Re: OT:Is Obama as entrenched with the radical left as it appears?

On Jun 2, 2:17 pm, Snit <use...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"ed" <n...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
fd309f61-e13c-46d5-8bca-1b667c0b6...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 6/2/08
2:09 PM:
When people have more time off they will take it.  Yes.  Many will use it as
it should be used... likely most.  Some will abuse it, as they do with
current systems.  OK.

soo, you agree yours was a specious argument?

There are some paternal benefits now.  This would add others.  You seem to
be against all of them... I am not.  

of course not- you want to take advantage of them! :P

I do not know the details of the
specific laws / proposals and cannot say if I think the current proposals go
too far.

I do think it makes sense to encourage parents to spend time with their
families especially around the time of a birth.  To not take such common
life changing situations into account is a detriment not just to the
families involved but to society as a whole.

if people want to take time off, fo for it. having me pay for it is a
crock.

in what way do you view 401ks as detrimental to those who don't have
them?  this may shed light on your weird views of what's a detriment
to others...

They do not "get" the benefit others get.  

of course not, but you listed it as a dtriment.

Much like non-parents do not
"get" the benefit parents get.  

it's not just about not getting the benefits. nonparents actually get
doubly screwed, because they have to pick up the slack, while paying
for the parents to take time off.

Heck, childless people, I believe,
statistically are more likely to do risky things and hurt themselves... why
should I, a person with a child, have to support them when they get injured?

you believe, as in you don't know, right? what i DO know is one of
the costliest conditions for insurance is pregnancy, so any arguments
you make about relative risks for those w/ kids and those without are
meritless. but again, you are talking about GROUP insurance, which
you can always opt out of. fmla, you can NOT opt out of.

i think getting extra paid leave to pop out kids doesn't make a
stronger family.  i think those unable to spend time with, or support
their families without additional gov't assistance should not be
having families.

There is a difference between ongoing assistance and time to get your family
started right (or dealing with a *huge* change).

not really-  if you can't swing taking a little time off to hang with
your kid when they're born, you're not going to be able to swing all
the necessities kids require and all the little emergencies that pop
up, and you are going to end up needing ongoing assistance (generally
of course).

Newborns take more than "a little time off"...

but a little time off is all we're talking about here (with fmla).

and the bonding time with an
infant is a very important thing.

goody.

Should there be government assistance for those who have health problems or
should we let the poor people with health problems just die?

eh?  how did you get to *that*?

Talking about government assistance in general.  Can you answer the
question?

no. it's too general a question. pragmatically, i'd say it depends.
philosphically, i'd say you let 'em die. sounds cold, right? but the
"right to life, liberty..." doesn't gurantee you life- it doesn't say
your neighbors should have to feed and clothe you, or pay for your
doctor bills- it says the gov't won't deprive you of it, and you have
the right to go get it, if you can *afford* it. it may be a struggle,
and you may not get what you want. but it's not the gov't job to take
money from one person to pay for another's medical bills.

i.e. philosophically- if i *want* to help someone (and i DO have
*weekly* payroll deductions to charities of *my* choice), good for
me. if a nonprofit hospital wants to help? sweet. if my neighbor
carlos doesn't want to help me pay for surgery because i broke my
neck racing motorcycles at the track, even though i'm going to die
without it, and he doesn't want to gov't forcing him to, i understand.

pragmatically- someone hit by a bus and needing emergency surgery and
insurance can't be verified? sure, save 'em. someone who doesn't
have insurance but has a big screen tv and 22" rims who who ruined
their liver by drinking 2 litres of vodka a day? let 'em die.
.

Relevant Pages