• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should the country pay for women's contraceptives?

Should the country (taxes) pay for women's contraception?

  • Yes

    Votes: 41 41.8%

  • No

    Votes: 57 58.2%
  • Total voters
    98
Cephus said:
I'm not one of those people. If you want to debate those subjects with them, go for it. I just asked you a question, one that you entirely dodged.
Click to expand...

What have those in prison done to deserve what they get?
 
lizzie said:
You are the one who brought morality into the discussion. Please justify theft on moral grounds- strictly moral grounds. Right and wrong are concepts used to describe things which are constant in meaning, and do not require specific circumstances to justify their own relative morality. Theft is considered wrong, is it not? What makes theft right, depending on the circumstances of he who steals?
Click to expand...

What theft?
 
Krystov said:
I'll take that further. Taking from one against their will, regardless of intent of use, is theft by its very nature.
Click to expand...

I would normally agree. But we're not talking about theft. We're talking about taxes. Which is not theft. No matter how you try and twist it.
 
Kal'Stang said:
What have those in prison done to deserve what they get?
Click to expand...

They don't deserve it. Who said they did? I think they should have to work hard labor to get enough food to survive.
 
Kal'Stang said:
What have those in prison done to deserve what they get?
Click to expand...

Honestly, nothing. I think they ought to earn it. I think they ought to spend part of every single day getting an eduction and learning a marketable trade and part of every single day working. Some of the money they earn goes to pay for their upkeep, some of it should go into an interest-bearing account for when they get out.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I have no problem with requiring something of those that get help from the government. I've posted before that they should be required to do some sort of community service. At least the ones that can anyways. IE if you're healthy, you do community service.

What I am against is getting rid of welfare entirely.
Click to expand...

I agree with you here. I myself benefit from a form of welfare, but I'm going to school full time and meet certain requirements to receive it. I'm doing something that will better my life and ultimately I will be giving back in the end. What I'm against is people benefiting from welfare that aren't really trying that hard.
 
Kal'Stang said:
There's an old saying..."You can't judge a book by its cover". I know people think that they can. But you honestly can't.
Click to expand...

We're not judging books by their covers, we're judging them by viewing segments of their storylines. There are many scenarios we see everyday where someone is receiving welfare or donations and, at the same time, they are wasting money on things that aren't a necessity. Sorry, but I think those on welfare should have to agree to financial disclosure to watch their spending like a hawk.

There is actually an underlying mathematical argument for my point of view. Since dollar bills are considered indistinguishable in the market, the following are equivalent:
1. You waste your $200 on something (e.g. alcohol) and I give you $200 to buy groceries.
2. You buy $200 worth of groceries with your money and I give you $200 to waste.
Would you support the latter? Well, I'll bet you in over 90% of welfare recipients, I can find expenses to cut or habits they could be performing to survive on their own. I had to clip coupons and shop only off the clearance rack to make my way up to upper-middle class. I still shop strictly off clearance racks for clothes, but now it's at places like Nordstrom or even Gucci for my wife. If you know how to invert fractions then you should be able to figure out that buying things 75% off will quadruple what you can afford to get for your money.
 
Mathematician said:
We're not judging books by their covers, we're judging them by viewing segments of their storylines. There are many scenarios we see everyday where someone is receiving welfare or donations and, at the same time, they are wasting money on things that aren't a necessity. Sorry, but I think those on welfare should have to agree to financial disclosure to watch their spending like a hawk.

There is actually an underlying mathematical argument for my point of view. Since dollar bills are considered indistinguishable in the market, the following are equivalent:
1. You waste your $200 on something (e.g. alcohol) and I give you $200 to buy groceries.
2. You buy $200 worth of groceries with your money and I give you $200 to waste.
Would you support the latter? Well, I'll bet you in over 90% of welfare recipients, I can find expenses to cut or habits they could be performing to survive on their own. I had to clip coupons and shop only off the clearance rack to make my way up to upper-middle class. I still shop strictly off clearance racks for clothes, but now it's at places like Nordstrom or even Gucci for my wife. If you know how to invert fractions then you should be able to figure out that buying things 75% off will quadruple what you can afford to get for your money.
Click to expand...


I am all for cutting waste meanwhile According to this article nearly one in five Americans (who live in 15 states in the USA) has gone hungry this last year because they do not have enough money for food.
Sun Aug 26, 2012 at 01:55 PM PDT.

Going hungry: Nearly one in five Americans has been short of money for food in the past year

Nearly one in five Americans has not had enough money to buy the food they needed in the past year, a Gallup poll finds. But there are wide disparities from state to state and regionally. In North Dakota, just 9.6 percent of people have lacked enough money for food.


But if you live in Mississippi, there's a 24.9 percent chance that sometime in the past year you haven't been able to buy the food you and your family need. If you live in Alabama, it's a 22.9 percent chance. In all, there are 15 states in which at least one in five people can't always afford enough food.


Many of these people are working.

Like the New Hampshire home care worker who walks as much as an hour from appointment to appointment every day, struggling with an inconsistent paycheck and
a recent loss of food stamps:
Click to expand...

Daily Kos: Going hungry: Nearly one in five Americans has been short of money for food in the past year
 
minnie616 said:
WE are talking about taxes NOT theft.
Click to expand...

If a stranger walked into your home, and insisted that you should give him a portion of your money, and threatens to do you harm if you resist. That is theft. What is the difference if the government does the same thing, to give another person the money you have worked for? There is no difference in the action, just in the perp.
 
lizzie said:
If a stranger walked into your home, and insisted that you should give him a portion of your money, and threatens to do you harm if you resist. That is theft. What is the difference if the government does the same thing, to give another person the money you have worked for? There is no difference in the action, just in the perp.
Click to expand...

The government does NOT do same thing because you have a say (a vote) in who you want to represent you and your taxes.

You vote your elected representives in.

If you do NOT like what the government does with taxes then either write your congressperson or support a canidate that has views simular to your own.
 
Mathematician said:
We're not judging books by their covers, we're judging them by viewing segments of their storylines. There are many scenarios we see everyday where someone is receiving welfare or donations and, at the same time, they are wasting money on things that aren't a necessity. Sorry, but I think those on welfare should have to agree to financial disclosure to watch their spending like a hawk.

There is actually an underlying mathematical argument for my point of view. Since dollar bills are considered indistinguishable in the market, the following are equivalent:
1. You waste your $200 on something (e.g. alcohol) and I give you $200 to buy groceries.
2. You buy $200 worth of groceries with your money and I give you $200 to waste.
Would you support the latter? Well, I'll bet you in over 90% of welfare recipients, I can find expenses to cut or habits they could be performing to survive on their own. I had to clip coupons and shop only off the clearance rack to make my way up to upper-middle class. I still shop strictly off clearance racks for clothes, but now it's at places like Nordstrom or even Gucci for my wife. If you know how to invert fractions then you should be able to figure out that buying things 75% off will quadruple what you can afford to get for your money.
Click to expand...

And just who determine what is waste and what isn't? Granted things like alcohol IS wasteful. Obviously. But there are many things out there that one person would consider it a waste to buy and someone else would consider it necessary.

Anyways the problem with going strictly by the math is that it does not take into account about the individiual. Person A may need more than Person B due to differing circumstances. And as an outside force you can't take every single possible circumstance into account.
 
minnie616 said:
The government does NOT do same thing because you have a say (a vote) in who you want to represent you and your taxes.

You vote your elected representives in.

If you do NOT like what the government does with taxes then either write your congressperson or support a canidate that has views simular to your own.
Click to expand...

Exactly......
 
minnie616 said:
The government does NOT do same thing because you have a say (a vote) in who you want to represent you and your taxes.

You vote your elected representives in.

If you do NOT like what the government does with taxes then either write your congressperson or support a canidate that has views simular to your own.
Click to expand...

The problem with that concept is that with so many people on the receiving end of tax monies, a number which is growing daily, the likelihood of my candidate being able to win is virtually non-existent.

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”
Click to expand...
― Alexis de Tocqueville
 
minnie616 said:
The government does NOT do same thing because you have a say (a vote) in who you want to represent you and your taxes.
Click to expand...

A vote doesn't change what the taxes in question mean and do. You're just avoiding the topic.
 
Kal'Stang said:
And anyone with an ounce of humanity wouldn't mind helping those in need. We'll never advance socially if we just stay greedy.
Click to expand...

Big difference between you helping and compelling your neighbor to help.
 
Kal'Stang said:
And just who determine what is waste and what isn't? Granted things like alcohol IS wasteful. Obviously. But there are many things out there that one person would consider it a waste to buy and someone else would consider it necessary.

Anyways the problem with going strictly by the math is that it does not take into account about the individiual. Person A may need more than Person B due to differing circumstances. And as an outside force you can't take every single possible circumstance into account.
Click to expand...

Let's use a little common sense. For each object we're debating on, you simply ask the question "do they need this to survive?" That is a question which is even answered strictly with regards to the individual. We're not talking about some spoiled girl saying she couldn't live without her pet chihuahua. I'm saying if you're on welfare then you don't need to be buying any video games, jewelry, CDs or any other non-essential items. Feel free to name any objects you think we'd disagree on as to whether they are needs or wants. Returning to the topic at hand, you don't have to screw to survive. Take some responsibility and stick with masterbation or oral sex if you can't afford the risk of having a child.
 
Mathematician said:
Let's use a little common sense. For each object we're debating on, you simply ask the question "do they need this to survive?" ....
Click to expand...

Oh, So if someone on welfare already had or was given somthing non essential they should not be allowed to keep it?

Why can't the poor have some nice things?

Many of us that have nice things donate our items to the poor when we buy a newer item or don't want the item anymore.

One of my "working" poor friend's car broke down and she could not afford to fix it. She had breast cancer and needed good reliable transportion so DH and I decided to buy a new car and "sell" her ( for a token fee ) mine.
Also most of her clothes came from me. I always tried to make look like she was doing me a favor.
She and I were about the same size so 3 or 4 times a year I would have her over and mention I needed to clean my closets out and then I wouldgive her a bunch of my clothes ( some that still had tags and were never worn)
and tell her to keep what she wanted and to give rest away to her relatives and her church friends.


ALso there are people out of work today that had nice jewlery ,Cds , video games etc. before the economy went to pieces.

Yes, a very small minority of welfare people play the system but most people on welfare are hard working poor folks who just need a hand up.
 
Last edited:
would you rather pay welfare?
 
Krystov said:
I say no. Being able to get these things at the expense of others not only enables bad behavior, but reinforces the entitlement ideology. Men and women should take responsibility for their decisions, not get a free ride to be irresponsible.
Click to expand...


As long as you are willing to pay more in taxes to feed poor children, clothe them, house them, then sure...
 
Chickenhawks said:
As long as you are willing to pay more in taxes to feed poor children, clothe them, house them, then sure...
Click to expand...

I don't think we should be doing that either.
 
Cephus said:
No, I think we need to expect responsible behavior and punish those who refuse to do so.
Click to expand...
So it is fair to make hundreds of thousands of children suffer because their parents made a bad (or multiple) decisions? The children are the real people who pay the price, and it is not fair, they had no say in the matter, they did not force their mother to do anything yet they will be the ones that are most effected.
 
has america goes further and further into the evil of democracy, we shall destroy ourselves, as people continue to push for new rights, so they can they create things for themselves.


“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to say that democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious, or less avaricious than aristocracy or monarchy. It is not true, in fact, and nowhere appears in history. Those passions are the same in all men, under all forms of simple government, and when unchecked, produce the same effects of fraud, violence, and cruelty. When clear prospects are opened before vanity, pride, avarice, or ambition, for their easy gratification, it is hard for the most considerate philosophers and the most conscientious moralists to resist the temptation. Individuals have conquered themselves. Nations and large bodies of men, never.”
— John Adams (1797-1801) Second President of the United States and Patriot
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom