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

"ed" <news@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
4161f819-1cd3-4afa-94e5-1de8f5de6a93@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 6/2/08
3:00 PM:

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

The logical fallacy you are using is called an "Ad Hominem". You are tying
to imply that I hold my views based on a personal life situation bias... and
then ignoring the fact that the *exact* same argument can be applied to you.

The question comes down to if you believe the government has an obligation
to provide for the common welfare of its citizens and, if you do, how they
should fulfill that obligation.

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.

Are you against businesses offering this benefit to those with dependants or
just against a government mandate that pushes such?

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.

Show me where you have to work more. Do you have any personal examples?
Any stats to show that others are being forced to work more?

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?

Correct, but for the sake of argument let's assume childless people tend to
take more risks.

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.

Most people who have the option of group insurance have no better option...
they are, essentially, stuck with that or an even more expensive option.

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.

Not surprising.

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.

So you are against *all* social programs... even wealth fare? Well, maybe
not wealth fare... but any help for the non-wealthy is clear. In other
words you have an extreme bias that dictates your view on the matter at
hand.

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.

Sounds like a lot of red tape.


--
Look, this is silly. It's not an argument, it's an armor plated walrus with
walnut paneling and an all leather interior.



.

Relevant Pages
Loading