essentially the same. They do the bidding of the Ruling Class. If the people would come together, the Ruling Class is toast.
