Identifying the Enemy

greg jacobs · Post by **greg jacobs** » Sat Jul 02, 2016 7:32 am

The democratic stance on the two subjects don't make sense to me. They want gun control. They say it will save lives. Now Google a second trimester baby image. It's not a religious issue it's an ethical and moral issue. Also 38 states have fetal homicide laws prochoice people are against this because they fear this could give the unborn fetus legal rights.

Post by **mnaj_springer** » Sat Jul 02, 2016 11:45 am

greg jacobs wrote:The democratic stance on the two subjects don't make sense to me. They want gun control. They say it will save lives. Now Google a second trimester baby image. It's not a religious issue it's an ethical and moral issue. Also 38 states have fetal homicide laws prochoice people are against this because they fear this could give the unborn fetus legal rights.

Greg the same argument could be made for the two republican stances. They say all life is valuable so they oppose abortion (and call themselves pro-life), but then they say the death penalty is justified because those people don't have valuable lives.

I'm not trying to argue. I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy that exists on both sides of the aisle.

Also, please don't call me a liberal. My political views are based on my morals, principles, and ethical beliefs, which generally leads me to be all over the board politically.

greg jacobs · Post by **greg jacobs** » Sat Jul 02, 2016 1:26 pm

Progressive?

Post by **mnaj_springer** » Sat Jul 02, 2016 3:37 pm

greg jacobs wrote:Progressive?

Are progressives pro-life? Greg, you can't pigeon hole everyone.

gundogguy · Post by **gundogguy** » Mon Jul 04, 2016 11:34 am

Greg the same argument could be made for the two republican stances. They say all life is valuable so they oppose abortion (and call themselves pro-life), but then they say the death penalty is justified because those people don't have valuable lives.
[/quote]

Death penalty has nothing to do with the lack of value in the condemned life. It has to with the decision the condemn made against other people and or society.
There is no hypocrisy in the Pro-life stance and also being for Capital punishment. The Pro Choice crowd has much more hypocrisy in the stance they take.

Post by **mnaj_springer** » Mon Jul 04, 2016 12:04 pm

gundogguy wrote:Greg the same argument could be made for the two republican stances. They say all life is valuable so they oppose abortion (and call themselves pro-life), but then they say the death penalty is justified because those people don't have valuable lives.

Death penalty has nothing to do with the lack of value in the condemned life. It has to with the decision the condemn made against other people and or society.
There is no hypocrisy in the Pro-life stance and also being for Capital punishment. The Pro Choice crowd has much more hypocrisy in the stance they take.[/quote]

And that's how it's justified! But that justification implies that at some point human life is no longer valuable. And if one can decide when it is no longer valuable, then one should be able to decide when it becomes valuable, and thereinlies the hypocrisy, because of the subjective nature of the whole thing. Again, I did not argue that being pro-choice does not involve hypocrisy, but rather, that the pot is calling the kettle black in this situation.

I, for one, am pro-life. That means both at the beginning and end of life, regardless of decisions made in between. I'm not God, or Allah, or any other deity so who am I decide who lives and dies.

CDN_Cocker · Post by **CDN_Cocker** » Mon Jul 04, 2016 2:16 pm

As a Canadian I think you folks are fecked either way... pardon my french

Post by **mnaj_springer** » Mon Jul 04, 2016 2:23 pm

CDN_Cocker wrote:As a Canadian I think you folks are fecked either way... pardon my french

As an American I agree. We just have to decide which is worse for the country and run the opposite direction.

DougB · Post by **DougB** » Mon Jul 04, 2016 2:49 pm

oldbeek wrote:Vote democrat and loose your guns and right to hunt! End of subject. That is what you are up against. If you like hunting, you better back a republican. A left leaning supreme court will destroy the second amendment. Send the price of your last expensive shotgun to the NRA or Donald Trump. NRA patron and sustaining life member.

I have no problem voting GOP. The problem is Trump. Congress controls the money and makes the laws. That means that the President has to work with congress. The job title and description has nothing to do with ruling the country. Obama couldn't get what he wanted, even with a majority of the people backing him, because he couldn't get past congress. Trump has no ability to work with others. Yelling at a senator accomplishes nothing. Maybe bragging about his supermodel wife and lending her to the senator will work, but they are elected-he can not fire them. The man has no interests once you get past his ego. No knowledge of foreign affairs that don't involve women, no knowledge about the BOR of the whole Constitution and seems to know little about economics that don't effect his income.. You can hold off Hillery with congress and the supreme court. Worked with Obama.
When faced with choosing the lessor of two evils, find a third choice. The name Gary Johnson should be considered

When you choose the lesser of two evils, always remember that it is still an evil." Author: Max Lerner

birddogger · Post by **birddogger** » Thu Jul 07, 2016 1:57 pm

mnaj_springer wrote:
greg jacobs wrote:The democratic stance on the two subjects don't make sense to me. They want gun control. They say it will save lives. Now Google a second trimester baby image. It's not a religious issue it's an ethical and moral issue. Also 38 states have fetal homicide laws prochoice people are against this because they fear this could give the unborn fetus legal rights.
Greg the same argument could be made for the two republican stances. They say all life is valuable so they oppose abortion (and call themselves pro-life), but then they say the death penalty is justified because those people don't have valuable lives.

I'm not trying to argue. I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy that exists on both sides of the aisle.

Also, please don't call me a liberal. My political views are based on my morals, principles, and ethical beliefs, which generally leads me to be all over the board politically.

I normally don't like to get involved in discussions involving abortion and the death penalty, however I am going to make an exception in this case. I don't think their is any hypocrisy here at all, when we are talking about one being an innocent life and the other being guilty who have made their choices. JMO.

Charlie

Post by **ezzy333** » Thu Jul 07, 2016 3:47 pm

Charlie, you got it exactly right. Two different circumstances entirely. I don't think it has any connection to politics and should be left people with standing.

Post by **mnaj_springer** » Thu Jul 07, 2016 4:27 pm

Ezzy and Charlie, the problem is when to decide if someone is innocent or not, people have to make judgments. When is a life not valuable anymore? Where exactly is the line of worthy to live and worthy to die?

It seems to me pro-choice people have also made subjective judgments about when life is valuable. That's where the hypocrisy of a pro-life, pro-death penalty people, who condemn pro-choice people, comes into play.

Both groups have decided when a life is valuable is subjective; it's just they disagree about exactly what that looks like.

greg jacobs · Post by **greg jacobs** » Thu Jul 07, 2016 6:50 pm

It's absolutely crazy to compare an unborn baby and a murderer.

birddogger · Post by **birddogger** » Thu Jul 07, 2016 6:56 pm

Springer, I understand the arguments against the death penalty, even though, I have my own opinion on it. I do not understand the argument concerning abortion, except, maybe in special circumstances, I don't know. My only disagreement is that I don't see any hypocrisy on the right between the two arguments. Where I do see hypocrisy is on the left, concerning gun control. People on the left have been quoted as saying that if gun control saves only one life, it is worth it. They don't want to discuss how many times a gun or guns have saved lives. As far as not calling you a liberal, that is fine, but your comments always seem to lean toward the left. And that is fine if that is the way you believe, that is your right. We are not going to change your mind and you won't change ours.

Charlie

Post by **mnaj_springer** » Thu Jul 07, 2016 7:04 pm

greg jacobs wrote:It's absolutely crazy to compare an unborn baby and a murderer.

I'm not. I'm comparing the thought process of people.

Charlie, I'm not denying any hypocrisy, but trying to expose the hypocrisy others deny.

But as far as my left leaning beliefs go... Please identify them.

birddogger · Post by **birddogger** » Thu Jul 07, 2016 7:40 pm

mnaj_springer wrote:
greg jacobs wrote:It's absolutely crazy to compare an unborn baby and a murderer.
I'm not. I'm comparing the thought process of people.

Charlie, I'm not denying any hypocrisy, but trying to expose the hypocrisy others deny.

But as far as my left leaning beliefs go... Please identify them.

Springer, identifying them, just comes from your posts. It would take way too long to critique each one. I have nothing against you personally, heck I don't even know you. I will say again that whatever you believe in is your right. I will say, however, that if we continue down the path we are on with the liberal, socialists, whatever we call them, we are eventually going to lose all our rights. It is getting scary!

Charlie

Post by **ezzy333** » Thu Jul 07, 2016 8:35 pm

mnaj_springer wrote:Ezzy and Charlie, the problem is when to decide if someone is innocent or not, people have to make judgments. When is a life not valuable anymore? Where exactly is the line of worthy to live and worthy to die?

It seems to me pro-choice people have also made subjective judgments about when life is valuable. That's where the hypocrisy of a pro-life, pro-death penalty people, who condemn pro-choice people, comes into play.

Both groups have decided when a life is valuable is subjective; it's just they disagree about exactly what that looks like.

We aren't judging the criminal but rather are protecting the population as he has been found unfit to conform to the laws that have been made to protect you and your family.
Ezzy

Post by **mnaj_springer** » Thu Jul 07, 2016 8:36 pm

I don't have a problem with you either Charlie, but I doubt you know my beliefs.

But while we're on the topic of beliefs, I think the biggest con in American politics is the idea that actual "beliefs" are why we have political parties. We have political parties because of money.

Ezzy, if they are incarcerated the rest of their lives then my family is protected. They don't need to die for that to happen.

birddogger · Post by **birddogger** » Thu Jul 07, 2016 9:09 pm

No, I don't know your beliefs. All I can go by is what you say in your comments. I will bow out now because anything else I have to say would just be redundant.

gonehuntin' · Post by **gonehuntin'** » Fri Jul 08, 2016 6:55 pm

cjhills wrote:
greg jacobs wrote:++++1.

Thank you
Greg J
Reminds me of a old news paper comic strip named "Pogo Possum". Pogo's favorite saying was "we have met the enemy and it is us"
One thing about the "Donald" is nobody has a clue what he believes in because he will say anything to get your vote. He is a firm believer in litigation. He is a racist and he would sell your 2nd amendment rights in a heartbeat to get your vote.
Nobody wants to pay for a wall on the Mexican border, banning travel is a 250 year step backwards, nobody wants to deport the illegals, Where would all the cheap labor come from? Who would clean his hotel rooms?
IMO. do not waste your time on PMs.................................Cj

That entire post is a line of crap. We need Trump, not that lieing criminal of a bitch running against him.

Spy Car · Post by **Spy Car** » Fri Jul 08, 2016 7:52 pm

We really need this BS on a dog forum?

Bill

Post by **mnaj_springer** » Fri Jul 08, 2016 8:48 pm

gonehuntin' wrote:
cjhills wrote:
greg jacobs wrote:++++1.

Thank you
Greg J
Reminds me of a old news paper comic strip named "Pogo Possum". Pogo's favorite saying was "we have met the enemy and it is us"
One thing about the "Donald" is nobody has a clue what he believes in because he will say anything to get your vote. He is a firm believer in litigation. He is a racist and he would sell your 2nd amendment rights in a heartbeat to get your vote.
Nobody wants to pay for a wall on the Mexican border, banning travel is a 250 year step backwards, nobody wants to deport the illegals, Where would all the cheap labor come from? Who would clean his hotel rooms?
IMO. do not waste your time on PMs.................................Cj

That entire post is a line of crap. We need Trump, not that lieing criminal of a bitch running against him.

We need Trump?!?! That must be some strong kool-aid!

cjhills · Post by **cjhills** » Fri Jul 08, 2016 9:10 pm

gonehuntin' wrote:
cjhills wrote:
greg jacobs wrote:++++1.

Thank you
Greg J
Reminds me of a old news paper comic strip named "Pogo Possum". Pogo's favorite saying was "we have met the enemy and it is us"
One thing about the "Donald" is nobody has a clue what he believes in because he will say anything to get your vote. He is a firm believer in litigation. He is a racist and he would sell your 2nd amendment rights in a heartbeat to get your vote.
Nobody wants to pay for a wall on the Mexican border, banning travel is a 250 year step backwards, nobody wants to deport the illegals, Where would all the cheap labor come from? Who would clean his hotel rooms?
IMO. do not waste your time on PMs.................................Cj
Paranoid Politics.
That entire post is a line of crap. We need Trump, not that lieing criminal of a bitch running against him.

Some people have been banned for life for posts that were not close to this one.......Cj

mask · Post by **mask** » Sat Jul 09, 2016 10:32 am

If we want to ban someone for life why don't we start with illegals that commit crimes or the half that are on welfare and food stamps? A person running for office and lying to get a vote is not a new concept so if that is what trump is doing he doesn't have a monopoly on it. This thread has become amusing and I for one like it a lot.

Post by **mnaj_springer** » Sat Jul 09, 2016 1:36 pm

mask wrote:If we want to ban someone for life why don't we start with illegals that commit crimes or the half that are on welfare and food stamps? A person running for office and lying to get a vote is not a new concept so if that is what trump is doing he doesn't have a monopoly on it. This thread has become amusing and I for one like it a lot.

I think he was referring to a forum member being banned.

Max2 · Post by **Max2** » Sun Jul 10, 2016 4:24 am

Spy Car wrote:We really need this BS on a dog forum?

Bill

I agree some what and it has been the reason I quit going to another site in the past. We do have the ~ don't click on it option. That said I don't like when politics places us against one another. This yr is one yr I feel compelled to add to this thread. I guess in part because the last 8 yrs has been quite enough. Sad to say at the end of the day crooked Hillary will be in and we will probably have her for another 8 yrs. I'm getting older at 57 and who knows in another 8 1/2 yrs I could be in the marble orchard

Hope I'm still chas'n the ruffled grouses.
I will be riding the Trump train this year for sure as I have had enough of the past administration. Now this is just my opinion. I don't hold any dislike for those who will be vote'n for the Clintons as that will be your choice.

cjhills · Post by **cjhills** » Sun Jul 10, 2016 7:00 am

Max2 wrote:
Spy Car wrote:We really need this BS on a dog forum?

Bill
I agree some what and it has been the reason I quit going to another site in the past. We do have the ~ don't click on it option. That said I don't like when politics places us against one another. This yr is one yr I feel compelled to add to this thread. I guess in part because the last 8 yrs has been quite enough. Sad to say at the end of the day crooked Hillary will be in and we will probably have her for another 8 yrs. I'm getting older at 57 and who knows in another 8 1/2 yrs I could be in the marble orchard Hope I'm still chas'n the ruffled grouses.
I will be riding the Trump train this year for sure as I have had enough of the past administration. Now this is just my opinion. I don't hold any dislike for those who will be vote'n for the Clintons as that will be your choice.

I pretty much agree with this post except I am totally opposite. We have the right to disagree. If you are truly Republican you could never vote for Trump. He changes more than most of you change your underwear. Now he is saying if he wins he will not take the job, he is looking at a Democrat for a running mate, Hussein did a really good job of killing terrorists. He also did a really good job of killing anybody else.
If you deport the illegals you pretty much shut down the dairy industry, the roofing industry, the motel industry and others that I am not familiar with.
Most illegals are not criminals. They are productive people who have to keep a low profile. Most all of us have used their services. I would bet mister Trump has a good number that he is paying right. If you think a very expensive wall will stop the illegals you are fooling yourself
I think America is great now. I do not understand the talk about bad economy. Every place I go there are "we are Hiring signs, (Before you say " minimum wage jobs" Walmart starts at $14 an hour) real estate is selling very well, We are adding new jobs, New car sales are booming and we just built a billion dollar football stadium.
We live in a country where the average person can pay $1000 for a puppy and pay thousands to have somebody train and trial the dog. finished dogs are advertised at $5000 to 10,000 dollars it does not look to bad.
Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it......................Cjhills

greg jacobs · Post by **greg jacobs** » Sun Jul 10, 2016 9:49 am

"If you are truly Republican you could never vote for Trump." So who does a Republican vote for, Hillary?
I think most of us choose 3 or 4 things that are really important to us and lean one way or the other. I'd like to see a third party down the middle that would take voters from both parties. Maybe that would take the we're in control they are in control out of it. Maybe that would force Washington to find some common ground or at least sit down and talk things through. I'm pro life, anti gun control, and anti new world order. So I can't vote for Hillary. So do you notice everyone is saying that they couldn't vote for Hilary or couldn't vote for Trump . As far as the economy many of the better paying manufacturing jobs are gone. 9 to 15 dollar service jobs don't put you in the middle class. To create a situation where companies feel they could benefit taking manufacturing out of the country only kills the middle class. Tax rates, free trade agreements are a couple of the problems.

Post by **Sharon** » Sun Jul 10, 2016 12:11 pm

Not an expert on American politics, but isnt there a possibility another candidate could be presented at the Republican convention

( punctuation not working on my computer today)

Post by **mnaj_springer** » Sun Jul 10, 2016 1:03 pm

greg jacobs wrote:"If you are truly Republican you could never vote for Trump." So who does a Republican vote for, Hillary?
I think most of us choose 3 or 4 things that are really important to us and lean one way or the other. I'd like to see a third party down the middle that would take voters from both parties. Maybe that would take the we're in control they are in control out of it. Maybe that would force Washington to find some common ground or at least sit down and talk things through. I'm pro life, anti gun control, and anti new world order. So I can't vote for Hillary. So do you notice everyone is saying that they couldn't vote for Hilary or couldn't vote for Trump . As far as the economy many of the better paying manufacturing jobs are gone. 9 to 15 dollar service jobs don't put you in the middle class. To create a situation where companies feel they could benefit taking manufacturing out of the country only kills the middle class. Tax rates, free trade agreements are a couple of the problems.

Greg, those manufacturing jobs you're referring to are missing because that's how capitalism works. Those company's can pay less to produce elsewhere and then sell it to us. I doubt there are enough tax breaks that can be provided to change that.

As far as the economy goes, I'm with cjhills. It seems like there definitely has been improvement since 2008. Unemployment has lowered, housing market has picked up, businesses are expanding, and people are hiring. And in that time gun regulations have loosened.

greg jacobs · Post by **greg jacobs** » Sun Jul 10, 2016 1:34 pm

It's happened. But not in the last 60 years. He has 1542 delegates and only needs 1237. His opponents are trying to change the rules to block his nomination. Countries around the world in the last couple of years have voted out the insiders. The Washington insiders aren't making people happy. And voters are retaliating. The insiders are afraid of Trump and people know that. That is what has made all this possible.

nikegundog · Post by **nikegundog** » Sun Jul 10, 2016 2:26 pm

Sharon wrote:Not an expert on American politics, but isnt there a possibility another candidate could be presented at the Republican convention

( punctuation not working on my computer today)

Rule changes are made at the convention, so yes its possible. In 2012, rules were changed to remove Ron Paul from the ballet.

shags · Post by **shags** » Sun Jul 10, 2016 2:52 pm

mnaj_springer wrote:
Greg, those manufacturing jobs you're referring to are missing because that's how capitalism works. Those company's can pay less to produce elsewhere and then sell it to us. I doubt there are enough tax breaks that can be provided to change that.
As far as the economy goes, I'm with cjhills. It seems like there definitely has been improvement since 2008. Unemployment has lowered, housing market has picked up, businesses are expanding, and people are hiring. And in that time gun regulations have loosened.

Maybe for you all in the Great Frozen North. My hometown used to be thriving small city with great employment opportunities. Now it's a ghost town because most of the manufacturing is gone, including Ford, GM, US Steel ( still there but at about 30%). In the area where I live now, jobs are part time and you'd do well to grab one of the few that offer 9.50 /hr. Every few weeks another home in the area goes into foreclosure...and these aren't McMansions bought on a wing and a prayer, they're small modest homes. I know people who have had to take another job just to pay for healthcare with premiums of $1800 a month and $6-10K deductibles. It's a huge deal when someone gets to buy a new vehicle, usually because the beater finally died. The only "businesses" that are expanding are the church soup kitchens and clothing give-aways.

Obama's sun ain't shining everywhere. We don't need 4 more years of this.

Post by **mnaj_springer** » Sun Jul 10, 2016 3:33 pm

shags wrote:
mnaj_springer wrote:
Greg, those manufacturing jobs you're referring to are missing because that's how capitalism works. Those company's can pay less to produce elsewhere and then sell it to us. I doubt there are enough tax breaks that can be provided to change that.
As far as the economy goes, I'm with cjhills. It seems like there definitely has been improvement since 2008. Unemployment has lowered, housing market has picked up, businesses are expanding, and people are hiring. And in that time gun regulations have loosened.
Maybe for you all in the Great Frozen North. My hometown used to be thriving small city with great employment opportunities. Now it's a ghost town because most of the manufacturing is gone, including Ford, GM, US Steel ( still there but at about 30%). In the area where I live now, jobs are part time and you'd do well to grab one of the few that offer 9.50 /hr. Every few weeks another home in the area goes into foreclosure...and these aren't McMansions bought on a wing and a prayer, they're small modest homes. I know people who have had to take another job just to pay for healthcare with premiums of $1800 a month and $6-10K deductibles. It's a huge deal when someone gets to buy a new vehicle, usually because the beater finally died. The only "businesses" that are expanding are the church soup kitchens and clothing give-aways.

Obama's sun ain't shining everywhere. We don't need 4 more years of this.

And where might that be shags?

Post by **ezzy333** » Sun Jul 10, 2016 5:05 pm

mnaj_springer wrote:
shags wrote:
mnaj_springer wrote:
Greg, those manufacturing jobs you're referring to are missing because that's how capitalism works. Those company's can pay less to produce elsewhere and then sell it to us. I doubt there are enough tax breaks that can be provided to change that.
As far as the economy goes, I'm with cjhills. It seems like there definitely has been improvement since 2008. Unemployment has lowered, housing market has picked up, businesses are expanding, and people are hiring. And in that time gun regulations have loosened.
Maybe for you all in the Great Frozen North. My hometown used to be thriving small city with great employment opportunities. Now it's a ghost town because most of the manufacturing is gone, including Ford, GM, US Steel ( still there but at about 30%). In the area where I live now, jobs are part time and you'd do well to grab one of the few that offer 9.50 /hr. Every few weeks another home in the area goes into foreclosure...and these aren't McMansions bought on a wing and a prayer, they're small modest homes. I know people who have had to take another job just to pay for healthcare with premiums of $1800 a month and $6-10K deductibles. It's a huge deal when someone gets to buy a new vehicle, usually because the beater finally died. The only "businesses" that are expanding are the church soup kitchens and clothing give-aways.

No sure where Shags is but from the description it could be most any place in Illinois

Obama's sun ain't shining everywhere. We don't need 4 more years of this.
And where might that be shags?

greg jacobs · Post by **greg jacobs** » Sun Jul 10, 2016 6:38 pm

Tax reduction and tariffs will. We need to export more than we import. Agricultural and raw logs don't make up for manufacturing washington state wants free trade to export ag products and jets but it is not good for the country. 2 of my kids and their wives work in health care and management urges them to vote democrat because they figure the Democrats will fund low income health care better but it's not good for the country. Seems like people want what is best for themselves not what is best for the country. So do you work in health care springer.

Post by **mnaj_springer** » Sun Jul 10, 2016 10:00 pm

Why do you ask Greg? Will you disclose the same? Haha

Greg, I also vote for the people who I think will be best for the country.

But you may of hit on something. It seems you're suggesting that the health care industry prefer democrats because they provide more opportunities for low income folks to get health care, which is good, but it also provides income for the facility... So to recap, people get medical treatment they need and the people who provide care get paid.

Max2 · Post by **Max2** » Mon Jul 11, 2016 4:29 am

mnaj_springer wrote:Why do you ask Greg? Will you disclose the same? Haha

So to recap, people get medical treatment they need and the people who provide care get paid.

What happens to the people who work hard ? They have the highest premiums. So I guess this tell's folks. " Don't work hard and we will take care of you " it's ok... :roll:

shags · Post by **shags** » Mon Jul 11, 2016 5:07 am

mnaj_springer wrote:But you may of hit on something. It seems you're suggesting that the health care industry prefer democrats because they provide more opportunities for low income folks to get health care, which is good, but it also provides income for the facility... So to recap, people get medical treatment they need and the people who provide care get paid.

I worked in pathology at one of the last true community hospitals in the region. Every year millions of dollars are written off in no pays or gratis work. My lab and the docs donate many thousands of dollars in testing every year because governemnt programs refuse to cover the necessary diagnostics that can pinpoint treatment. For example, it's easy enough to dx "breast cancer" or "colon cancer" and spend money in a more or less shotgun therapy that may or may not be effective. With adequate testing, we can pinpoint the dx and the oncologists can recommend a regimen of therapy specifically for that particular case, which saves money and lives. As it is now, hospital employees go years without salary increases, the hospital has to hold back on investing in new equipment or replacing outdated. Overall the whole mess leads to giant corporates like Cleveland Clinic buying up and closing down community/neighborhood hospitals. When local hospitals close, where do the impoverished in the neighborhood go for health care? Their choices become extremely limited.

In terms of cost, the smaller hospitals had been serving their communities at lower cost than the corporate entities offered, sometimes almost half the cost. At the same time, the corporates compensate their employees less overall.

And don't kid yourself, even though the giants like CLeveland Clinic boast about "world class care" that only happens if you're a Saudi prince. You get decent care if you have adequate insurance. But woe to those who don't.

If you think the government will provide you fabulous health care, you'd better start taking your vitamins now. Don't get sick.

Post by **mnaj_springer** » Mon Jul 11, 2016 1:05 pm

Max2 wrote:
mnaj_springer wrote:Why do you ask Greg? Will you disclose the same? Haha

So to recap, people get medical treatment they need and the people who provide care get paid.
What happens to the people who work hard ? They have the highest premiums. So I guess this tell's folks. " Don't work hard and we will take care of you " it's ok... :roll:

How do you figure?

And to assume that people who use low income health care or a government sponsored health insurance don't work hard is ridiculous. I know a guy worked very hard (always coming in more than needed, picking up extra responsibilities, creating new systems to make the company more efficient), and so did his wife, but they both worked for a non-profit. They had two young children and one got cancer. Without being on a government sponsored program, their child would've died. But because they qualified, their child is alive and in remission. It can work. And its not just "lazy bums" using this program.

Post by **ezzy333** » Mon Jul 11, 2016 1:56 pm

mnaj_springer wrote:
Max2 wrote:
mnaj_springer wrote:Why do you ask Greg? Will you disclose the same? Haha

So to recap, people get medical treatment they need and the people who provide care get paid.
What happens to the people who work hard ? They have the highest premiums. So I guess this tell's folks. " Don't work hard and we will take care of you " it's ok... :roll:
How do you figure?

And to assume that people who use low income health care or a government sponsored health insurance don't work hard is ridiculous. I know a guy worked very hard (always coming in more than needed, picking up extra responsibilities, creating new systems to make the company more efficient), and so did his wife, but they both worked for a non-profit. They had two young children and one got cancer. Without being on a government sponsored program, their child would've died. But because they qualified, their child is alive and in remission. It can work. And its not just "lazy bums" using this program.

You are right it isn't just lazy bums, but there certainly is an abundance that are. And the good thing is our healthcare system has always taken care of people who needed it, regardless if they could pay or not. Way too many people play the system and we all pay for them. We are now at the point where the freeloaders are starting to outnumber the providers And through out history that spells the end of a democracy. Not sure about any of you but I would kind of like it to continue for a while.

Ezzy

Post by **Sharon** » Mon Jul 11, 2016 3:18 pm

oldbeek wrote:Vote democrat and loose your guns and right to hunt! End of subject. That is what you are up against. If you like hunting, you better back a republican. A left leaning supreme court will destroy the second amendment. Send the price of your last expensive shotgun to the NRA or Donald Trump. NRA patron and sustaining life member.

Sometimes there are things more important than your guns.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Niemoller

Post by **mnaj_springer** » Mon Jul 11, 2016 3:30 pm

Ezzy, you're being ridiculous again! More freeloaders than not?! Come on man! Do some research!

The highest estimate is that 35% (give or take) use some kind of assistance, but that includes things like Medicaid, which serves a large portion of folks in nursing homes and a lot of kids who parents can't cover them. Also, only like 5% of the US population receive more than half of their income from SSI, food stamps, or cash benefits. Most of the people receiving assistance in the country work, and generally work hard (or have worked hard).

So what are we to do? Tell people in nursing homes they can get a job? Or are we going to cut them off and kick them out? How about kids (children)? Should we skip their medical treatment? Or should they only go into the ER? Maybe they shouldn't get life saving things like Epi-pens?

If we said "screw you" to those people and stopped helping then we may become richer financially but we'd be dirt poor morally. I'd rather keep my scruples than my money, but I'm lucky that I don't have to choose.

ckirsch · Post by **ckirsch** » Mon Jul 11, 2016 4:20 pm

I believe the number for those not paying income taxes is significantly higher than 35%. If they're not paying income tax, and benefit from the services those taxes subsidize, they're effectively on the dole. Ezzy is correct in that history has proven that when the number of people pulling the wagon shrinks lower than the number of people riding in it, the end is in sight.

There's an obvious need for many of the govt programs, but to deny the widespread abuse of them is laughable.

Post by **mnaj_springer** » Mon Jul 11, 2016 4:42 pm

ckirsch wrote:I believe the number for those not paying income taxes is significantly higher than 35%. If they're not paying income tax, and benefit from the services those taxes subsidize, they're effectively on the dole. Ezzy is correct in that history has proven that when the number of people pulling the wagon shrinks lower than the number of people riding in it, the end is in sight.

There's an obvious need for many of the govt programs, but to deny the widespread abuse of them is laughable.

No one is denying some abuse, but it's not nearly as widespread as some would like to think. Just look at the statistics from programs that forced drug testing to be on welfare. Everyone complained that they didn't want to feed people who were using, and we found out we weren't.

But are you complaining that some people don't pay income taxes and get benefits? What good is that? Don't you have enough? Or do you need more than enough and others have even less? I'm just trying to understand the logic here.

ckirsch · Post by **ckirsch** » Mon Jul 11, 2016 6:31 pm

This afternoon, I stood in a supermarket line behind a young woman with two kids. She appeared very healthy, and sported an impressive array of tattoos and piercings. When her Mountain Dew, Cheetos, and other junk food was rung up, she pulled out the food stamps. This woman evidently was able to cover her ink and bling expenses, but found it convenient to have others pay for her food. My perspective is that her priorities were a little off. If she can afford tattoos, why should the taxpayer be asked to pay for her food?

I worked hard for thirty-some years before selling out and retiring. I started out with a five-thousand dollar loan, and worked my tail off for three decades to build a business. Over the course of those years I employed several hundred people, provided the full-timers with health care and retirement plans, and paid a bundle in a wide variety of taxes. Your question as to my needing more than enough and wanting others to have less is disingenuous. I don't want anyone to suffer, or go without necessities. I do however, wish to see work ethic and responsibility rewarded, rather than penalized. Seems to me that it's a bit more greedy to want to take from someone else that which they have worked for, rather than wanting simply to keep that which you've labored for yourself.

My kids followed my advice and worked hard thoughout high school to save for college. When they fill out their FAFSA forms for help with tuition, they are effectively penalized for every dollar they have in savings, along with anything I've managed to save. They'd have a better chance at getting financial aid if they either hadn't worked, or had blown their earnings on tattoos and nose piercings. They'd get discounted tuition if I had spent all my years collecting unemployment and drinking myself into oblivion, as opposed to working sixty hour weeks and risking everything I had to make my businesses work. Even from your far-left perspective, it should seem at least in some ways backwards to penalize those with industry, and reward those without. Before you again accuse me of being indifferent to the needs of others, rest assured that I'm pretty quick to help out those I've encountered who found themselves in tough circumstances through no fault of their own.

My point is that we all need to at least attempt to be responsible for ourselves.

Finally, nobody on welfare uses drugs or alcohol? Really?

Post by **mnaj_springer** » Mon Jul 11, 2016 7:25 pm

As I read your post I thought, "well at least you thought this answer out," then I read your last sentence and slapped my head. I never said no one, but you would've known that had you read what I said unless you are the most literal person in the world.

But anyway, here are some food stamps for thought (see what I did there?): How do you know that woman didn't work her rear end off to afford her tattoos and cheap bling then fall on hard times and those items are only the remnants of that? Also, as you reference her food I get a sense you condemn it, but there's all kinds of evidence to show that low income families eat more "junk food" because it's much cheaper than fresh fruit, veggies, and meat.

Finally, your kids were not penalized. And if you think they were because they weren't given free money, then you should re-think that. The program is meant to help people receive a degree with less debt so their kids can be in the position yours were in. It's not meant to reward laziness but rather to provide opportunities to those who haven't been privileged.

I don't have a far left perspective... I have a far-Christian perspective. I choose to help those in need rather than condemn them and throw the first stone.

Post by **ezzy333** » Mon Jul 11, 2016 7:57 pm

mnaj_springer wrote:As I read your post I thought, "well at least you thought this answer out," then I read your last sentence and slapped my head. I never said no one, but you would've known that had you read what I said unless you are the most literal person in the world.

But anyway, here are some food stamps for thought (see what I did there?): How do you know that woman didn't work her rear end off to afford her tattoos and cheap bling then fall on hard times and those items are only the remnants of that? Also, as you reference her food I get a sense you condemn it, but there's all kinds of evidence to show that low income families eat more "junk food" because it's much cheaper than fresh fruit, veggies, and meat.

Finally, your kids were not penalized. And if you think they were because they weren't given free money, then you should re-think that. The program is meant to help people receive a degree with less debt so their kids can be in the position yours were in. It's not meant to reward laziness but rather to provide opportunities to those who haven't been privileged.

I don't have a far left perspective... I have a far-Christian perspective. I choose to help those in need rather than condemn them and throw the first stone.

There is very little Christian in keeping people poor and on assistance programs. The Christian way is to assist a person to learn to take care of themselves. It has been proven over and over that subsidizing laziness takes away most of the motivation to provide for themselves. As of now, the friend that registers the patients at the ER in Phoenix says that less than 20% have a job or can speak English. Here in IL it is somewhat higher but more than half of the Er patients are working and some where near 90% have tattoos and piercings. In Maine last year when they started the drug testing of welfare recipients some where ner 75% of then dropped off of the roles. There are so many examples that prove our system is not working and just maybe 18000000000000 dollars in debt would give everyone a clue and if not then most of our budget goes for benefits to people, or maybe just maybe that over half of our work force is not working but still drawing benefits wit it getting worse each day.

I WAS RAISED TO BELIEVE THAT WE TAKE CARE OF OURSELVES AND WE DONATE TO CHARITIES THAT HELP PEOPLE WHO NEED IT. There is no entitlement that says you are owed help'

Post by **mnaj_springer** » Mon Jul 11, 2016 10:26 pm

Ezzy, how has it been proven over and over? What's your source? Ah never mind, you're not big on facts, just your personal truths. Like I said, many of the people on assistance are on Medicaid. Most of them are either really old or children. Making sure kids get medical care so they can remain productive members of society is not keeping them poor. In fact I think most long-term assistance goes to folks with disabilities. But you can keep looking down at people and donating to charities that barely make a dent. I know the impact they have, and however noble it is, it has a minimal and local impact.

And your jab at tattoos is ridiculous. The majority of people under 30 have at least one tattoo. It's extremely common.

Max2 · Post by **Max2** » Tue Jul 12, 2016 4:19 am

It's hard to get a point across to some in a short thread if they hold a totally different opinion.{Please don't take offense as none is intended & you are not making me a believer~ again no offense) & it should be broken down more I guess. That said yes there are folks legit who could use assistance . But ( IMO) there are by Far to many on the doles that should not be there. Here in upstate NY a favorite is to have a child but don't get married because then you will not get your governmental "entitlement" It's Bologna ! & so the cycle begins. IMO there is just to many taking advantage of the system.