They definitely supported liberty and negative rights over an Obama-created "right."
|
|
|
|
|
They definitely supported liberty and negative rights over an Obama-created "right."
The dems have declared war on the innocent children of liberal women. Prove they haven't.Originally Posted by Woof!
All the women on the Supreme Court ruled against Hobby Lobby; all the Republican appointed male justices voted in favor of Hobby Lobby. The GOP keeps saying that the party does not have a war on women. Prove it!
Since you brought up the discussion, prove that they have.
I saw an interview with Ron Paul on Glenn Beck's show yesterday where he started talking about the "positive rights" agenda of the left.
I took this off Glenn's site:
“The claim is that women have a right to free birth control,” Paul explained. “And yet they never talk about the rights of the person that has to provide these demands. But demands and desires and needs can’t become rights, and that’s why we have a society today that, anyone who needs or wants something [says], ‘We have a right to this.’ But they never say, ‘Whose rights must we violate in order to get what we want?’”
“The left never talks about that,” Paul continued. “They only talk about some individual who wants something, and they have a ‘right’ to it, and don’t even bring up the subject of whose rights are going to be violated by providing these services.
I think Democrats think with their hearts: "We shouldn't deny anyone a service that helps them improve themselves in some way."
And Conservatives think with their heads: "That's sweet, but who's going to pay for it?"
By aborting them, by enticing them to live in single parent households and raising generations of families on government assistanceSince you brought up the discussion, prove that they have.
The Dems have had a war on women and helpless children for decades just as they have held the poor minorities and whites back. That's how they gain and then keep their votes and power. CHC is dead on with his above as well. Anyone that doesn't see this is getting played and chumped.
Woof, research Margaret Sanger (Hillary "admires her vision").
In my experience, many of the well-intentioned government programs and benefits designed to help people get out of poverty, get an education, have health care, nursing home care, etc., actually encourage some people to give up things or make irresponsible decisions to get on that program. Many people have the attitude that since everyone else is doing it, it is OK. Is it the fault of the program, or the fault of the individual?
Many of you will immediately think of mothers having babies to get welfare, food stamps, free lunches, commodities, housing, health care, etc. Is this the fault of the program, or the fault of the people?
It’s not just the poor who take advantage of government programs. Following is an example about Medicaid eligibility and nursing home care. I will tell you about a program that people who are more well off, or even wealthy, use to their benefit at taxpayer expense.
There are attorneys and consultants who help “wealthier” people take legal steps that will show they qualify for Medicaid should the need arise. Medicaid helps pay for nursing home care for people who need the care and do not have the means to pay for it. Some people, who would be very able to pay for their own care, take steps to divest their assets so as to be eligible for Medicaid if needed in the future. Even though they divest their assets, it can be structured so that they can use the asset as long as needed. This must be done in advance and structured very carefully. This action is intended to save money in their estate for the heirs.
Medicaid costs to the taxpayer for such a (formerly) wealthy individual can be over $2000 a month. My guess is that hundreds of people each month choose to consult with an attorney or consultant to lay the foundation for future Medicaid eligibility. Is this the fault of the program, or the fault of the individual?
I can give other examples of well-intentioned government programs that people use to their advantage. I’ve even done it. My wife went back to TECH in order to made a career change. She got a student loan, but we used the money on a new car. We paid for college with our money. I chose to use the low interest student loan rather than withdrawing money from my investments that were earning a higher interest rate. We repaid the student loan in very low monthly installments after she graduated from TECH. Is that the fault of the program, or the fault of the individual?
I’m really curious how others feel about the first two examples shown above. I don't want you commenting about my actions. I would post a poll, but I’m about to leave to go to lunch. Are both equally wrong, are both OK, or is it worse to have a baby out of wedlock to get thousands of dollars a year in benefits, or is it worse to legally “hide” up to millions of dollars in assets in order to appear poor to be eligible for Medicaid. Conservatives, moderates, liberals - what do you say?
Regarding Medicaid: Buy Long Term Care insurance and have peace of mind!! (but I haven't... LOL)
LTC insurance gives the person more options to get care at home than does Medicaid. However, most people are like you and don't prepare for the possibility of getting old or disabled and needing nursing home care. Some buy LTC insurance, but others consult with attorneys/consultants to legally divest their assets. The attorney/consultant fees may cost less than LTC insurance in the long run.
Which do you think is worse - the "welfare" mom or the "welfare" millionaire?
I think it's human nature to take advantage of whatever we can. We think, and we try to survive. Present us with an obstacle and we will try to solve it. We will choose the free stuff or bargain almost all the time. So I don't think either is worse, it's just humans being humans. And I do agree with you that the system doesn't free people from poverty, it just makes them more comfortable in it. Only the individual can decide if that is enough or if they want better.
Equally bad, as both are intentionally gaming the system and shifting the costs to their neighbors. But I also agree that the structure of the program itself is to blame as well. It is human nature to act in your own self interest. A government benefit program that doesn't take this truism into account is destined to fail.
At least the "welfare" millionaire has paid for himself or loved hundreds of times over via taxes throughout the years. It's their moneyalready earned and given. The "welfare" mom needs it now and hasn't put her fair share or in most cases any share into the system yet. And the % is high on those moms that plan on having kids just to get the "free" mailbox money. My wife tells the story of one of her kids in school wanting a job just like her mother and grandma. When asked what they did she replied, " they have to walk to the mailbox and get a check".
Except, of course, if you are Mitt Romney. :icon_wink:
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
