convince me welfare recipients should take drug test...

[lovemeorhateme]

It's pretty simple.
Fire spreads.
Your whole neighborhood could burn even though the fire did not start with your house.

If there are never any fires in my neighbourhood, the fire service is of no direct benefit to me. As already pointed out, I'm simply paying to put out other people's fires. Using the logic seen in this thread against welfare, that means those who call the fire service are stealing from me so they can get their fire put out.

 

[resodko]

Do you consider welfare to be on the same moral standing as abortion and same sex marriage?

thou shalt not steal
thou shalt not kill

 

[resodko]

If there are never any fires in my neighbourhood, the fire service is of no direct benefit to me. As already pointed out, I'm simply paying to put out other people's fires. Using the logic seen in this thread against welfare, that means those who call the fire service are stealing from me so they can get their fire put out.

ok fine

you've gone to the expense and bother to create or move into a neighborhood that's fireproof, guaranteed



why should you be forced to pay for those who haven't gone to the same expense and bother?

 

[Tambora]

Do you consider welfare to be on the same moral standing as abortion and same sex marriage?

Wrong is wrong no matter what the law is.

Abortion is wrong.
Same sex marriage is wrong.
Stealing is wrong.

Look, I was raised that if you don't have the money for something you need or want, then you do without.
If someone is kind enough to help you out, then be grateful.
But you don't steal from them because things went sour for you. Nor do you support a group that does the stealing for you.

The notion that the rest of the community should be forcibly obligated to keep you afloat is wrong.

 

[resodko]

ok fine

you've gone to the expense and bother to create or move into a neighborhood that's fireproof, guaranteed



why should you be forced to pay for those who haven't gone to the same expense and bother?

or how about this?

the us spends lots of money on its municipal fire departments, because it can

Harare, in Zimbabwe, hasn't, because it can't


should the us feel obligated to fund municipal fire departments in zimbabwe?

 

[shagster01]

Wrong is wrong no matter what the law is.

Abortion is wrong.
Same sex marriage is wrong.
Stealing is wrong.

Look, I was raised that if you don't have the money for something you need or want, then you do without.
If someone is kind enough to help you out, then be grateful.
But you don't steal from them because things went sour for you. Nor do you support a group that does the stealing for you.

The notion that the rest of the community should be forcibly obligated to keep you afloat is wrong.

Well shoot. Then the next time a tropical storm destroys part of Texas I don't want my federal tax dollars going to help rescue and rebuild. They are just stealing from me because Texas doesn't have enough to do it itself. If Texas doesn't have its own money to rebuild, then they should go without, right?

 

[resodko]

Well shoot. Then the next time a tropical storm destroys part of Texas I don't want my federal tax dollars going to help rescue and rebuild. They are just stealing from me because Texas doesn't have enough to do it itself. If Texas doesn't have its own money to rebuild, then they should go without, right?

texans don't pay federal taxes? :freak:

 

[Tambora]

If there are never any fires in my neighbourhood,

You mean ... so far ... your community has not had any fires.
And I doubt that it is true at all that your community has not had any fires at all in a home.
The odds are good that there will be, as there are sooooooo many ways a fire can happen in a home. Stove-top fires, cigarette fires, electrical fires, lightening, gas leaks, etc. etc. etc.
Luckily, at lot of those can be detained if a person is home and catches it right away.
But with today's economy, many homes are left empty the whole day because both parents need to work to make ends meet.

 

[rexlunae]

I have no idea what that means.

In Les Miserables, Inspector Javert spent much of his life chasing the protagonist, Jean ValJean, who had stolen a loaf of bread for his starving family and who served ten years in prison for the crime before being payrolled and going on the run.

And by the reference, I mean that you are following a principle beyond its useful intent, to the point of perversion. We have rules against stealing because it makes for good order and justice, not because we want people to starve to death. It's not righteous to demand a greater wrong occur to preserve the principle.

 

[Tambora]

Well shoot. Then the next time a tropical storm destroys part of Texas I don't want my federal tax dollars going to help rescue and rebuild. They are just stealing from me because Texas doesn't have enough to do it itself. If Texas doesn't have its own money to rebuild, then they should go without, right?

My opinion is that any help should be by donations, and not a forced obligation.

Forced obligation is not kindness and generosity. Forced obligation is slavery.

 

[lovemeorhateme]

Wrong is wrong no matter what the law is.

Abortion is wrong.
Same sex marriage is wrong.
Stealing is wrong.

I agree on all three points. What I disagree with is that the welfare system, an insurance policy for all is stealing.

If someone refuses to work but is able, they deserve no help. If someone cannot work through no fault of their own, the only possibly Christian position of love and compassion that I can see is to help them. What is so bad about helping others?

Look, I was raised that if you don't have the money for something you need or want, then you do without.
If someone is kind enough to help you out, then be grateful.
But you don't steal from them because things went sour for you. Nor do you support a group that does the stealing for you.

The notion that the rest of the community should be forcibly obligated to keep you afloat is wrong.

By your logic, why should I be forced to pay for foreign wars I don't want, schools for children I don't have or a fire service for fires I haven't had. Are not the people who use these services my tax money has helped pay for stealing from me to use those services?

 

[lovemeorhateme]

ok fine

you've gone to the expense and bother to create or move into a neighborhood that's fireproof, guaranteed



why should you be forced to pay for those who haven't gone to the same expense and bother?

What I'm getting from the logic being used here is the government should tax no one, and then we can all pay for our defence, fire protection, police and schools out of our own pocket if we choose to.
For if anyone objects to these and doesn't want to pay for them, the government is stealing from them to pay for other people to use these services, right?

 

[lovemeorhateme]

You mean ... so far ... your community has not had any fires.
And I doubt that it is true at all that your community has not had any fires at all in a home.
The odds are good that there will be, as there are sooooooo many ways a fire can happen in a home. Stove-top fires, cigarette fires, electrical fires, lightening, gas leaks, etc. etc. etc.
Luckily, at lot of those can be detained if a person is home and catches it right away.
But with today's economy, many homes are left empty the whole day because both parents need to work to make ends meet.

Of course, there are any number of ways a fire can start and affect others through no fault of their own. There are also any number of ways a family can end up out of work and unable to gain further employment through no fault of their own. Yet you would advocate helping one but not the other. Can you not see how this position appears to be inconsistent?

 

[Rusha]

What I'm getting from the logic being used here is the government should tax no one, and then we can all pay for our defence, fire protection, police and schools out of our own pocket if we choose to.
For if anyone objects to these and doesn't want to pay for them, the government is stealing from them to pay for other people to use these services, right?

Seems so.

 

[Tambora]

Of course, there are any number of ways a fire can start and affect others through no fault of their own. There are also any number of ways a family can end up out of work and unable to gain further employment through no fault of their own. Yet you would advocate helping one but not the other. Can you not see how this position appears to be inconsistent?

No.
I advocate that you should be able to be charitable with your own money to those you want to be charitable to.
And not have some bureaucrat TAKE it from you and spend it on what he deems fit.

 

[dreadknought]

I don't think they should be made to take a drug test to get... I guess food stamps (?).

But I don't feel any gov aid should be contingent on such a test.

the $$ belongs to we the people anyway... it is not "THEIR" money...

++

If family takes care of family, then goverment is a non sequitor.

 

[republicanchick]

It's the same here.
A couple of years ago our volunteer fire department did a demonstration.
They purposely set fire to an demonstration.

this story doesn't prove that we can't have fire dept's w/o gov paying 4 it

communities can get together and do these things

 

[republicanchick]

If family takes care of family, then goverment is a non sequitor.

yes, i have said this before. But who is ever going to implement.. What?

some law that says your 30 yr old daughter who is pregnant, doesn't have the father around.. should be supported by her parents?

i don't know, but that sounds a little problematic to me... although having a law like that would seem (w/o thinking about it thoroughkly) better tahn BIG taxes on people who had nothing to do with the situation




___

 

[Tambora]

What I'm getting from the logic being used here is the government should tax no one, and then we can all pay for our defence, fire protection, police and schools out of our own pocket if we choose to.

That would suit me just fine.

Anyone that thinks a government can spend your money better than you can is foolish.
I think the government wastes money like crazy.

But if you would prefer to live as a slave on a government run plantation, suit yourself.

"The most terrifying words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" - Ronald Reagan

 

[Tambora]

If family takes care of family, then goverment is a non sequitor.

Not only that, but when a government starts taking control of charity, it gets all fouled up and leaves you with less money to be charitable to those you see that are really in need.

Forced charity is not charity at all.

It's just another way for the government to take control of family and church. No need for either if you let the government take care of everyone.