The best in arts & entertainment, news, pop culture, and your mom since 2002.

[Total: 18    Average: 3.1/5]
72 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 4944
Rating: 3.1
Category:
Date: 06/05/13 09:19 AM

72 Responses to Study Finds Obamacare = Less Abortions/Pregnancy

  1. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    June 5, 2013 at 9:14 am
    Link: Study Finds Obamacare = Less Abortions/Pregnancy - Way less, among low-income women that could access free birth control. A win for Obamacare?
  2. Profile photo of Squidbush
    Squidbush Male 40-49
    771 posts
    June 5, 2013 at 9:33 am
    Dammit! If my tax money is paying for birth control, then I want my `fair share` of the sex too!
  3. Profile photo of auburnjunky
    auburnjunky Male 30-39
    10339 posts
    June 5, 2013 at 9:35 am
    It isn`t free access. Someone pays for it.
  4. Profile photo of greenbasterd
    greenbasterd Male 18-29
    2377 posts
    June 5, 2013 at 9:38 am
    that`s the GMO corn paying off.. GJ world
  5. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    June 5, 2013 at 9:51 am
    It isn`t free access. Someone pays for it.
    That`s my issue with it as well. I agree that "free" (from the individual consumer standpoint) contraceptives will likely reduce unintended pregnancies. However, it is OK for the government to take another persons money and give it to someone else without consent?

    I still can`t find a way to differentiate that from stealing.
  6. Profile photo of Andrew155
    Andrew155 Male 18-29
    2579 posts
    June 5, 2013 at 10:21 am
    Nice reddit, patchgrabber.

    Why are we basing this off a group that went into the study with a preconceived notion, rather then just waiting and seeing what the law will actually do? Yeah, New Orleans will suddenly have Norwegian abortion rates now. It`s just going to be that good.
  7. Profile photo of flying_ltj
    flying_ltj Male 18-29
    340 posts
    June 5, 2013 at 10:22 am
    "However, it is OK for the government to take another persons money and give it to someone else without consent?"

    Income Tax
    Sales Tax
    Death Tax
    Etc etc etc...

    If you`re consenting to pay for one tax, why not pay for other taxes? After all, all they`re doing is taking your money and giving it to someone else.
  8. Profile photo of FoolsPrussia
    FoolsPrussia Male 30-39
    3446 posts
    June 5, 2013 at 10:29 am
    "However, it is OK for the government to take another persons money and give it to someone else without consent?

    I still can`t find a way to differentiate that from stealing."

    That`s pretty much how taxes work already.
  9. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    June 5, 2013 at 10:44 am
    I was more interested in the notion of "free" (from individual consumer) birth control helping keep unwanted pregnancy and abortion rates down. You`d think this is something that would make both sides happy, unless you`re only concerned for yourself, because you don`t really get a say where any of your taxes go already anyway.
  10. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    June 5, 2013 at 11:08 am
    @flying_ltj && @FoolsPrussia

    I understand that taxes currently work this way, however, for the most part, I am greatly against taxes in their current form. I am against all forms of government-imposed wealth-redistribution - which I also regard as stealing.

    Consider for one second that the government is a unknown entity and that the taking of assets is by force (it is). An unknown entity takes some of your money and gives it to someone else without consent; is this not theft? Even in the guise of doing-good it is.

    If the entity were a bank, the public backlash would be astonishing - even if the money were sent to charity.

    Now, I`m not against taxes completely - I just think that a person ought to pay for what they use rather than what their neighbor uses. Oh, and that the states should collect all taxes and pay the federal government directly...
  11. Profile photo of lauriloo
    lauriloo Female 40-49
    1803 posts
    June 5, 2013 at 11:09 am
    "I still can`t find a way to differentiate that from stealing."

    Paying taxes is paying for the privilege of living in the US with all of its obvious advantages. Feel free to move to a tax-free country if you don`t like it.

    AND, arguing about the word "free" is stupid because nothing is absolutely "free" other than what was on the earth originally (air, water directly from rain and random dirt). Everyone (should) knows the meaning of the word "free" is strictly limited to the very person who is receiving it.

    The value of giving people birth control to the rest of us is the avoidance of paying WAY more for everything that goes along with have an unplanned/unfunded child. Pay a little to save a lot.
  12. Profile photo of lauriloo
    lauriloo Female 40-49
    1803 posts
    June 5, 2013 at 11:14 am
    " I just think that a person ought to pay for what they use rather than what their neighbor uses. Oh, and that the states should collect all taxes and pay the federal government directly..."

    Do that and the states that have much fewer valuable natural resources/industries and habitable land become even more poor than they are now. What you want is played out in every sic-fi movie where there are extremely rich people with everything and extremely poor people killing each other for scraps.
  13. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    June 5, 2013 at 11:14 am
    @patchgrabber

    unless you`re only concerned for yourself
    That`s a petty argument from you - a false dichotomy. You`re implying that a person is either happy with Obamacare (or the effects of it respective to this article) or that they are selfish.

    Some of us simply wish to live our lives as we see fit, rather than have our choices dictated. I will happily donate to a family with a medical or employment emergency. I am completely opposed to having my finances used for providing birth control.
  14. Profile photo of lauriloo
    lauriloo Female 40-49
    1803 posts
    June 5, 2013 at 11:17 am
    "I will happily donate to a family with a medical or employment emergency. I am completely opposed to having my finances used for providing birth control."

    Which puts poor people COMPLETELY at the mercy and whims of rich people. Talk about a slave class. Your delusions about a charity-based society is disturbing. I`ll bet your favorite musical is "oliver". "Please sir, may I have some more?" your favorite line.
  15. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    June 5, 2013 at 11:18 am
    @lauriloo

    Paying taxes is paying for the privilege of living in the US with all of its obvious advantages.
    That`s an overly simplistic approach which implies that one ought to simply shut up and pay their taxes regardless of how ridiculous they become. If taxes were 90% of all income, would your argument still apply? No - therefore it is not a fit argument.

    Pay a little to save a lot.
    Unless you don`t provide government assistance. In that case, the people must live with the consequences of their decisions. I know - a crazy thought.
  16. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    June 5, 2013 at 11:19 am
    @lauriloo

    Do that and the states that have much fewer valuable natural resources/industries and habitable land become even more poor than they are now.
    Expand on this please. It worked for a very long time in the US so I do not understand your logic.

    What you want is played out in every sic-fi movie
    Sci-fi movies are not viable examples of real life. Actually, no movies are.
  17. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    June 5, 2013 at 11:22 am
    Which puts poor people COMPLETELY at the mercy and whims of rich people.
    I`m sorry, where did the middle class go? Are you somehow assuming that this will lead to the destruction of the middle-class?

    I can guide you through how more government-assistance actually leads to the destruction of the middle-class if you`d like. I`m sure your conjecture is, like, totally convincing though.

    I`ll bet your favorite musical is "oliver"
    I don`t care for musicals. Also not sure how it applies to the argument )-|
  18. Profile photo of lauriloo
    lauriloo Female 40-49
    1803 posts
    June 5, 2013 at 11:28 am
    " In that case, the people must live with the consequences of their decisions. I know - a crazy thought."

    Apparently, you are under the misconception that having an unplanned child when you are poor and/or a single mother is a walk in the park. Government assistance isn`t a bonanza, no matter how much the GOP tries to make it sound.
  19. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    June 5, 2013 at 11:33 am
    @lauriloo

    Apparently, you are under the misconception that having an unplanned child when you are poor and/or a single mother is a walk in the park.
    Nope - mother was a single mother of six with no child support. We were not well-off but we never accepted any public assistance. I assure you, it can be done.

    Government assistance isn`t a bonanza, no matter how much the GOP tries to make it sound.
    Interesting that you bring the GOP into this discussion. Any particular reason why? I can`t stand the Republicans as much as I can`t stand the Democrats, so I am very curious as to the intention of this statement.

    Oh, oh I get it. You thought you were insulting me? Ha - that was a good one. No really, it was very funny. I`m just sitting here laughing and laughing. Kudos.
  20. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    June 5, 2013 at 11:34 am
    @lauriloo

    It may have worked when the population was very low, rarely travelled and most people had a farm or lived off the land.
    It worked until 1913 (I believe that was the year). I`m pretty sure farming and living off the land weren`t as big as you apparently think they were then.
  21. Profile photo of Evil_Eye
    Evil_Eye Male 18-29
    1442 posts
    June 5, 2013 at 11:35 am
    For someone called HumanAction, you seem to care very little for humans. Should call yourself MyselfAction.

    Some people can`t afford birth control on top of everything else, and so they have the choice of less sex or risk children (a lot of people have incorrect ideas about how to prevent pregnancy).

    People like sex so the first will never happen and you have no right to stop it ether. So they go for the second and suddenly you have a lot accidents that can lead you to paying a lot of money to keep a person alive for at least 18 years, most likely till they die.

    They tried better education and it worked somewhat, but not enough. So isn`t the simplest way to just provide a free birth control that will cost 99% less in the long run? That will leave more tax money left over to go for things you like and use as well.
  22. Profile photo of lauriloo
    lauriloo Female 40-49
    1803 posts
    June 5, 2013 at 11:39 am
    "It worked for a very long time in the US so I do not understand your logic. "

    It may have worked when the population was very low, rarely travelled and most people had a farm or lived off the land. We don`t live in those times. Not even close.

    All I ever understand from you is that you want to keep all your money and you will help people only if you deign to help and not a moment before. Puts you and people like you in control of other people`s fates and removes their last shred of dignity when they are already down.
  23. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    June 5, 2013 at 11:42 am
    @Evil_eye

    For someone called HumanAction, you seem to care very little for humans.
    Research the book HumanAction by Ludwig von Mises. It has nothing to do with what you think it does.

    Some people can`t afford birth control on top of everything else
    So don`t have sex. Make intelligent decisions based on your situation.

    no right to stop it ether.
    I`m not trying to. Keep up.

    So isn`t the simplest way to just provide a free birth control that will cost 99% less in the long run?
    Simple isn`t the same as righteous. Should we base policy and law on simplicity or whether or not it is just and fair?

  24. Profile photo of whodat6484
    whodat6484 Male 30-39
    3908 posts
    June 5, 2013 at 11:44 am
    I have no problem with my tax dollars being used to supply "free" birth control for the less fortunate. My reason being that it prevents a child from being conceived that will end up being taken care of by even more of my tax dollars when the mother inevitably seeks gov`t assistance.
  25. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    June 5, 2013 at 11:47 am
    @lauriloo

    I say again, the federal income tax did not exist until 1913. There were some experiments in the field prior, but nothing significant. Before that, the federal government depended on the states, tariffs, and excise taxes. Society was past the days of living off the land by then.

    All I ever understand from you is that you want to keep all your money
    All I ever understand from you is that you want to take everyone`s money and rely on the government for everything. It`s not very nice to be stupid is it?

    you will help people only if you deign to help and not a moment before
    Is this really all you have left - petty attempts to demonize me? I can`t say I`m surprised. I refuted this argument already.
  26. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36666 posts
    June 5, 2013 at 11:59 am

    And it would reduce hitch hiking if we gave them all a free car, but that doesn`t make it the right thing to do.

    ObamaCare sucks.
    I am in favor or a national healthcare system, but ObamaCare = Suck
  27. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32813 posts
    June 5, 2013 at 12:00 pm
    Since "Obamacare" is going to INCREASE the average cost of insurance to an average of 20K? Apx a 40% increase?

    Saving $1,200 by spending $8,000 MORE makes absolutely NO sense.

    While the "lowest income" will benefit, it`s true, many MORE will be driven INTO the "lowest income" bracket by being forced to buy insurance they don`t want or need.

    And this is literally the ONLY positive spin that ANYONE can find about "Obamacare" eh? Free contraceptives = fewer abortions... in theory.

    Oh wait, I thought more "sex education" would lead to fewer teen pregnancies and fewer abortions... LOLZZ!
  28. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    June 5, 2013 at 12:10 pm
    That`s a petty argument from you - a false dichotomy.
    It`s been a rough week; maybe once my relocation is over I can provide more substantive arguments.
  29. Profile photo of ForSquirel
    ForSquirel Male 30-39
    2163 posts
    June 5, 2013 at 12:30 pm
    Whodat - you assume to much, you assume that someone is going to waste time going to the Health Dept to get the free pills, you assume that the person who just got their free pills will actually take them as prescribed, and you assume that this will actually lower unwanted pregnancies.

    I`m sorry, but I call BS on this whole thing. A guy has been able to go to the Health Dept since, I dunno, the begging of forever and get a free bag of condoms. Yeah, free, and this has done little to none to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

    As Master Ken says, `Bullsh17!`
  30. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6751 posts
    June 5, 2013 at 12:36 pm
    I am against abortion.

    However if you are against abortion then you should be for everything that can help to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place. That includes sex education, women`s clinics, free available contraception, and free available birth control.

    I will never understand the republicans that are against abortion and against everything that might prevent the pregnancy in the first place.
  31. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6751 posts
    June 5, 2013 at 12:42 pm
    HumanACtion

    "I understand that taxes currently work this way, however, for the most part, I am greatly against taxes in their current form. I am against all forms of government-imposed wealth-redistribution - which I also regard as stealing."

    You are against anything that helps anybody in any way. We get that.

    Some of us just believe in society, the social contract, helping others, and morality. All you seem to believe in is greed. Keeping everything you have.

    Lucky for you that you were probably born into a comfortable middle class life and have never really suffered. I`m guessing that if you had grown up not knowing where your next meal was coming from or watching someone you love die because they couldn`t afford health insurance you might not be so heartless.

    There are more important things in the world then how much money you get to keep.
  32. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    June 5, 2013 at 1:03 pm
    @HolyGod

    You are against anything that helps anybody in any way. We get that.
    Really? I`m surprised that I`d get that from you. Since it seems to be a point of contention, let`s clarify some things.

    1. I am completely against federal redistribution. It is ineffective and costs several times more than equivalent charity services.
    2. I completely support individual charity and the primary means of wealth redistribution.
    3. While I`d prefer to leave redistribution to charity, individual states have the authority to do so as provided via the 10th Amendment.

    So, how the hell do you figure that I am "against anything that helps anybody in any way"? That`s a perversion of the issues I hold with redistribution (efficiency, namely) in order to satisfy your belief that I am just some heartless prick. I donate more time and money in my community than many people pay in taxes.
  33. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    June 5, 2013 at 1:07 pm
    @HolyGod

    Some of us just believe in society, the social contract, helping others, and morality.
    I believe in it too; more so than you apparently. The General Welfare clause was NEVER intended to be used the way it is being used. The interstate commerce clause? Let`s be realistic.

    All you seem to believe in is greed. Keeping everything you have.
    Again, this is a perversion of my standpoint in order to satisfy your own need for me to be a heartless prick. Yes, I believe some people in some situations should "lay in the bed they made". To attempt to extrapolate that to being completely heartless and apathetic to all needs is disingenuous at best.

    Seriously, there are many more people here that I would expect such a misrepresentative slander from. It`s disappointing coming from you.
  34. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    June 5, 2013 at 1:08 pm
    @patch

    It`s been a rough week; maybe once my relocation is over I can provide more substantive arguments.
    No worries - will be going through moving in a couple months myself. Just attempting to point out that greed is not the sole motivator for opposition to ObamaCare.
  35. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6751 posts
    June 5, 2013 at 1:21 pm
    When your morality dictates that is more important for a billionaire to keep all their money and people to starve to death than for money to be redistributed than ya, I do find you to be rather heartless.

    I wouldn`t call you a prick though. You just believe in that cold social darwinian Ayn Rand every man for himself ideology. On principle I agree with you, however in reality I find it is too inhuman.
  36. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6751 posts
    June 5, 2013 at 1:21 pm
    HumanACtion

    "Again, this is a perversion of my standpoint in order to satisfy your own need for me to be a heartless prick."

    I don`t find it to be a perversion of your statement and it is based on more than just this thread.

    There are kids going to bed tonight who only have a place to sleep or food to eat because of social programs paid for by taxes. You want to get rid of taxes so that people keep what they make without providing any alternative to how that child would be helped otherwise. Your attitude seems to be "well their parents shouldn`t have has sex if they couldn`t take care of their child".
  37. Profile photo of whodat6484
    whodat6484 Male 30-39
    3908 posts
    June 5, 2013 at 1:29 pm
    "I will never understand the republicans that are against abortion and against everything that might prevent the pregnancy in the first place."

    I`m with you on that. I also have a problem when they say "no you can`t get an abortion, you must have that child." Then they call her a parasite who`s living off of gov`t handouts to support the kid she was forced to have, and they`re even trying to take that away. That goes hand in hand with their religious bullsh*t as well.


  38. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    June 5, 2013 at 1:29 pm
    @HolyGod

    When your morality dictates that is more important for a billionaire to keep all their money
    How do you bring yourself to allege that this is my morality? The billionaire absolutely SHOULD help these people; actually, their neighbors and community should be on the front line. To forcibly take the money though, is trying to right a wrong with another wrong.

    While I do believe in the "every man for himself" ideology, I think charity rightfully steps in when needed.

    There are kids going to bed tonight who only have a place to sleep or food to eat because of social programs paid for by taxes
    Next time you`re giving a lecture, take a moment to poll the audience; ask them: "if you`re taxes got reduced by 50%, would you donate more to charity?" The overwhelming majority always say yes. This notion that people won`t donate unless forced to is nonsense.
  39. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    June 5, 2013 at 1:32 pm
    @HolyGod

    You want to get rid of taxes so that people keep what they make without providing any alternative to how that child would be helped otherwise.
    Again, this is not what I want at all. I want to get rid of taxes so that people can do with their money as they see fit - including donate it to charity.

    My niece was born with a heart defect that would have killed her in her infancy. Insurance would only cover palliative care. Charity from within the family and community is what saved her life - not government or insurance.

    People are much more generous than you give them credit for.
  40. Profile photo of Magentab0b
    Magentab0b Female 30-39
    1467 posts
    June 5, 2013 at 1:33 pm
    Ayn Rand was a more if everyone looks out for themselves and get`s their poo together first then you can look out for some body else who needs help rather than waiting around for the government to support you. Government pays you to not grow corn, grow soy instead.
  41. Profile photo of Magentab0b
    Magentab0b Female 30-39
    1467 posts
    June 5, 2013 at 1:42 pm
    Most effective birth control for women is a shot that lasts six months. So what`ll happen is pregnancies `ll go down but stds up.
  42. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6751 posts
    June 5, 2013 at 2:25 pm
    HumanAction

    "Again, this is not what I want at all. I want to get rid of taxes so that people can do with their money as they see fit - including donate it to charity."

    If you think that eliminating funding for all social programs would actually HELP poor people because all of a sudden rich people would donate way more money and there would be MORE social assistance in the form of charity than I don`t know what to tell you. I find that to be certifiable insanity. However I have no reasonable objective data that proves you are wrong.


  43. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6751 posts
    June 5, 2013 at 2:26 pm
    HumanAction

    "My niece was born with a heart defect that would have killed her in her infancy. Insurance would only cover palliative care. Charity from within the family and community is what saved her life - not government or insurance."

    That is nice for middle class white people. If you think that same girl would have had the same result if born in a black ghetto then, again, I find that to be insane.

    However, had she been born in Canada she could have been just fine without needing family and friends to sacrifice.
  44. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6751 posts
    June 5, 2013 at 2:28 pm
    HumanAction

    "People are much more generous than you give them credit for."

    The fact that there is $500/oz caviar, 600ft yachts, $250 Million homes, private islands, and solid gold toilets while children starve to death proves that they aren`t.
  45. Profile photo of AvatarJohn
    AvatarJohn Male 30-39
    1059 posts
    June 5, 2013 at 2:36 pm
    No, the most effective birth control for women is for them to keep their legs firmly shut.

    @whodat, there`s something called "adoption" that you might want to look into. I have a problem with murdering a child who`s seen as such a burden to the woman who was being irresponsible in the first place. But once that child is born, that same irresponsible woman should not be raising her. There are thousands and thousands of childless heterosexual (i.e. normal) couples who would love to adopt those children and keep them off the welfare roles. Your argument is brainless and heartless at the same time.
  46. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    June 5, 2013 at 2:41 pm
    @HolyGod

    "I find that to be certifiable insanity."

    That`s your right to believe so. However, there are many studies, usually by economists, that support my position.

    For example, here is a very concise analysis by a professor at Montana State University-Northern.

    He cites estimates that government redistribution is, at best, a 70:30 split where 70% of each dollar goes to bureaucracy. Comparatively, arguably high estimates for charity are 33:67 splits the other way.

    He also devotes pages 10-13 on debunking, or at least devaluing, the argument that private charity would not adequately provide for the needy. He submits a much better argument than I can make lest I simply copy him.
  47. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32813 posts
    June 5, 2013 at 2:43 pm
    I will never understand the republicans that are against abortion and against everything that might prevent the pregnancy in the first place.
    @HolyGod: Those are few and FAR between. There`s also Democrats who fit the bill too.
    Most "righties" object to a woman paying $50K a year for a liberal arts degree claiming she cannot afford $20 a month for the pill. That woman being give a "dog and pony show" by no less than SotH Nancy Pelosi (D)!! At taxpayers expense of course...

    THAT is objectionable.

    There ALREADY IS free stuff available, and people don`t use it. More free stuff at higher cost might get used a bit more, or it might not.
  48. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    June 5, 2013 at 2:45 pm
    @HolyGod

    However, had she been born in Canada she could have been just fine without needing family and friends to sacrifice.
    Canada has a much different system than is ObamaCare. While there are arguments to make against Canada`s universal healthcare, they are not the same arguments to use regarding ObamaCare - a regulatory overlay for the already failed third-party payer system.

    In the US, yes, she still would have died; she was covered by one of the government-supported HMO`s and was only offered palliative care. ObamaCare is built on the same system that created the original failure.

    As for Canada, perhaps someone from Canada can comment. Basically, she was given a 50/50 shot at living following 3 open-heart surgeries. Insurance didn`t like those odds and refused to pay for the surgeries. She would have been dead before it reached the courts if we fought it.
  49. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32813 posts
    June 5, 2013 at 2:50 pm
    while children starve to death
    Moses: Couldn`t solve the poverty problem.
    Christ: Couldn`t solve the poverty problem.
    Muhammad: Couldn`t solve the poverty problem.
    Buddha: Couldn`t solve the poverty problem.

    Joseph Smith, Vladimir Lenin, Chairman Mao, Jim Jones, JFK & MLK = NO solution.

    See a pattern here? If you think taking away money from "the rich" will solve the problem? Remember it`s been tried several times before and always ended badly for -everyone- involved. Especially the poor.
  50. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    June 5, 2013 at 2:50 pm
    @HolyGod

    The fact that there is $500/oz caviar, 600ft yachts, $250 Million homes, private islands, and solid gold toilets while children starve to death proves that they aren`t.
    You are trying to imply that the actions of very few extend to the majority; they do not.

    Yes, some people are obscenely rich and also happen to be douchebags. To try to extrapolate that to mean that all people who are not poor is unreasonable.

    Additionally, the output is not solely measured in money given to the poor. Economics upturn created by tax breaks to the middle class have been shown to indirectly benefit the poor. You should read the study I provided earlier. He makes better cases than I do (and he uses actual cited data).
  51. Profile photo of whodat6484
    whodat6484 Male 30-39
    3908 posts
    June 5, 2013 at 2:53 pm
    @AvatarJohn - It`s not "murder" until the kid is born, don`t give me that bullsh*t. You must be one of those "life begins at conception" f*cktards. As far as I`m concerned, unless an abortion effects you and your body, which is impossible, you have no say in it whatsoever. It`s not your decision to make or anyone else`s decision, it`s up to the woman to do what she wants with her own body.
  52. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10732 posts
    June 5, 2013 at 3:29 pm
    The fact that there is $500/oz caviar, 600ft yachts, $250 Million homes, private islands, and solid gold toilets while children starve to death proves that they aren`t.

    Emotional appeal duly noted.




  53. Profile photo of mykunter
    mykunter Male 40-49
    2424 posts
    June 5, 2013 at 3:32 pm
    Drug testing and birth control should be MANDATORY for all welfare recipients.

    So yeah, I guess this is a step in the right direction. I still don`t want to pay for it though.
  54. Profile photo of trippyhippy9
    trippyhippy9 Male 18-29
    559 posts
    June 5, 2013 at 4:23 pm
    Thanks Obama :-)
  55. Profile photo of lauriloo
    lauriloo Female 40-49
    1803 posts
    June 5, 2013 at 5:28 pm
    "Drug testing and birth control should be MANDATORY for all welfare recipients."

    You say that with the assumption that most welfare recipients are drug-addled whores who try to be on welfare for life. a small percentage of people on welfare. How about people who lose everything in a hurricane, house and the store that was their major source of income, and need help for a few months until they get on their feet? You going to force a married mother of four onto the pill to get it? How is she going to prove she`s actually using it? How about a military vet whose ptsd is so bad he`s having trouble finding a job? You going to put him on BC or is it only a requirement for female recipients?
  56. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6751 posts
    June 5, 2013 at 5:39 pm
    Cajun247

    The Charles Koch foundation. Interesting. They probably feed the hungry or house the homeless right? Fight diseases? Save lives?

    Let`s check what they do.

    From their own website they have 3 areas of philanthropy:

    Higher Education
    "The goal is to facilitate a deeper understanding of the nature of free societies"

    Research
    "The Foundation supports projects at several non-profits, including the Economic Freedom of the World Index at the Fraser Institute."

    Professional Education
    "turn their passion for economic freedom into a career and become more effective advocates of the cause in which they believe"

    So they donate to causes, people, and think tanks that mirror their personal beliefs and fight to lower taxes? WOW. SO charitable.
  57. Profile photo of lauriloo
    lauriloo Female 40-49
    1803 posts
    June 5, 2013 at 5:42 pm

    Cajun247- the only thing all those foundations prove is that there are more human problems than there are charitable rich people to solve. Especially when you add in all the rest of the world`s problems to ours. Because you don`t want to tell people what to do with their charitable giving, who`s to say that money would go to USA people when there are even bigger problems elsewhere? Many of those foundations are very specific and some have social agendas.

    Again, the notion that people`s very lives are made to depend on the whims of richer people is outrageous. Bad enough certain people want to prevent certain groups of people from voting. Now you want to give certain groups of people the ability to starve other groups of people to death or to make them slave labor.

    Has it occurred to anyone that it is extremely difficult to base a social welfare system on unpredictable funding? Ask a food shelf org.
  58. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    June 5, 2013 at 5:47 pm
    @lauriloo

    Because you don`t want to tell people what to do with their charitable giving, who`s to say that money would go to USA people when there are even bigger problems elsewhere?
    One could as easily say, "who`s to say that money WOULDN`T go to the people on the US?" Conjecture is a fools errand when opposed by data.

    Again, the notion that people`s very lives are made to depend on the whims of richer people is outrageous.
    You are the only person suggesting this, strangely enough. Everyone else is suggesting that people are made to depend on themselves foremost. Should they fail, the actions of charity and community provide a safety net.

    Now you want to give certain groups of people the ability to starve other groups of people to death or to make them slave labor.
    People cannot help themselves? Are we not individuals?

  59. Profile photo of flying_ltj
    flying_ltj Male 18-29
    340 posts
    June 5, 2013 at 5:48 pm
    @HumanAction...

    After reading a full days worth of your post (as this appears to be what you spent your full day doing, while I on the other hand WORKED all day) it is clear where your opinion on this type of matter is.

    You only want to pay taxes that you yourself approve of.

    You only want people to get the care that you yourself approve of.

    You only want the government to operate the way that you yourself approve of.

    See a pattern here? Contemplate that while sitting on link sites all day tomorrow while the rest of us work to keep the gears of this country moving.
  60. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    June 5, 2013 at 5:53 pm
    @flying_ltj

    as this appears to be what you spent your full day doing, while I on the other hand WORKED all day
    Well, I implemented phpass and a custom user model (and controller, and helpers) into a laravel-driven ticketing system, so it wasn`t all for a loss. I type quickly. Didn`t quite get around to bundling it yet but I was lazy today. Oh well, it pays to be the boss sometimes.

    See a pattern here?
    Yes... I want the things that I want. Strangely, this seems very logical. Allow me to ask you this, do you want the things that you want? Shocking.

    Contemplate that while sitting on link sites all day tomorrow while the rest of us work to keep the gears of this country moving.
    Thank you for the insult. Let me know the next time you employ someone - even yourself.
  61. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    June 5, 2013 at 5:57 pm
    @flying_ltj

    as this appears to be what you spent your full day doing
    Hmm... I started at 9:51 and ended (excluding my most recent) 2:50 (this sites time). Let`s just, for arguments sake, say that I was here the whole time (despite the many missing hours). That`s still 5 hours.

    You have 5 hour workdays? Wow. That must be nice.
  62. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6751 posts
    June 5, 2013 at 5:58 pm
    Cajun247

    The Walton Family Foundation does wonderful things.

    In 2012 the foundation gave away $400 million. Fantastic. Should be very proud of that.

    However let`s put that in perspective:

    The Walton family is worth over $115 Billion.
    They own 50% of Walmart which makes $25 Billion a year.

    $400 million when you are worth that much and make that much would be like if I, making $115,000 a year donated $400.
  63. Profile photo of lauriloo
    lauriloo Female 40-49
    1803 posts
    June 5, 2013 at 6:29 pm
    "People cannot help themselves? Are we not individuals?"

    Most people would NOT be on welfare if they could make it on their own at the time. You are assuming most people CHOOSE to be on welfare because they are simply lazy and could get off it any time they choose. I contend that it is NOT true in most cases and people have tried very hard to avoid needing it and went on it when they HAD to. When you put desperate people`s lives under the whims of the richer class, there is an unfair imbalance of power. Ever heard of indentured servants?
  64. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    June 5, 2013 at 8:19 pm
    @lauriloo

    When you put desperate people`s lives under the whims of the richer class, there is an unfair imbalance of power.
    But that is precisely what you are attempting to do. The average politician is far wealthier than the average American. It makes no sense to have politicians, who are likely more privileged than any of us, choose how to spend everyone`s money; they are the wealthy.

    I contend that the average American is both more generous and better-intentioned than the average politician. Do you disagree? If not, I simply cannot understand your reasoning.
  65. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15841 posts
    June 5, 2013 at 10:57 pm
    The reason that liberal icon Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood was to suppress the black birthrate.
  66. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10732 posts
    June 6, 2013 at 8:22 am
    Fair enough HolyGod, but people who own more money actually tend to be more generous than those who don`t make as much. They`re also less likely to donate to religious groups.

    Link

    Your latest comment could suggest that the Waltons donate 1.6% of their income to charity, when in all likelihood that`s just one group they fund.
  67. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6751 posts
    June 6, 2013 at 10:09 am
    Cajun247

    "but people who own more money actually tend to be more generous than those who don`t make as much."

    Don`t you think that is kind of obvious? If you make $45,000 a year and you have a couple kids, and a mortgage, and you want to be able to take a vacation then you probably spend every penny you have just paying bills.

    If you are worth 4 billion dollars then you have more money than you can spend and giving away a few hundred million for the tax write off doesn`t change your spending ability or lifestyle in any way.

    Do you actually believe HumanAction`s assertion that if taxes were eliminated completely and government funded social programs, like free clinics, food stamps, welfare, medicaid, children`s services, and housing, were eliminated completely that the people who rely on those services for basic survival would be BETTER off because people would donate to them MORE than what the government had funded?
  68. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10732 posts
    June 6, 2013 at 10:45 am
    Do you actually believe HumanAction`s assertion that if taxes were eliminated completely and government funded social programs

    I don`t think HumanAction necessarily wants taxes to be eliminated (see Laffer Curve). Some level of government spending is necessary for a civil society (see Somalia). The programs you list out are one of four things:
    Generic (children services, welfare, social programs)
    Generously funded privately (free clinics)
    Need to be fixed (MedicAid, Food Stamps)
    Should be elminated entirely (Housing)

    In a nutshell, people (especially the rich) would certainly be more generous if taxes were A LOT lower than what they are now. But they`d take their money elsewhere if there were no taxes.
  69. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    June 6, 2013 at 12:26 pm
    I don`t think HumanAction necessarily wants taxes to be eliminated
    I don`t. I even directly stated earlier in this conversation that I am not opposed to all taxes; I just have a preference for the states to handle tax collection.

    However, I am against the repetitive wealth redistribution in this country. Few people seem to recognize that a "progressive" income tax, such as we have, is the most pervasive and aggressive form of wealth redistribution we have.

    Although I prefer not to have any wealth redistribution, the best compromise I have heard thus far is Friedman`s negative income tax implemented by the states - who have the authority to do so. Every person in the US is guaranteed a base minimum salary; any income in excess is taxed at a flat-rate. Those who fail to earn the minimum receive the difference.
  70. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    June 6, 2013 at 12:28 pm
    I should rephrase - I prefer not to have any FORCED wealth redistribution. Rather, wealth should be redistributed through voluntary exchanges.
  71. Profile photo of WizardofCOR
    WizardofCOR Male 40-49
    155 posts
    June 6, 2013 at 3:51 pm
    "In a nutshell, people (especially the rich) would certainly be more generous if taxes were A LOT lower than what they are now. But they`d take their money elsewhere if there were no taxes."

    Ok first, no. Individual income taxes are lower now than they were in the 1950`s. Capital Gains taxes are so low, and the off-shoring loopholes so plentiful that the wealthy pay a lower percentage overall than school teachers do.
    The wet dream of the wealthy is no taxes - why would they take their money elsewhere if there were none? Why do they take their money offshore now?
  72. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    June 6, 2013 at 4:13 pm
    @Wizard

    Ok first, no.
    The link Cajun provided, which utilizes data from the IRS among other notable sources, refutes your statement. The link demonstrates that, not only do the wealthy contribute more total resources to charity, they also contribute a larger percentage of their income.

    Additionally, their charity tends to be skewed toward education and healthcare, compared to the average citizen who contributes heavily to religious organizations.

    why would they take their money elsewhere if there were none?
    The Laffer curve. Without any taxation, a government and society could not exist. Thus, the moeny would be both worthless and unprotected. There is a minimum level of taxation necessary in order to maintain a society.

    They would leave for the same reason that they do not move their money to Somalia.

Leave a Reply