Who Are You Voting For In '04?

[AYoKoNA]

Try looking at it from a different viewpoint. Lets say you're not completley secure economically and there could be some financial risks ivolved by having a kid. Do you want to have a kid now and take a chance with your money, or have a kid when your 45? See what I mean?

 

You call $800 a month secure? It's a stretch for one person to live on $800 a month, not to mention three. Not everyone is so profit-driven. I don't have a massive desire to earn millions upon millions. What if you're calling in life isn't to be a ceo for some giant corporation, but to have a lower-income job, for example, a musician. Being a musician myself I know that most people who choose that profession love their work, even if it doesn't bring in loads of cash. I know teachers like that too. Sure, being financially secure would be nice, but it's not necessary to a happy life.

 

If we eliminate the government social programs, the poor (even those who do work) will only get poorer because they don't have access to financial support, and the rich will only get richer because they don't have to pay as many taxes. I'd also like a definition of these "individual responsibilities".

Here is my FIRST point of INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITIES

you said it yourself, having a KID is not a GAMBLE, IT IS A SERIOUS Commitment. It is no investment.... what do you mean take a chance with your money?

You have a child when you have enough money for it not to be a burden...

You say your poor. Your parents WOULD NOT BE POOR if they HAD NO CHILDREN...

2nd point....

If your not financially stable by the time your 45, I WOULDNT RECOMMEND HAVING CHILDREN at all?

Quick question i asked EARLIER your parents RENT? I assume they don't own their home?

Another financial responsibility lost... renting for your whole life and persisting to have children (if that is the case)

 

UNEMPLOYEMENT was NEVER mean't to be SECURE, however I know of PPL who get $800 EVERY TWO WEEKS, from unemployement just depends what state your coming from. IT GETS bad.... its state run not federal...

 

Let me explain to you something Iggy, IF YOU don't have a desire to earn lots of money, TO HAVE SECURITY, THEN YOU SHOULD NOT MAKE IT A BURDEN UPON YOUR CHILD and have one... Don't have kids IF YOU can't AFFORD it... its simple.. there shouldn't be ANY risk involved..

 

Okay you like music FINE, however IF YOUR not gonna MAKE money DOING it, YOU need To do OTHER THINGS so you make money, buy stocks, invest, own your own home, build a family, etc. Dont you want to give your kids all these things? so they don't have to worry like you did?

 

I like playing VIDEO GAMES, AM I GONNA do it 8hrs a day, 40hrs a week, 365 days a year..... No... I need to work, make a living, buy a house, THIS IS WHAT THE AMERICAN DREAM IS ABOUT!

 

THAT IS AN INVALID STATEMENT YOU SAY ABOUT THE POOR IGGY.

WHEN THEY say the POOR ARE GETTING POORER , AND THE RICH ARE GETTING RICHER. its construid. Why don't you read about it?

A poor MANS SALARY is $9,183 A YEAR?

according to u.s. census bearua

http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/threshld/thresh02.html

 

Do you know what that means IGGY?

That means THEY ARE NOT WORKING, for MINIMUM WAGE IS

5.75 x 40hrs a week x 52 weeks a year = $11,960 PER YEAR?

AND EACH YEAR A POOR PERSON MAKES MORE AND MORE...

Therefor THE GAP IS GROWING BECAUSE MORE PPL ARE NOT WORKING , DEPENDING ON gov't for health, education, welfare, unemployement, SDI, u name it.....

[Iggy]

Ok, first of all, my parents do own their house, or at least are paying it off, and not renting it. Sure, I'd like to let my kids have a financially comfortable existence, but that doesn't mean I need to earn $100,000+ a year to accomplish it. Nothing to excess...

 

What I mean about the economic risks of having a child if you are possibly economically unstable-an example: If you have a kid and then you lose your job, you made the choice to take an economic risk, and you payed the price for taking that risk. However, if you have a kid then get a big fat raise or promotion, you made the right decision if you wanted to have a child.

 

I like playing VIDEO GAMES, AM I GONNA do it 8hrs a day, 40hrs a week, 365 days a year..... No... I need to work, make a living, buy a house, THIS IS WHAT THE AMERICAN DREAM IS ABOUT!

 

C'mon, I'm not THAT stupid. The American dream is in the eye of the beholder.

 

No, the poor people are still going to get poorer and the rich richer buy cutting social programs. Here's a little bit o' math:

 

x=income gained by social programs

y=additional taxed money payed to fund social programs

 

w/ social programs:

 

Poor person - salary+x

Rich person - salary-y

 

w/o social programs:

 

Poor person - salary

Rich person - salary

 

It's simple logic.

[AYoKoNA]

okay u DONT GET IT!!!

A POOR PERSON IN THE UNITED STATES.... DOES NOT WORK FULL TIME....

That is my point.

As stated above YOU KNOW THE SALARY THEY EARN.... THAT IS NOT EVEN MINIMUM WAGE.....

So yes MORE ppl are getting LAZIER and RELYING on the Gov't..... that is why the GAP IS increasing... nothing less nothing more....

[Iggy]

What about the people who actually NEED welfare, unemployment, etc.? Would you rather have people getting financial support from the gov't or people in the streets?

[Sly_C]

If you dont make enough to support a child then tou shouldnt have one. Simple economics Cash in exceeds expenses then reduce expenses dont breed.

haha, i agree especially a liberal one.

 

Being a musician myself I know that most people who choose that profession love their work, even if it doesn't bring in loads of cash. I know teachers like that too. Sure, being financially secure would be nice, but it's not necessary to a happy life.

If you have a kid and then you lose your job, you made the choice to take an economic risk, and you payed the price for taking that risk

 

then don't gripe about being poor and expect me to give you my money. it was your choice to work in the profession and make less money. its your fault you don't make as much money. why should i pay for the consequences of ur decisions?

 

Let me explain to you something Iggy, IF YOU don't have a desire to earn lots of money, TO HAVE SECURITY, THEN YOU SHOULD NOT MAKE IT A BURDEN UPON YOUR CHILD and have one... Don't have kids IF YOU can't AFFORD it... its simple.. there shouldn't be ANY risk involved..

 

exactly my point, why do people bring children into the world when they can't afford to feed them or even put close ont here backs. its stupid. its simple. if you can't afford the gas to put in a car, do u buy a car?

 

What about the people who actually NEED welfare, unemployment, etc.? Would you rather have people getting financial support from the gov't or people in the streets?

 

yes i would have them to get help from other people on the streets. give me my whole check and i'll decide whether some one is worthy of me helping them out. the government can't police every case and the system is taken advantage of. yes it would be great if it worked and went just to people who needed and everyone else didn't milk of me if they could possibly get anything esle. just like communism and socialism, most examples ever tried have been disasters, because we do not live in a utopia where everyone is perfect.

Edited December 14, 2003 by Sly_C

[Sly_C]

awesome, i think california shoudl annex from the union then!

 

annex - To incorporate (territory) into an existing political unit such as a country, state, county, or city.

To add or attach, as an attribute, condition, or consequence.

 

u can't annex from the union, i think u mean succeede (sp).

Edited December 14, 2003 by Sly_C

[Agallion]

texas is still the only state allowed legaly to succeed from the union..its in the state constitution that was ratified by the senate..something to do with texas once being its own country ..thats also why texas' flag can fly equal to the US flag and why texas has its on air force and navy

[howie b]

Sexist AND offensive.  In communism, the government controls all businesses, there is no private ownership, and it is a complete and total command economy.  I don't vouch for this.  In socialism, the government only controls the major businesses, and the smaller ones are still privately owned.  Thus, there is still economic competition.  Yes, Ayokona, socialism reduces your economic freedoms a tad, but at least everyone has there basic needs met.

 

Yes, I have a family of three, myself and two parents.  One parent works as piano teacher, and the other is a GTF in college who gets a very small stipend for teaching in addition to studying.  My parents work.  And my family is poor.  As soon as I can, I'm heading off to get a job in a tech shop.  WE DON'T MOOCH OFF THE GOVERNMENT FOR THE PURPOSES OF HAVING TO WORK LESS.  Also, that link is bad.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/threshld/thresh02.html

 

hmmm its a gov link off this page, I wanted to show you 03 poverty guidelines, but just check out 2002 instead, not much of a diff.

 

http://home.vicnet.net.au/~dmcm/Articles/Ownership.htm

 

You obviously haven't read much about Socialism, because its FULL 100% COLLECTIVISIM, don't give me a BS model of a gov't that has socialism and capitalism, WERE TALKING ABOUT SOCIALISM!!!!

Yes in "SOME" socialist gov't the smaller businesses are privately owned, Not always has it been this way and not all "socialist" gov't follow this model.

 

 

Okay about the poor scenario,

Your parents can't even work for MINIMUM WAGE!?!?!

if they did they would have a combined salary of $23,000, WHICH IS WELL ABOVE THE POVERTY LINE, EVEN WITH 1 Child, as you can see in my link above....

 

#1 IMHO your parents should not have had a kid, if they aren't FINANCIALLY SECURE!!

#2 IM Sure you get these socialist ideas from your parents... therefor next time, in another life, they should learn to be financially intact b4 having children, instead of blaming EVERYTHING on CAPITALISM!!!

#3 So why do you mooch of the GOv't? (If you do that is)

In this life or the next you will pay for your ways.

 

When this does occur, may God have more mercy on you, than you have for others.

Edited December 14, 2003 by howie b

[AYoKoNA]

In this life or the next you will pay for your ways.

 

When this does occur, may God have more mercy on you, than you have for others.

I do have mercy for others, just not for ppl who have a job and milk the system.

What do you mean "pay for my ways". Where was I once harsh in any way I spoke? I speak truth... If you can't handle PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITIES in THIS NATION, then I suggest you live somewhere else...

[Propane]

i cannot vote so i dont really care... i would vote for gwb tho

[Paranoid]

I'm Canadian

[ClayMeow]

well bravo, however i am against unemployement, disability, and other gov't programs that take more money from everyone's paycheck....

 

Think about it if you don't receive unemployement, you WILL be forced to find a job Night and Day..., and not socumb to receiving a check every 2 weeks, feeling more secure in taking your time to finding the right job....

Although i've agreed with a lot of what you're said, AYoKoNA this i do not agree with for one simple reason. Not everyone who's unemployed chooses to be unemployed. In the middle of the summer, my neighbor lost his job when an outside company bought the company he worked for and moved it to New Jersey, which would involve 5-6 hours of commuting a day. He currently has a child in his last year of college (so he's paid 3 years already), and has another child who started high school this year. Even with his wife working parttime for several years, that's not enough to live on, and with the market like it is, he can't just go find a job the next day. If he didn't have unemployment, would he go get some lowend job in a retail store or something, yeah, almost definitely...but when he was in a manager position for 4 years, that would be a HUGE paycut and also not do him any good in the longrun. Unemployment checks don't last forever (i think it's 6 months?), AND you have to be actively searching for a job to receive them, so i don't think collecting unemployment is something that's wrong with our system. I am currently unemployed, but do not collect money because i didn't hold a job, i had just graduated from college, so i don't qualify. I'm sure there may be some people that take advantage of umemployment...but it's a very small percentage.

 

Try looking at it from a different viewpoint. Lets say you're not completley secure economically and there could be some financial risks ivolved by having a kid. Do you want to have a kid now and take a chance with your money, or have a kid when your 45? See what I mean?

-Iggy

 

and this helps your case...how? I'm with AYoKoNA on this one. People should establish themselves financially before even considering a child. I'm not saying a family has to purchase a house and bring in 100k a year...but they should have a stable job and a plan for the future. You seem to be suggesting that you'd rather take financial risks by having a kid than waiting 'til you're 45 and are financially stable...that doesn't make sense. Not only do you make your own life that much tougher, but also your child's life. I know plenty of families that didn't have kids until they were around 40. Just because you're 40 or 45 means you can't provide the same love to a child that you can at 25? That's ridiculous. If anything, you can provide MORE love because you don't have the added stress of where's the money going to come from for the next heating bill.

 

In socialism, the government only controls the major businesses, and the smaller ones are still privately owned. Thus, there is still economic competition. Yes, Ayokona, socialism reduces your economic freedoms a tad, but at least everyone has there basic needs met.

-Iggy

 

You do realize that if this was a socialist country and the govt controlled the major businesses, companies like Microsoft, AMD, Intel, nVidia, ATI wouldn't exist like we know and love/hate them today? I mean please... a few years ago people were complaining that Microsoft was a monopoly...if Microsoft wasn't allowed to do what they did, the whole computer and technology industries would be a lot different today...and a lot worse. Do i think Windows OS's are overpriced? Yes. But do i wish the govt regulated the prices? HELLLLLLLS NO! You think we'd have the AMD/Intel competitiveness we have if the govt controlled big business? Competition is what drives business...it's what drives innovation and technology advancement. Capitalism causes competition. A simple logic substituation shows you that Capitalism drives innovation. Maybe socialism worked in feudal times where there was only one "manufacturer" in town that forged swords...but it doesn't work in today's society if you want any advancement.

 

just like communism and socialism, most examples ever tried have been disasters, because we do not live in a utopia where everyone is perfect.

-Sly_C

 

Exactly what i stated earlier. thank you.

 

u can't annex from the union, i think u mean succeede (sp).

-Sly_C

texas is still the only state allowed legaly to succeed from the union

-Agallion

 

You guys are looking for the work "secede". Just like with the Civil War...the south seceded from the Union.

Three cheers for my Ivy League edumacasion! heehee, j/k guys

 

In this life or the next you will pay for your ways.

 

When this does occur, may God have more mercy on you, than you have for others.

- howie b

 

LOL. don't give me some of your hippie voodoo crap...Even if reincarnation existed...since i don't remember my "previous life", what the fudge do i care what consequences i "suffer" in my "next life". I wouldn't remember anyhow....let my next life's self worry about that