Posted by agent858 on March 13, 2006, at 18:37:16
In reply to Re: Big, big difference » 838, posted by AuntieMel on March 13, 2006, at 18:04:35
> DON'T be sorry about posting this! I find it a great discussion. I just hope you aren't taking what I say too personally!
lol, I'm not. Sorry about my tone.. pwpd (posting while period is due...)
;-)
> Yes, no one should be allowed to go hungry *does* mean that this should come from the govt and that working people (and those who don't work 'cause they're rolling in it) should pay for it.well then i guess we agree.
> I just don't agree that healthy people should be able to just *choose* not to work.hmm. should mothers be allowed to choose to stay at home and look after their kids? (that isn't paid work). should people be allowed to choose to donate their time to charitable organisations (and not get paid for it - so it doesn't count as payed work)? i think that healthy people should be able to just 'choose' not to work. but i would say that people who are just spending the day in front of the tv... well i find it hard to see how they are happy. how they can feel happy without contributing to society in some way... remember welfare is only about basic needs. i would guess that if a healthy person chooses not to work then either a) they have something to be doing that they feel very strongly / passionately about or b) they aren't really so healthy after all. because... when you can get more money for working and welfare only covers basic needs... why would someone choose to stay on welfare instead of working?
> Oh. Is it expensive there? Fruits and vegies are not too bad here - but meats are expensive.yeah. depends what you mean by 'bad' i guess... but it is cheaper to eat macdonalds and burger kind (or hungry jacks it is called here) than it is to get something healthier. it is cheaper to get heavily processed white breads then it is to get relatively unprocessed wholemeal breads. it is cheaper to get meat with a high fat content then it is to get lean meat. health food seems to be a luxury in comparison (pricewise). cheaper to get fruit and veges with pestacides than without. cheaper to get genetically modified produce than stuff that hasn't been modified. cheaper to get chicken packed full of steroids and anti-biotics than chicken that isn't etc...
so the poor people are more likely to be eating chemicals and antibiotics and steroids and food that has been modified in ways that we don't know what it is likely to do to us... that is a scarey notion... especially considering they have less access to health care...
> It's a funny thing about Americans and taxes. Even though the upper 10% of the people got most of the tax break when we had a cut several years ago, it was the middle group that wanted it the most.yeah. makes more of a practical difference to the middle group?
i wasn't just thinking of tax cuts... i was thinking about the difference between 'tax avoidance' and 'tax evasion' and strategic business expenses and charitable trusts and donations to charities etc that have people with good tax lawyers avoiding paying most of the taxes that they would be paying without the good tax lawyer...
> I didn't want the tax break because I figured it would cut social programs (as it has) - but I'm considered a raving liberal (just don't tell my boss - liberals are unpopular down here in Texas.)yeah. though i've heard austin is a 'small island of liberalism'. i'd like to go there one day :-)
poster:agent858
thread:617294
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20060304/msgs/619897.html