Conservatives have more self-control

[I_am_not_mafia]

Well hell yeah! I could use the money right about now. I have a few doctor bills and an ER bill that came due the other day over a herniated disc and no means to pay it.

What are doctor bills?

[downbeatplumb]

Well, I don't forum much, so clearly I haven't figured out how to properly quote or nuthin. (Oh, the frustration. Fucking hate computers.) But Dawkins' book is a wonderful introduction to atheism (although I'm sure there are many others) and I'm convinced he's right. I've been subjected to lots of philosophy at the hands of my English professors, and indeed much of it is insightful and beautifully written. I give the scientists the upper hand when it comes to being objectively correct, however.

I've basically been an atheist since early childhood, but Dawkins' book is the first I have read on the subject, in addition to plenty of Mormon history. I want to read The Believing Brain next, or maybe some Hitchens.

When it's politically advantageous for him Dawkins claims to be a "Cultural Christian" who loves to sing Christmas Carols. He's an atheist when he's writing and selling books about atheism and he's a Christian when he's campaigning for political office....

Not that's not what he meant at all.

he lives in a society where a lot of activities are Christian based Christmas, weddings etc. 

You can take part in those things but not believe the bullshit.

I myself have gone to christenings because they can be quite nice get togethers and they mean nothing outside of that.

[Catholic_Lady]

It isn't that conservatives don't care about poor people. It's that they feel we should help the poor in the form of charity donations, volunteer work, etc... verses having money forcebly taken from people and handled in whichever unproductive way the government sees fit. As a general rule, Christians are supposed to give at a minimum of 10% of their income for the less fortunate. When CD posted here about a charity project he was doing, AM was one of the members who donated the most money of the people here.

I will agree that this is by far most ideal. Giving to charity vs having it taken by force by the government, I mean. Obviously the former is better. Only problem is it relies on everyone to do the right thing and voluntarily give. And unfortunately many dont do that. So the government has to step in. I see this though, as a necessary evil vs an ideal good. I support money especially going to single moms and people who have disabilities and aren't able to work. Maybe the government could be more efficient in giving to those who actually need it? I do also support appropriate tax breaks for people who give a lot to charity.

[I_am_not_mafia]

It isn't that conservatives don't care about poor people. It's that they feel we should help the poor in the form of charity donations, volunteer work, etc... verses having money forcebly taken from people and handled in whichever unproductive way the government sees fit. As a general rule, Christians are supposed to give at a minimum of 10% of their income for the less fortunate. When CD posted here about a charity project he was doing, AM was one of the members who donated the most money of the people here.

I will agree that this is by far most ideal. Giving to charity vs having it taken by force by the government, I mean. Obviously the former is better. Only problem is it relies on everyone to do the right thing and voluntarily give. And unfortunately many dont do that. So the government has to step in. I see this though, as a necessary evil vs an ideal good. I support money especially going to single moms and people who have disabilities and aren't able to work. Maybe the government could be more efficient in giving to those who actually need it? I do also support appropriate tax breaks for people who give a lot to charity.

I admit to not really keeping up with the thread but is charity what is being discussed here? Or tax money being spent to make society better for everyone, including the rich who pay more? I was thinking that it was the latter.

A rich business owner may ask why they need to be taxed to pay for the police and fire service, but if these two services did not exist the business owner would have to spend a lot more money on protecting their business. That's if it would have existed in the first place because starting a business would be a much riskier venture without these emergency services.

Which brings me to the next point. Someone who is rich may wonder why they are being taxed to support people who lose their job. But a society that provides this safety net is also one that is more likely to be prosperous as people feel that they are more able to start new businesses and to explore / exploit new technologies without risk of becoming homeless.

A lot of Americans don't seem to realise that all these evil lefty ideas such as socialism that they argue wouldn't ever work, actually really do improve the lives of everyone in society in a great many, first world countries in the rest of the world.

[A Theist]

Well hell yeah! I could use the money right about now. I have a few doctor bills and an ER bill that came due the other day over a herniated disc and no means to pay it. So I'm counting on you, Mr. Empathy, to ante up and cut me an empathy check. If showing empathy for the less fortunate is what you believe then you could at least be the first to set the example for everyone else you demanded empathy from.

I don't know what Grandizer's stance is but a fair amount of Leftist's support single payer healthcare. You would have little to no bill for your disc issues. It would save money because there would be no one in the middle taking a cut. Also a good portion of the cost currently goes towards paperwork to see what healthcare you can and can't get. That cost would be eliminated.

Yup. There was definitely a lot of paperwork to see if I qualified for anything. We're in the process now to see if I qualify for something else. October of 2016 I retired and went part time where I work. I'm drawing Social Security and working part time. The company I work for made some changes to their insurance that affected all of its employees. Both our rates and our deductibles went up. For the wife and myself our rates went up to $300 per month for their insurance plan and the deductibles went up to $3000 annually for each of us. That was a definite no can do. Can't afford that on Social Security and part time warehouse wages. The wife called about getting us on Obamacare. $900 a month for the both of us. The Affordable Health Care Act, my ass! They suggested that we try to get Medicaid. We tried. I just barely make over the qualifying income to get it. So, no insurance. To be able to qualify for Medicaid I'd have to cut my hours back at work, or quit. Neither of which I want, or can afford to do. I'm pretty much soured on socialized health care. It taxes the shit out of you and doesn't benefit the people who pay for it.

---

Well hell yeah! I could use the money right about now. I have a few doctor bills and an ER bill that came due the other day over a herniated disc and no means to pay it. So I'm counting on you, Mr. Empathy, to ante up and cut me an empathy check. If showing empathy for the less fortunate is what you believe then you could at least be the first to set the example for everyone else you demanded empathy from.

I have no power to help you (and plus, I don't live where you live). But I do wish politicians made it their mission to help provide free health care as a right for all Americans, and yes, this means more tax for people, including the rich. But it also means you save more money per year (if this were to be enacted).

You can have my empathy, and if I was an American, I'd have been happy to pay more tax to ensure health care for all there. After all, I get taxed here in Australia, and I got no problem with it (we have Medicare for all here). It's good to help the less fortunate!

That's empathy enough for me, Kemosabe. Thanks.

[Catholic_Lady]

It isn't that conservatives don't care about poor people. It's that they feel we should help the poor in the form of charity donations, volunteer work, etc... verses having money forcebly taken from people and handled in whichever unproductive way the government sees fit. As a general rule, Christians are supposed to give at a minimum of 10% of their income for the less fortunate. When CD posted here about a charity project he was doing, AM was one of the members who donated the most money of the people here.

I will agree that this is by far most ideal. Giving to charity vs having it taken by force by the government, I mean. Obviously the former is better. Only problem is it relies on everyone to do the right thing and voluntarily give. And unfortunately many dont do that. So the government has to step in. I see this though, as a necessary evil vs an ideal good. I support money especially going to single moms and people who have disabilities and aren't able to work. Maybe the government could be more efficient in giving to those who actually need it? I do also support appropriate tax breaks for people who give a lot to charity.

I admit to not really keeping up with the thread but is charity what is being discussed here? Or tax money being spent to make society better for everyone, including the rich who pay more? I was thinking that it was the latter.

A rich business owner may ask why they need to be taxed to pay for the police and fire service, but if these two services did not exist the business owner would have to spend a lot more money on protecting their business. That's if it would have existed in the first place because starting a business would be a much riskier venture without these emergency services.

Which brings me to the next point. Someone who is rich may wonder why they are being taxed to support people who lose their job. But a society that provides this safety net is also one that is more likely to be prosperous as people feel that they are more able to start new businesses and to explore / exploit new technologies without risk of becoming homeless.

A lot of Americans don't seem to realise that all these evil lefty ideas such as socialism that they argue wouldn't ever work, actually really do improve the lives of everyone in society in a great many, first world countries in the rest of the world.

Im not keeping up too much either, tbh. I just saw some comments about conservatives not caring about the poor and figured I'd give my 2 cents on that.

[I_am_not_mafia]

I'm pretty much soured on socialized health care. It taxes the shit out of you and doesn't benefit the people who pay for it.

Don't assume that American socialised health care is typical of socialised health care in the rest of the world. What you have in America is a mess because it is the first tentative step towards a working system that is actively opposed by republicans.

I can't personally relate any experiences of socialised health care in other countries, but it's great in the UK and Germany (although Germany uses insurance companies it is effectively socialised because the companies return any profit they have made at the end of the year and only charge a proportion of your salary).

[A Theist]

When it's politically advantageous for him Dawkins claims to be a "Cultural Christian" who loves to sing Christmas Carols. He's an atheist when he's writing and selling books about atheism and he's a Christian when he's campaigning for political office....

Not that's not what he meant at all.

he lives in a society where a lot of activities are Christian based Christmas, weddings etc. 

You can take part in those things but not believe the bullshit.

I myself have gone to christenings because they can be quite nice get togethers and they mean nothing outside of that.

I'm sure he meant none of it. He was just playing the politician for votes.

---

I'm pretty much soured on socialized health care. It taxes the shit out of you and doesn't benefit the people who pay for it.

Don't assume that American socialised health care is typical of socialised health care in the rest of the world. What you have in America is a mess because it is the first tentative step towards a working system that is actively opposed by republicans.

I can't personally relate any experiences of socialised health care in other countries, but it's great in the UK and Germany (although Germany uses insurance companies it is effectively socialised because the companies return any profit they have made at the end of the year and only charge a proportion of your salary).

I don't know how it all works in the UK and Germany. I'd have to do some research on it for a better understanding of what you guys have. I just know that here in the U.S. it sucks that people who work and pay into it don't have the benefit of the health care they pay for. The ER I went to a few weeks ago, the closest one being in a slum area called "The Bottoms". It was filled with Medicaid recipients, (I know this because we could hear the nurses tell another that they were taken care of through Medicaid). Some were definite "seekers" talking about how the nurses better give them their pain meds. Another guy hollered out, "Hey, nurse! You think you can get my wife a sandwich and a pop? She just took her meds on a empty stomach and it's upset". Is this what our taxes are paying for and we can't get the medical help that these guys are getting? Are we paying for their tattoos and their I phones too? Yes. They had I phones. This is what I experienced as far as socialized medicine in the U.S.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The only reason I have insurance is because I'm a veteran with a disablity. I'd be assed-out otherwise; the plan at my workplace is far too expensive for me.

[A Theist]

The only reason I have insurance is because I'm a veteran with a disablity. I'd be assed-out otherwise; the plan at my workplace is far too expensive for me.

and the deductibles for workplace insurance are so high that it's basically useless. Not too many people can come up with a few thousand bucks out of pocket.