Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 23:04:08 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2016 2:26:24 GMT -5
As far as the thread subject is concerned though... Everyone that's a citizen of they country they are in OR has the appropriate work Visa has a right to A job... what they don't have is a right to ANY SPECIFIC job. There's only one reasonable and acceptable "discrimination" to employment: "is the person capable of fulfilling the requirements of the job?" If yes, hire them. If no, don't hire them. Age (as long as they are old enough to work legally in the position), gender, race, sexual orientation, marital status, religion, and disability that won't affect performance... should all have exactly ZERO effect on a person's ability to become employed. Paragraph #2 conflicts with paragraph #3. A person's age, gender, disabilities, race, religion, orientation, and marital status can all have a predictable impact on their ability to perform a particular job effectively or at all. All of these can also correlate heavily with other tangible factors that impact work ability. An employer doesn't get to discriminate against Asians, for example, if he can prove that Asians consistently sell 30% fewer cars than black sales associates in his highly black-centric neighbourhood. Either he has the discretion to hire the best person for the job or he doesn't; his rationale is irrelevant. Over the years, our society has shifted from overwhelmingly "does" to "does not"--to its detriment, conservatives would say, even without the employer's loss of freedom. You are incorrect. there is no conflict between paragraphs 2 & 3. Is your theoretical Asian able to sell cars... yes or no? If yes, then he should get the job. If no, then he should not. Maybe the car lot has a quota system (to guarantee that 30% more sales you mentioned)... is the Asian able to make the quota? If yes, he gets to keep his job. If no, he gets fired for failure to perform up to quota. In no way is his hiring or firing based on his being Asian though... it's based on his ability to perform the expected job.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 4, 2016 5:57:21 GMT -5
Paragraph #2 conflicts with paragraph #3. A person's age, gender, disabilities, race, religion, orientation, and marital status can all have a predictable impact on their ability to perform a particular job effectively or at all. All of these can also correlate heavily with other tangible factors that impact work ability. An employer doesn't get to discriminate against Asians, for example, if he can prove that Asians consistently sell 30% fewer cars than black sales associates in his highly black-centric neighbourhood. Either he has the discretion to hire the best person for the job or he doesn't; his rationale is irrelevant. Over the years, our society has shifted from overwhelmingly "does" to "does not"--to its detriment, conservatives would say, even without the employer's loss of freedom. You are incorrect. there is no conflict between paragraphs 2 & 3. Is your theoretical Asian able to sell cars... yes or no? If yes, then he should get the job. If no, then he should not. Maybe the car lot has a quota system (to guarantee that 30% more sales you mentioned)... is the Asian able to make the quota? If yes, he gets to keep his job. If no, he gets fired for failure to perform up to quota. In no way is his hiring or firing based on his being Asian though... it's based on his ability to perform the expected job. That would be nice in theory, but start setting standards that can't realistically be met by a protected group is the surest way of getting yourself hauled into court by vengeful ex-employees. And if they succeed in proving that your quota is discriminatory--which it is in the given example--you're up the creek without a paddle for discriminatory business practices. But let's back this up to the core issue. The author's message strikes a chord in pointing out that the so-called "Second Bill of Rights" codifies "rights" of the form "I have the right to have somebody else do this for me". "I have the right to have somebody who doesn't like the way I look and talk be forced to hire me anyway". I know certain board members will bend over backwards to call that "liberty", but you, Richard--and I'm begging you here--you can't be far enough gone to agree with them that supplanting the employer's right to hire employees as he sees fit with the right for an unwanted employee to be hired (at the point of the government's gun) is in any wise "liberty". You can argue it's a reasonable sacrifice of liberty for the common good, or a step towards a more equal society, or government might making right, but you're not going to insult us by calling it "liberty", right? Just give me that much. The author sums up one of my greatest frustrations with progressives in a single sentence (ibid.): "It's liberty." here is a silver jacuzzi argument if ever there was one.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 23:04:08 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2016 6:36:04 GMT -5
You are incorrect. there is no conflict between paragraphs 2 & 3. Is your theoretical Asian able to sell cars... yes or no? If yes, then he should get the job. If no, then he should not. Maybe the car lot has a quota system (to guarantee that 30% more sales you mentioned)... is the Asian able to make the quota? If yes, he gets to keep his job. If no, he gets fired for failure to perform up to quota. In no way is his hiring or firing based on his being Asian though... it's based on his ability to perform the expected job. That would be nice in theory, but start setting standards that can't realistically be met by a protected group is the surest way of getting yourself hauled into court by vengeful ex-employees. And if they succeed in proving that your quota is discriminatory--which it is in the given example--you're up the creek without a paddle for discriminatory business practices. But let's back this up to the core issue. The author's message strikes a chord in pointing out that the so-called "Second Bill of Rights" codifies "rights" of the form "I have the right to have somebody else do this for me". "I have the right to have somebody who doesn't like the way I look and talk be forced to hire me anyway". I know certain board members will bend over backwards to call that "liberty", but you, Richard--and I'm begging you here--you can't be far enough gone to agree with them that supplanting the employer's right to hire employees as he sees fit with the right for an unwanted employee to be hired (at the point of the government's gun) is in any wise "liberty". You can argue it's a reasonable sacrifice of liberty for the common good, or a step towards a more equal society, or government might making right, but you're not going to insult us by calling it "liberty", right? Just give me that much. The author sums up one of my greatest frustrations with progressives in a single sentence (ibid.): "It's liberty." here is a silver jacuzzi argument if ever there was one. That's the problem with your interpretation right there. If the goals are met by a majority of employees, then they are not "unreasonably high" nor are they "set so they can't be met by a protected group"... and if they are NOT met by a majority of employees and those employees ALSO get fired then there's no discrimination based on factors other than ability to do the job. For the record, it's not "my" quota... it's your "30% less" example reversed into a quota for EVERYONE to meet. *end of response to the bolded* With VERY few exceptions I do not condone discrimination based on anything other than "ability to do the job"... and even then those exceptions are built into the very job itself. three examples: ( 1 & 2 ) Hooters Girl (or the equivalent at any of the other themed bar/restaurants of that type) & Stripper at a "Gentleman's Club"... both of which the clientele are coming to the establishment to see scantily/tightly clad beautiful women. I support discrimination there because the job duties require certain attributes. You can't be a female stripper if you are a man. My apologies to the Bruce/Caitlyn's of the world... but you just can't. And you MAY be able to pull off "Hooters Girl" if you are a cross-dresser that knows how to hide his "package" and are feminine enough... but you can't pull it off if you look and sound like Larry the Cable Guy. ( 3 ) I'd also support discrimination against women being hired as dancers at strip clubs that are for women (like Chippendale's). Women can't perform the function of the job. Women going there don't want to see women's boobs/butts/crotches... they want to see men's.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Jan 4, 2016 7:08:05 GMT -5
Great. Your religious organization has standards. So, they turn away anyone who doesn't meet their 'standards'. Meanwhile, the extremist 'other' religion offers free care to anyone... with a side helping of conversion to their goals... and the promise to vote in the next election (can you say Hamas anyone? ).... No issues there... So start up your own organization and help those you deem worthy of helping. Help the ones nobody else will. It's a free country. Or at least it was supposed to be. But God help the penniless shoppers at wal mart. They are on their own on this board.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,931
|
Post by happyhoix on Jan 4, 2016 8:05:57 GMT -5
There are legitimate reasons why a secular government should not rely upon religious organizations to provide comprehensive social services. Yeah. Religious organizations have standards. Read "Angela's Ashes" to see how the Catholic church 'took care' of the poor in Ireland back in the 20's and 30's. Then there was the whole issue of the Catholic homes for unmarried women, where they were locked up like criminals, forced to perform slave labor, and had their babies forcibly taken away from them. Sometimes the standards the religious organizations apply towards the poor are really crappy.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,931
|
Post by happyhoix on Jan 4, 2016 8:52:44 GMT -5
Yeah. Religious organizations have standards. Best not put a Spotlight on the Catholics then. My parents are Catholic. They've devoted a substantial part of their retirement to charity work affiliated with the church. Everything from building houses in Mexico to soup kitchens to reading to the disabled. This is in addition to paying 55% of their life's incomes (and another 15% in sales tax plus heaven knows how much more in liquor taxes, municipal taxes, car taxes, per-item taxes, taxes on taxes) to the government in exchange for virtually nothing in return (they kept themselves healthy, saved for retirement, will never qualify for any kind of assistance until the day they die). So why don't you tell us all about how those damned Catholics can't be trusted with the money they earn. Remind us how blessed the rest of us to have Big Brother there to prevent that 55% from also being pissed away on Catholic charities. They aren't fans of message boards, so I'm at least grateful they can do it without putting up with the ignoramuses in cyberspace. So your parents don't get any kind of social security ( I assume Canadians have the same kind of program we have, for retired people?) They don't use the Canadian healthcare system, drive on roads built by the government , use water from the municipal water systems or discharge their dirty water into the municipal sewer systems? They never once used a public library or an airport or had to call on the police or fire departments? They haven't benefited from being protected by the Canadian military? Haven't benefited from air and water kept clean through oversight from the Canadian government? Haven't benefited from store clerks and nurses and plumbers educated through the Canadian school system? Haven't benefited from driving on roads with Canadian drivers who had to pass a driving test, monitored by Canadian police who try to catch the speeders and drunk drivers before they plow into someone? This is what irks me the most about conservatives - they think they poor their tax dollars into a system that never benefits them - at all. When, in fact, anyone living in a developed country like the US or Canada benefits tremendously from the stable society, infrastructure and public utilities and schools that the government provides. Not to mention the tax cuts that businesses (including agriculture) get - talk about a gravy train. If you really look at the percentage of the budget set aside for things like food stamps and homeless shelters (disregarding the vets and elderly) it's a very small percentage of the budget - but it's the only part of the budget conservatives seem to focus on.
|
|
mroped
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 17, 2014 17:36:56 GMT -5
Posts: 3,453
|
Post by mroped on Jan 4, 2016 9:27:39 GMT -5
No Richard, personally I do not believe that "any kook with a gun" is a well regulated militia but there are those that might. Not me! Just the same way I do not really care for this fantasy world concept that Virgil brought up from some obscure local paper-right to work- that he found on the back page.
I didn't even read the article because just the excerpts that he presented were bad enough to accept. FDR did what he did because the time called for and it worked- there is physical proof all over US. And no, contrary to Virgil's and maybe others beliefs, that did not include the disabled, elderly, children or those mentally incapacitated. Was meant just for the able bodied, adult man who found themselves in a bad position. As I already said, there are places in this world that the idea is still put to use and regardless of what some might think, it works! Ofcourse, many of those in the program would rather stay home and receive their benefits but the system requires them to perform some work for it otherwise the benefits get cut. And I think that to be fair. One doesn't need special training to level out dirt or gravel of plant a tree or pick up trash.
I understand that some conservatives would want this to be true. Unfortunately it isn't. Ive never heard of such thing. There is no "right to work", the concept is implied to an adult with the ability to do so. Based on your abilities you can go searching, nobody can stop you but nobody is mandated to give you a job just because you asked.
I don't care how high your IQ is, or that you can concoct anything in a lab or that you can drive a car with 200 miles per hour. "I" am looking for a tree trimmer! Can you do that? No? Then hit the road, I don't have the time to teach you, I need somebody already experienced. And don't tell me that throug this "Second Bill of Rights" anybody can force me to hire anybody.
It is annoying enough that the federal government requires that if you do certain projects that are federally funded, you have to qualify and fulfill certain requirements. But those were put in place to prevent discrimination. Refusing to hire an individual based on the fact that he/she doesn't have the skills for the open position doesn't qualify as discrimination.
I am one the "more liberal" individuals on this board but good God Virgil! Some of the claims that are made by those fellows that you read so much are absolutely insane. Might there be someone that really thinks about how nice would be if that were so!? Maybe, I can't deny that but an individual that poses the ability of thought process understands that that right there is Utopia therefore unattainable. Regardless of how liberal or progressive one might be, there is still the concept of individual rights, employer rights and private ownership and so on. To believe othwise is unrealistic not to mention that the tought would be straight out of a Lenin ideology book.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jan 4, 2016 9:28:47 GMT -5
Meh. I am not going to explain myself to them. Yeah- this is where I'm at. I'm not so much interested in persuading liberals that voluntary action is preferred to violence, but rather in defeating them, disarming them, and relegating them to the margins of political discussion- and maybe, just perhaps keeping a few of them in a museum for future reference.
|
|
busymom
Distinguished Associate
Why is the rum always gone? Oh...that's why.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 21:09:36 GMT -5
Posts: 28,458
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"https://cdn.nickpic.host/images/IPauJ5.jpg","color":""}
Mini-Profile Name Color: 0D317F
Mini-Profile Text Color: 0D317F
|
Post by busymom on Jan 4, 2016 9:35:52 GMT -5
I'll use the small town my IL's live in, to make one small point. (Remember, I said small town. VERY small town.) Here in the Midwest, we need heat to survive the Winter (it beats freezing to death). Although there is assistance available closer to the large cities to help those who cannot afford heat (and even THAT isn't enough to cover everyone who needs the help), in the IL's community there is next to no help to pay for heat. And, it is the forgotten seniors who suffer the most. If you live "out in the sticks", you are basically forgotten. One particularly cold Winter, my IL's and their friends, who can barely afford their own bills, pooled together money to fill the tank of an old widow who didn't have enough money for oil. She made that last tank of heating oil last her through the Winter, but I heard when folks went to visit her, that house was miserably cold inside. In this case, both the government AND the local charities have failed her.
So, you expect me to believe if we completely stop all help from the government, that the wealthy are going to magically step in to help?
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Jan 4, 2016 10:22:03 GMT -5
I don't think conservatives are "hostile". The hostile people in my opinion is the extreme Left Wing.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 4, 2016 10:49:07 GMT -5
Yeah. Religious organizations have standards. Read "Angela's Ashes" to see how the Catholic church 'took care' of the poor in Ireland back in the 20's and 30's. Then there was the whole issue of the Catholic homes for unmarried women, where they were locked up like criminals, forced to perform slave labor, and had their babies forcibly taken away from them. Sometimes the standards the religious organizations apply towards the poor are really crappy. That's the price of freedom. Besides, you weren't around then with your own money and resources to give the downtrodden a leg up as you saw fit to help them. Today you are. In a free society, you have the right to help any and all as you see fit; you do not have the right to compel me to help others on behalf of society.
|
|
ArchietheDragon
Junior Associate
Joined: Jul 7, 2014 14:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 6,365
|
Post by ArchietheDragon on Jan 4, 2016 10:55:25 GMT -5
I don't think conservatives are "hostile". The hostile people in my opinion is the extreme Left Wing. The author in the OP was self describing as hostile.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,931
|
Post by happyhoix on Jan 4, 2016 10:56:29 GMT -5
I don't think conservatives are "hostile". The hostile people in my opinion is the extreme Left Wing. As a moderate middle of the roader, I can tell you, both ends of the extremes are hostile. There are lefties who want to outlaw meat consumption and abolish keeping farm animals, and there are righties who want to exterminate the gays and non-Christians. Both of them would be very hostile to me, with my hamburger eating, gay tolerating ways. The good news is, there are way more moderates than radicals. The bad news is, the radical elements are a lot noisier than the moderates.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,931
|
Post by happyhoix on Jan 4, 2016 11:03:40 GMT -5
Read "Angela's Ashes" to see how the Catholic church 'took care' of the poor in Ireland back in the 20's and 30's. Then there was the whole issue of the Catholic homes for unmarried women, where they were locked up like criminals, forced to perform slave labor, and had their babies forcibly taken away from them. Sometimes the standards the religious organizations apply towards the poor are really crappy. That's the price of freedom. Besides, you weren't around then with your own money and resources to give the downtrodden a leg up as you saw fit to help them. Today you are. In a free society, you have the right to help any and all as you see fit; you do not have the right to compel me to help others on behalf of society. In a free society, I get to voice an opinion on where my tax money gets spent. I want to spend more money on making sure poor kids have adequate food, quality day care and decent public schools so they are more likely to become self supporting, tax paying citizens as adults, and I want to spend less money on subsidies for agriculture, corporate tax breaks and bogus pork barrel military projects. If more people agree with me and less people agree with you - that's also the price of freedom.
|
|
busymom
Distinguished Associate
Why is the rum always gone? Oh...that's why.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 21:09:36 GMT -5
Posts: 28,458
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"https://cdn.nickpic.host/images/IPauJ5.jpg","color":""}
Mini-Profile Name Color: 0D317F
Mini-Profile Text Color: 0D317F
|
Post by busymom on Jan 4, 2016 11:05:42 GMT -5
Exactly, happyhoix! When you're in the middle of the road, & watch the extremes in both parties on the t.v., some days I want to throw something at the set!
It's not "Christian" (Republican Party) to allow the poor to starve. (I hate when people assume that Christians always vote Republican. I, as a Christian, vote for whichever party seems to make the most sense at the time.) Also, the Democratic Party does people no favors by subsidizing those who refuse to work. However, I do think there should be a "living" wage. If you're willing to put in 40 hours a week, consistently, you should make enough to cover your food, shelter & health care. Current minimum wage doesn't do that. And, we should be taking care of our elderly and disabled (including disabled veterans).
So, would someone puh-leeze find me a candidate who is in the middle of the road?
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,931
|
Post by happyhoix on Jan 4, 2016 11:25:49 GMT -5
Exactly, happyhoix ! When you're in the middle of the road, & watch the extremes in both parties on the t.v., some days I want to throw something at the set!
It's not "Christian" (Republican Party) to allow the poor to starve. (I hate when people assume that Christians always vote Republican. I, as a Christian, vote for whichever party seems to make the most sense at the time.) Also, the Democratic Party does people no favors by subsidizing those who refuse to work. However, I do think there should be a "living" wage. If you're willing to put in 40 hours a week, consistently, you should make enough to cover your food, shelter & health care. Current minimum wage doesn't do that. And, we should be taking care of our elderly and disabled (including disabled veterans).
So, would someone puh-leeze find me a candidate who is in the middle of the road? Exactly. I had some hopes for some of the current crop of Republican nominees, but they're being out shouted by a circus clown. The two democratic candidates are not fiscally responsible. Once again, I may get stuck not voting FOR someone, but AGAINST the worst of the two evils.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 23:04:08 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2016 11:29:09 GMT -5
Name me one from anywhere who is truely fiscally conservative? It's just spending on different things anymore.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Jan 4, 2016 11:43:13 GMT -5
I don't think conservatives are "hostile". The hostile people in my opinion is the extreme Left Wing.
I guess we all have our own definition for 'hostile' and who really knows what "extreme left wing" means in America. Since 9/11 the most hostility expressed by any politically motivated group is easily the conservative, anti-govt. white Christians who have perpetrated numerous terrorist acts and killed many fellow Americans.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 4, 2016 11:50:34 GMT -5
My parents are Catholic. They've devoted a substantial part of their retirement to charity work affiliated with the church. Everything from building houses in Mexico to soup kitchens to reading to the disabled. This is in addition to paying 55% of their life's incomes (and another 15% in sales tax plus heaven knows how much more in liquor taxes, municipal taxes, car taxes, per-item taxes, taxes on taxes) to the government in exchange for virtually nothing in return (they kept themselves healthy, saved for retirement, will never qualify for any kind of assistance until the day they die). So why don't you tell us all about how those damned Catholics can't be trusted with the money they earn. Remind us how blessed the rest of us to have Big Brother there to prevent that 55% from also being pissed away on Catholic charities. They aren't fans of message boards, so I'm at least grateful they can do it without putting up with the ignoramuses in cyberspace. So your parents don't get any kind of social security ( I assume Canadians have the same kind of program we have, for retired people?) They don't use the Canadian healthcare system, drive on roads built by the government , use water from the municipal water systems or discharge their dirty water into the municipal sewer systems? They never once used a public library or an airport or had to call on the police or fire departments? They haven't benefited from being protected by the Canadian military? Haven't benefited from air and water kept clean through oversight from the Canadian government? Haven't benefited from store clerks and nurses and plumbers educated through the Canadian school system? Haven't benefited from driving on roads with Canadian drivers who had to pass a driving test, monitored by Canadian police who try to catch the speeders and drunk drivers before they plow into someone? This is what irks me the most about conservatives - they think they poor their tax dollars into a system that never benefits them - at all. When, in fact, anyone living in a developed country like the US or Canada benefits tremendously from the stable society, infrastructure and public utilities and schools that the government provides. Not to mention the tax cuts that businesses (including agriculture) get - talk about a gravy train. If you really look at the percentage of the budget set aside for things like food stamps and homeless shelters (disregarding the vets and elderly) it's a very small percentage of the budget - but it's the only part of the budget conservatives seem to focus on. Let's look at these one by one, shall we? " use the Canadian healthcare system". Not yet for anything more than routine clinic visits. Nothing anywhere near "break even" with what they've paid in. My father had a heart attack a decade ago, but due to extenuating circumstances he paid for the costs out of pocket. My grandparents are the real champions in this regard. 83 and 85 years old, respectively. They take excellent care of themselves. My grandmother has been in the hospital twice for minor operations; my grandfather once. In all likelihood, by the time they die they'll have paid in a hundredfold what they've taken out of the system. That's not an exaggeration. "Any kind of social security". Not presently, since they're not over 65. When they reach age 65, they'll qualify for about $500.00 CAD per month of Old Age Security (OAS), which is a small fraction of what they paid into the program. If their retirement income was higher, they wouldn't even qualify for that. As it stands, they presently don't stand to get a penny back from the Canada Pension Plan (CPP), because they saved for retirement and my father has a pension. Hence no, they're not benefiting from "any kind of social security". "drive on roads built by the government". Certainly they do. And being so critical, is that one of the things the government uses their 55% plus 15% of income to build? Of course not. That's what our astronomical gasoline taxes are for! Huzzah! Canadians get to pay an additional 55% on every liter of overpriced fuel they buy just to drive to and from town. " use water from the municipal water systems or discharge their dirty water into the municipal sewer systems". In my lifetime, they've always lived in rural areas on septic systems. And in both cases, their water was provided by water co-ops privately owned by the community. Hence no, they're not getting any benefit from spending there either. " used a public library or an airport". I think they've probably used a public library, so I'll give you that one. As for airports, you obviously aren't from Canada. We have the fun privilege of paying airport taxes on every plane ticket we buy, which can run as much as a third the full price of the ticket. That's before various other bureaucratic taxes and sales tax are added on. Hence the government has made sure our income taxes aren't needed for airports either. " had to call on the police or fire departments". Never the fire department. I believe they reported a few thefts to the police. I'm not going to argue that police and fire services aren't necessary, but they aren't a hundredth of what taxes are used for. " being protected by the Canadian military". No. Canada's military is used exclusively for peacekeeping (and peace making, in some cases) overseas. As much as I respect our military, I wouldn't even call it a deterrent to invasion. " benefited from air and water kept clean through oversight from the Canadian government". This one needs its own thread. " store clerks and nurses and plumbers educated through the Canadian school system". It may surprise you to know that there were well-trained store clerks, nurses, and plumbers prior to the advent of the Canadian public school system. My sister and I were jointly public/private educated. "driving on roads with Canadian drivers who had to pass a driving test". That's what license fees, registration fees, exam fees, biennial re-certification fees for seniors, and a dozen more taxes and fees (you may be sensing a theme here) are for. Yes, the government has special means of financing this stuff too.
Sure some of the things benefit us. They just don't benefit us a fraction of the amount we pay into them when we keep ourselves healthy, save for retirement, run our own communities, and take care of our own problems. And to top it all off, we have to put up with the ubiquitous conceit of progressives who think they're doing us a favour by giving us back a pittance from our own money.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 4, 2016 11:59:13 GMT -5
That's the price of freedom. Besides, you weren't around then with your own money and resources to give the downtrodden a leg up as you saw fit to help them. Today you are. In a free society, you have the right to help any and all as you see fit; you do not have the right to compel me to help others on behalf of society. In a free society, I get to voice an opinion on where my tax money gets spent. I want to spend more money on making sure poor kids have adequate food, quality day care and decent public schools so they are more likely to become self supporting, tax paying citizens as adults, and I want to spend less money on subsidies for agriculture, corporate tax breaks and bogus pork barrel military projects. If more people agree with me and less people agree with you - that's also the price of freedom. It's not the way the system was supposed to work. People weren't supposed to go insane.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,931
|
Post by happyhoix on Jan 4, 2016 14:56:12 GMT -5
So your parents don't get any kind of social security ( I assume Canadians have the same kind of program we have, for retired people?) They don't use the Canadian healthcare system, drive on roads built by the government , use water from the municipal water systems or discharge their dirty water into the municipal sewer systems? They never once used a public library or an airport or had to call on the police or fire departments? They haven't benefited from being protected by the Canadian military? Haven't benefited from air and water kept clean through oversight from the Canadian government? Haven't benefited from store clerks and nurses and plumbers educated through the Canadian school system? Haven't benefited from driving on roads with Canadian drivers who had to pass a driving test, monitored by Canadian police who try to catch the speeders and drunk drivers before they plow into someone? This is what irks me the most about conservatives - they think they poor their tax dollars into a system that never benefits them - at all. When, in fact, anyone living in a developed country like the US or Canada benefits tremendously from the stable society, infrastructure and public utilities and schools that the government provides. Not to mention the tax cuts that businesses (including agriculture) get - talk about a gravy train. If you really look at the percentage of the budget set aside for things like food stamps and homeless shelters (disregarding the vets and elderly) it's a very small percentage of the budget - but it's the only part of the budget conservatives seem to focus on. Let's look at these one by one, shall we? " use the Canadian healthcare system". Not yet for anything more than routine clinic visits. Nothing anywhere near "break even" with what they've paid in. My father had a heart attack a decade ago, but due to extenuating circumstances he paid for the costs out of pocket. My grandparents are the real champions in this regard. 83 and 85 years old, respectively. They take excellent care of themselves. My grandmother has been in the hospital twice for minor operations; my grandfather once. In all likelihood, by the time they die they'll have paid in a hundredfold what they've taken out of the system. That's not an exaggeration. Both my parents were exceedingly healthy until they hit 80. My mom never went to the hospital for anything except birthing babies. Then my dad got Alzheimers and took five years to die - fortunately, my mom was able to take care of him at home for most of that time. My mom now has dementia and has spent the last five years in an assisted living facility, using her own money to pay the $6000 per month she needs to provide assistance with bathing, meds, toileting, etc. They both relied heavily on medicare and, if mom runs out of money, will need assistance for her nursing home costs. My point is, often, the really expensive medical care comes at the end of your life, either from needing nursing home care for age related things like dementia, or from expensive cancer drugs, etc. Unless you are fortunate enough to drop dead from a heart attack (which I'm rooting for). And also- doesn't matter what kind of excellent care you take of yourself, you're still likely to get Alzheimers or dementia if you live long enough. "Any kind of social security". Not presently, since they're not over 65. When they reach age 65, they'll qualify for about $500.00 CAD per month of Old Age Security (OAS), which is a small fraction of what they paid into the program. If their retirement income was higher, they wouldn't even qualify for that. As it stands, they presently don't stand to get a penny back from the Canada Pension Plan (CPP), because they saved for retirement and my father has a pension. Hence no, they're not benefiting from "any kind of social security". That depends on how long your parents live after they retire, doesn't it? I think between living to be 82 and (so far) 86, and both having to use a lot of medicare for their health issues at the end of their lives, my parents will come close to getting all the money out of the system that they put in (especially my SAHM). "drive on roads built by the government". Certainly they do. And being so critical, is that one of the things the government uses their 55% plus 15% of income to build? Of course not. That's what our astronomical gasoline taxes are for! Huzzah! Canadians get to pay an additional 55% on every liter of overpriced fuel they buy just to drive to and from town. So gas taxes also cover the expense to build all your bridges and tunnels and pay for all your snow plowing needs? 100%? " use water from the municipal water systems or discharge their dirty water into the municipal sewer systems". In my lifetime, they've always lived in rural areas on septic systems. And in both cases, their water was provided by water co-ops privately owned by the community. Hence no, they're not getting any benefit from spending there either. They don't visit stores or doctor's offices or the post office or their church - all places that need water and sewers? Or does everyone in their rustic part of Canada use out houses and melt snow for water? " used a public library or an airport". I think they've probably used a public library, so I'll give you that one. As for airports, you obviously aren't from Canada. We have the fun privilege of paying airport taxes on every plane ticket we buy, which can run as much as a third the full price of the ticket. That's before various other bureaucratic taxes and sales tax are added on. Hence the government has made sure our income taxes aren't needed for airports either. I'm curious about that one, too - there are zero federal dollars going to help subsidize airport construction? Who pays for the people who do the security screenings at the airports, and the air traffic controllers? " had to call on the police or fire departments". Never the fire department. I believe they reported a few thefts to the police. I'm not going to argue that police and fire services aren't necessary, but they aren't a hundredth of what taxes are used for. What percentage of taxes go to the greedy looters who lay around eating bon bons all day? Not counting retired people and veterans? How does that compare to what Canada spends on their military and education systems? " being protected by the Canadian military". No. Canada's military is used exclusively for peacekeeping (and peace making, in some cases) overseas. As much as I respect our military, I wouldn't even call it a deterrent to invasion. You think? What about your border patrol people? Think they do an important job for you? " benefited from air and water kept clean through oversight from the Canadian government". This one needs its own thread. " store clerks and nurses and plumbers educated through the Canadian school system". It may surprise you to know that there were well-trained store clerks, nurses, and plumbers prior to the advent of the Canadian public school system. My sister and I were jointly public/private educated. This is one of those issues where you can't think only about your personal family. This is where you have to consider the whole society you live in. If you had no public schools, would you have enough literate people to be nurses, admins, truck drivers or electricians? If you had no public schools, how many more criminals do you think there would be? How many more unemployable, illiterate people would you have, trying to figure out how to feed their kids or support themselves? Would that be a better or a worse place to live? Here's a hint - many 3rd world countries have no public education system. "driving on roads with Canadian drivers who had to pass a driving test". That's what license fees, registration fees, exam fees, biennial re-certification fees for seniors, and a dozen more taxes and fees (you may be sensing a theme here) are for. Yes, the government has special means of financing this stuff too. So the taxes your parents paid to drive actually came back to them in the form of better roads, safer drivers, etc? Or do you think good infrastructure is wasted money?
Sure some of the things benefit us. They just don't benefit us a fraction of the amount we pay into them when we keep ourselves healthy, save for retirement, run our own communities, and take care of our own problems. And to top it all off, we have to put up with the ubiquitous conceit of progressives who think they're doing us a favour by giving us back a pittance from our own money. If you're fortunate and didn't have a kid with special needs that requires extra tutoring at her school, are you going to sulk because someone else had that kid, because some of your tax money helped pay for the tutor? If you enjoy good health are you going to sulk because your tax money helps pay for a healthcare system that treats people who catastrophic diseases like cancer? (Please don't fool yourself into thinking you can't get cancer because you lead a healthy lifestyle).
If your problem is that you want to pick what your tax dollars go to support, do you do the same with your church? Do you insist your tithe dollars go to the soup kitchen and not to pay for new choir robes because you don't give a shit about choir robes? Or do you stop sulking, go to the church meetings and voice your opinion? Or do you just stop tithing to the church because some of the stuff they spend their money on it stupid, in your opinion?
If you support your church even though sometimes their money goes to things you think are less than essential, or that don't benefit you personally, why is it so hard to understand why a society needs to pay taxes, even if they are for things they won't individually ever need to use?
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,931
|
Post by happyhoix on Jan 4, 2016 15:03:10 GMT -5
In a free society, I get to voice an opinion on where my tax money gets spent. I want to spend more money on making sure poor kids have adequate food, quality day care and decent public schools so they are more likely to become self supporting, tax paying citizens as adults, and I want to spend less money on subsidies for agriculture, corporate tax breaks and bogus pork barrel military projects. If more people agree with me and less people agree with you - that's also the price of freedom. It's not the way the system was supposed to work. People weren't supposed to go insane. How was the system supposed to work? Do you mean, for the States, that the government was supposed to be run only by male, white, wealthy property owners while all the non male, non white and poor people remained as a kind of chattel, you are correct. Those of us considered chattel don't want that job description - you can call us crazy, but I think we're mostly just pissed.
|
|
verrip1
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:41:19 GMT -5
Posts: 2,992
|
Post by verrip1 on Jan 4, 2016 15:30:54 GMT -5
Poor happy. Life as a chattel must be extremely mortifying for you.
Clearly, those white folk you angrily resent owe you a lot. Of money, at least.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 4, 2016 16:08:38 GMT -5
i think the OP is very thoughtful, but it misses some really key points.
the BOR is actually not an expression of "natural rights", it is an anti-Federalist document. in other words, it is there to express what the government SHOULD NOT DO.
that in no way expresses what government SHOULD do, which constitutes the REST of the constitution.
what FDR proposed was a "positive bill of rights" for Federal government, and fine- maybe that was a poor choice of words on his part. and maybe not. but it kind of misses the point BOTH of the BOR and of what FDR proposed.
other than that, i can't comment on progressive goals, because i am not a progressive. they should speak for themselves. the goals of liberalism are to maximize liberty, and to the extent that means being a bulwark against oppressive elements, i am down with that. this game of balancing one set of liberties against another kind of crosses the line for me, however. it is more Marxist than i care to make the argument. then again, i am more sympathetic to the argument coming from a working class perspective than an elitist one, so if it appear to side with the Marxists from time to time, that is why.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 4, 2016 16:09:38 GMT -5
I don't think conservatives are "hostile". The hostile people in my opinion is the extreme Left Wing. oh, there are plenty of hostile conservatives, dear.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,931
|
Post by happyhoix on Jan 4, 2016 16:20:05 GMT -5
Poor happy. Life as a chattel must be extremely mortifying for you. Clearly, those white folk you angrily resent owe you a lot. Of money, at least. Hmm, hard to resent the white folks, when I am one. I also don't have a penis, though, and the men who first organized our government thought that a penis was required to operate the voting booth lever. I'm certain there are some wealthy white men who still think that. Damn suffragettes.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 23:04:08 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2016 19:17:34 GMT -5
Exactly, happyhoix ! When you're in the middle of the road, & watch the extremes in both parties on the t.v., some days I want to throw something at the set!
It's not "Christian" (Republican Party) to allow the poor to starve. (I hate when people assume that Christians always vote Republican. I, as a Christian, vote for whichever party seems to make the most sense at the time.) Also, the Democratic Party does people no favors by subsidizing those who refuse to work. However, I do think there should be a "living" wage. If you're willing to put in 40 hours a week, consistently, you should make enough to cover your food, shelter & health care. Current minimum wage doesn't do that. And, we should be taking care of our elderly and disabled (including disabled veterans).
So, would someone puh-leeze find me a candidate who is in the middle of the road? Exactly. I had some hopes for some of the current crop of Republican nominees, but they're being out shouted by a circus clown. The two democratic candidates are not fiscally responsible. Once again, I may get stuck not voting FOR someone, but AGAINST the worst of the two evils. Or... you could vote for someone you like better than either of "the better of two evils". There are more than two parties, you know. "Voting for the lesser of two evils when there are more than two parties" is way number 5 (in my list of 5 ways) to throw away your vote.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Jan 4, 2016 19:29:16 GMT -5
No vote cast is thrown away.
The only votes that are thrown away are by those that don't bother.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 4, 2016 19:58:27 GMT -5
No vote cast is thrown away. The only votes that are thrown away are by those that don't bother. Every vote cast is a vote thrown away if it doesn't matter who you vote for. Welcome to the New American Century.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Jan 4, 2016 20:31:13 GMT -5
All politics is local so of course it matters. POTUS....who cares really. I have a lengthy track record of voting third party for that one and this time around I will be voting for Bernie Sanders.
|
|