Post by technohawk on Dec 17, 2006 15:37:10 GMT -8
Yea DP, I think we're quite on topic. We're talking about what we like and dislike about government.
Yes I am aware, but we have to be realistic. People will have sex outside of wedlock and to just mess around, teenagers included. The only responsible thing we can do is to not condone unsafe sex. That's what I feel we're doing right now by giving welfare to people with an excess number of children: Telling them it's okay if you get pregnant without having money to support the kid. It's not so much that they should think about the government, but it should be so that they think, "well if I get pregnant, I'm screwed." That'll be an incentive to be safe about it.
We may have to be realistic, but the republican policy on birth control isn't realistic. So they are contributing to the problem.
I will agree with you that the welfare system is enabling poorer people to stay poor. But there are legitimate people with legitimate problems that they physically or mentally unable to overcome. They should still be getting help. The system needs to be more properly selective of candidates for welfare. But it shouldn't get scrapped.
I recall hearing something from some leader on TV a while back. "If you're not with us then you're with the Terists[sic]." So while you and others may disagree with him(like John McCain) you will still enable him to do whatever he wants.
In 3 years the Iraq war has cost the US over 200 billion so it's closer to 70 billion a year.
And the National Debt directly impacts the economy. Think of how much interest must be owed on 8 trillion dollars. The more in debt the USA has, the more money it prints and then inflation and currency devalutation follow. I'm actually happy for this. The Canadian dollar was worth 62 cents before 2000. Now it's past 80 cents largely due to the failing american dollar.
But back on topic. Social Security, just like welfare, has people that truly need/deserve it.
Justices of the peace are trained too. Marriage is only "legal" in North America when a marriage licence is completed and sent to the government. And if the church is going to freak out about a government's decision, then they are violating the separation of church and state.
Hey you said the same thing, but for the opposite reasons. Oh the irony.
I'm not scared of anything, it just violates tradition. I'm not religious at all, but I have to respect tradition.
Well then by definition, you are scared of change. Because traditions change.
A hundred and fifty years ago in the USA it was "tradition" to not allow women to vote, to own slaves and kill them if deemed neccessary, to slaughter millions of american indians and to bleed someone in order to cure them of disease.
Most of those "traditions" have changed, and I'd say humanity is better off for those changes.
dxlightning said:
Yes I am aware, but we have to be realistic. People will have sex outside of wedlock and to just mess around, teenagers included. The only responsible thing we can do is to not condone unsafe sex. That's what I feel we're doing right now by giving welfare to people with an excess number of children: Telling them it's okay if you get pregnant without having money to support the kid. It's not so much that they should think about the government, but it should be so that they think, "well if I get pregnant, I'm screwed." That'll be an incentive to be safe about it.
We may have to be realistic, but the republican policy on birth control isn't realistic. So they are contributing to the problem.
I will agree with you that the welfare system is enabling poorer people to stay poor. But there are legitimate people with legitimate problems that they physically or mentally unable to overcome. They should still be getting help. The system needs to be more properly selective of candidates for welfare. But it shouldn't get scrapped.
Also on a personal note, you don't have to agree with George Bush to be republican.
I recall hearing something from some leader on TV a while back. "If you're not with us then you're with the Terists[sic]." So while you and others may disagree with him(like John McCain) you will still enable him to do whatever he wants.
First off, I'd like to say that I never said anything about the National Debt, I spoke of the National Wealth AKA the economy.
In 2003, the government paid $471 billion in Social Security benefits. The government is collecting 12.4% of every paycheck in America for Social Security alone, 6.2% from you, 6.2% from your employer. I'd call that a huge hinderance.
Let's see, the Iraq war costs roughly..$40 billion per year? I'd say Social Security payments, combined with so many baby boomers being of age within the next 5 years, is indeed the largest drain on our economy.
In 2003, the government paid $471 billion in Social Security benefits. The government is collecting 12.4% of every paycheck in America for Social Security alone, 6.2% from you, 6.2% from your employer. I'd call that a huge hinderance.
Let's see, the Iraq war costs roughly..$40 billion per year? I'd say Social Security payments, combined with so many baby boomers being of age within the next 5 years, is indeed the largest drain on our economy.
In 3 years the Iraq war has cost the US over 200 billion so it's closer to 70 billion a year.
And the National Debt directly impacts the economy. Think of how much interest must be owed on 8 trillion dollars. The more in debt the USA has, the more money it prints and then inflation and currency devalutation follow. I'm actually happy for this. The Canadian dollar was worth 62 cents before 2000. Now it's past 80 cents largely due to the failing american dollar.
But back on topic. Social Security, just like welfare, has people that truly need/deserve it.
Those judges and ministers have gone through courses and are ordained by the church to be able to marry people. Marriage in itself is a HOLY union. If the church is going to freak out because gays are being "married," why not just do the same thing and call it something else?
Justices of the peace are trained too. Marriage is only "legal" in North America when a marriage licence is completed and sent to the government. And if the church is going to freak out about a government's decision, then they are violating the separation of church and state.
Except it violates separation of church and state. I personally don't think it should be an issue at all, and that the church should reserve the right to deny them.
Hey you said the same thing, but for the opposite reasons. Oh the irony.
I'm not scared of anything, it just violates tradition. I'm not religious at all, but I have to respect tradition.
Well then by definition, you are scared of change. Because traditions change.
A hundred and fifty years ago in the USA it was "tradition" to not allow women to vote, to own slaves and kill them if deemed neccessary, to slaughter millions of american indians and to bleed someone in order to cure them of disease.
Most of those "traditions" have changed, and I'd say humanity is better off for those changes.