RE: Budget differences - Define "Entitlement" & "Obligation"

RE: Budget differences - Define "Entitlement" & "Obligation" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

FirmhandKY -> RE: Budget differences - Define "Entitlement" & "Obligation" (7/30/2011 6:26:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: imperatrixx quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Not trying to be confrontational, Owner, but what law of nature guarantees health, wealth, a good mate and a government retirement? Law of nature? Really? What law of nature guarantees free speech? What law of nature guarantees that you won't be tortured and burned for your religion? All our laws are human laws. Including any potential laws that say health care is a right not a luxury. Exactly. Have you ever met a human being who has not screwed up, lied, or failed to met an obligation at some point or the other? From a purely legalistic point of view, the "obligations" versue "entitlement" makes a lot of sense. For a view-point of reality and nature, they are simply man-made fabrications. Problems arise when people mistake human law for a law of nature. In other words, expecting the sun to "rise" tomorrow has a different level of probability than expecting human financial obligations to be always met. Firm edit: spelling

imperatrixx -> RE: Budget differences - Define "Entitlement" & "Obligation" (7/30/2011 6:28:20 AM)
Yeah. But the government not paying things it agreed to pay (like social security, or veterans benefits, etc) isn't like "I said I'd pick you up at the mall and you had to take the bus, I'm sorry." It's more like "I said I'd pick you up at the mall but instead I just stayed home playing COD and you got kidnapped raped and dismembered. Sorry."

TreasureKY -> RE: Budget differences - Define "Entitlement" & "Obligation" (7/30/2011 6:41:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fightdirecto quote: ORIGINAL: TreasureKY One plans for retirement by not counting on the Government. Questions then: (a) If one is working directly for the Government, i.e. a soldier, sailor, airman, marine or mail carrier, are they not supposed to "count on the Government" to fulfill the contract made when the person enlisted or re-enlisted or hired? (b) If a person cannot "count on the Government" to fulfill the contract made when the person enlisted or re-enlisted or hired, does that mean that every soldier, sailor, airman, marine or mail carrier (to name some examples) is a gullible, trusting fool and deserves to be screwed by the Government and the American people? (c) In today's all-volunteer military, if a person cannot "count on the Government" to fulfill the contract made when the person enlisted or re-enlisted, where will we find people to join the military and remain in military service? Are you proposing we re-introduce the draft? The portion I emphasized above with bold is key. The relationship you ask about is different because the Government is the employer. Please note the very first paragraph of my first post in this thread: quote: ORIGINAL: TreasureKY If your comments are specifically geared towards retirement and disability pay for veterans, then I suspect you'll find most Republicans (the real ones... not politicians) do not consider those payments as up for consideration to be cut. Those veterans who are recipients earned those benefits, and the Government is obligated to pay them. Different relationships inherently create different levels of obligation/responsibility.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Budget differences - Define "Entitlement" & "Obligation" (7/30/2011 6:48:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: imperatrixx Yeah. But the government not paying things it agreed to pay (like social security, or veterans benefits, etc) isn't like "I said I'd pick you up at the mall and you had to take the bus, I'm sorry." It's more like "I said I'd pick you up at the mall but instead I just stayed home playing COD and you got kidnapped raped and dismembered. Sorry." No argument. But making plans that rely on the expectation that gravity will work have a different level of reliability from making plans that human beings will always be able or willing to do as they say or promise. Firm

gaybottomslave -> RE: Budget differences - Define "Entitlement" & "Obligation" (7/30/2011 12:26:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: gaybottomslave quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy You are using general and subjective definitions of what is an entitlement vs an obligation. Its a LEGAL issue, not a subjective one. The decision to maintain current spending levels is not a legal issue. There is no law mandating how much to spend on anything. As such, Congress has the subjective authority to raise or lower what is spent. Would you care to bet there are no laws mandating how much money to spend on various line items? You're missing the point: Congress, according to the US Constitution, holds the purse strings and decides what, and how much, to pay for in the course of running the country on a day to day basis. Hence if Congress had a notion they could opt to pay (meaning spend) less next year--which would be classified as a spending cut. And make no mistake we, as a society/country, have to start making some serious decisions about our future and how we're going to manage going forward. Cutting spending (which I'm in favor of doing across the board) is the only way forward that doesn't ruin this country. I would also tolerate a temporary tax increase if there were suitable spending cuts in conjunction. No spending cuts, no tax increase. The OP, and people like him, have earned his pension and therefore I view that as an obligation that the government must honor. Others, like some woman with five kids from four different fathers, who makes her living off of the welfare system, refuses to work and believes that she is entitled to living off of the larger society with no effort on her part--that's an entitlement that can and should be cut. And yes I actually used to know the woman in my example. I would often ask her why she can't work? She'd always get upset that I had the gall to expect her to work to support her kids. One day she told me, (And I quote), "If I can make more money per month on welfare than I can working, then why should I work?"

FirmhandKY -> RE: Budget differences - Define "Entitlement" & "Obligation" (7/30/2011 2:05:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gaybottomslave I would often ask her why she can't work? She'd always get upset that I had the gall to expect her to work to support her kids. One day she told me, (And I quote), "If I can make more money per month on welfare than I can working, then why should I work?" But ... but ... what about the kids? Are we going to make them suffer for the actions of the mother? [8D] Firm

Lucylastic -> RE: Budget differences - Define "Entitlement" & "Obligation" (7/30/2011 2:08:52 PM)
of course you are.... and do

gaybottomslave -> RE: Budget differences - Define "Entitlement" & "Obligation" (7/30/2011 2:47:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: gaybottomslave I would often ask her why she can't work? She'd always get upset that I had the gall to expect her to work to support her kids. One day she told me, (And I quote), "If I can make more money per month on welfare than I can working, then why should I work?" But ... but ... what about the kids? Are we going to make them suffer for the actions of the mother? [8D] Firm I certainly don't want to see anyone, especially children, suffer. But what lessons are the mother, and we as a society at large in geneal, teaching these kids when they learn from an early age that they can be as lazy, worthless and leacherous as they want, that they can suck off of the public teat and not to worry about being self-sustaining because everyone else will provide for their welfare?

rulemylife -> RE: Budget differences - Define "Entitlement" & "Obligation" (7/30/2011 3:17:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fightdirecto How we define a term or a word makes a big difference in a rational discussion. We don't have rational discussions here. But that was a good try.

rulemylife -> RE: Budget differences - Define "Entitlement" & "Obligation" (7/30/2011 3:21:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gaybottomslave quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: gaybottomslave I would often ask her why she can't work? She'd always get upset that I had the gall to expect her to work to support her kids. One day she told me, (And I quote), "If I can make more money per month on welfare than I can working, then why should I work?" But ... but ... what about the kids? Are we going to make them suffer for the actions of the mother? [8D] Firm I certainly don't want to see anyone, especially children, suffer. But what lessons are the mother, and we as a society at large in geneal, teaching these kids when they learn from an early age that they can be as lazy, worthless and leacherous as they want, that they can suck off of the public teat and not to worry about being self-sustaining because everyone else will provide for their welfare? Do you honesty hear what you are saying? Let me correct that, what you both are saying so glibly. This attitude is the problem I have with conservatives. "I have mine and I don't care about anyone else". Selfish and pathetic.

cloudboy -> RE: Budget differences - Define "Entitlement" & "Obligation" (7/30/2011 9:46:09 PM)
All obligations are suspended in a bankruptcy proceeding. If I was you, I'd be somewhat worried about how things play out in the long run.

tweakabelle -> RE: Budget differences - Define "Entitlement" & "Obligation" (7/30/2011 11:20:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers SS has grown more costly because politicians added to it and added SSI which is its own budget. The biggest part of the problem for SS is the robbing of the over payment and it being squandered by both sides. And there has been no "Robbing" of the surplus contributions. Keep lying and I'll keep correcting you. This is a fucking lie, and you are the author of many lies. You have been corrected. And it naturally follows that: Willbur, like the rest of us is entitled to stick to the truth if he so chooses, but; Willbur, unlike most of us, doesn't feel obligated to tell the truth.

Edwynn -> RE: Budget differences - Define "Entitlement" & "Obligation" (7/30/2011 11:59:34 PM)
To you, it's an entitlement of remuneration and benefits based upon your agreement to an obligation of service to the country. The country or any other employer has an obligation to fulfill their end of the bargain.

imperatrixx -> RE: Budget differences - Define "Entitlement" & "Obligation" (7/31/2011 1:00:16 AM)
quote: And yes I actually used to know the woman in my example. I would often ask her why she can't work? She'd always get upset that I had the gall to expect her to work to support her kids. One day she told me, (And I quote), "If I can make more money per month on welfare than I can working, then why should I work?" Wow. That is disturbing. I can't believe wages and benefits in the US are that low. Something should be done. That was your point, right?

Edwynn -> RE: Budget differences - Define "Entitlement" & "Obligation" (7/31/2011 1:54:51 AM)
Good one, imperatrixx.

DeviantlyD -> RE: Budget differences - Define "Entitlement" & "Obligation" (7/31/2011 1:56:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fightdirecto How we define a term or a word makes a big difference in a rational discussion. I participate on vanilla Internet discussion boards on the topics of Politics & Religion as well as this one. On one, I posted my concern that, if the government went into default, my Army retirement check (I served 27 years combined active Army and Army Reserves) and my military disability check (hearing loss due to an exploding IED) might be affected. One self-identified Tea Party supporter responded that my Army retirement check and my military disability checks were "entitlements" and not "obligations". The poster took the position that military retirement checks and military disability checks were the same as welfare checks and should be eliminated as part of the overall plan to reduce "big government" and "excessive government spending". I contend that my Army retirement checks and my disability checks are "obligations" on the part of the federal government based on the contract I made with the United States for my 27 years of military service. I acknowledge that this individual, though they claim to be a Tea Party member, may not reflect the general position of all Tea Party members. In the context of federal government expenditures, do you define retirement checks and medical disability checks to military and civilian federal government employees "entitlements" or "obligations"? Wow, that's a stunning interpretation by that person. Let me preface my answer to your question by saying that I am anti-war, anti-gun and anti-violence. With that said, I believe that if a nation is going to send it's men and women into any form of military conflict, that nation has an obligation to support those individuals. As for civilian federal employees, that depends on what classification you're talking about. I would probably tend towards entitlements regarding this group.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Budget differences - Define "Entitlement" & "Obligation" (7/31/2011 2:07:19 AM)
FR: What has a higher precedence: an obligation to all citizens of a country, or an obligation to pay entitlements to some citizens of the country? Firm

Moonhead -> RE: Budget differences - Define "Entitlement" & "Obligation" (7/31/2011 11:52:49 AM)
Not actually a question with an either/or answer, you'll find.

Edwynn -> RE: Budget differences - Define "Entitlement" & "Obligation" (7/31/2011 12:35:04 PM)
The US has certainly gotten away from any notion of giving a crap about all citizens. The super tankers of cash exiting the Treasury and being shipped to the largest and most profitable corporations in the world while schools are being shut indicates clearly enough the priorities here.

Real0ne -> RE: Budget differences - Define "Entitlement" & "Obligation" (7/31/2011 12:41:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn The US has certainly gotten away from any notion of giving a crap about all citizens. The super tankers of cash exiting the Treasury and being shipped to the largest and most profitable corporations while schools are being shut indicates clearly enough the priorities here. the only thing the US gives a shit about is what they have to do which is determined by a US court. No different then feudal england when you had the kings vassals going to the kings court to argue about the contract. feudalism like federalism or constitutionalism is all about trusts and contracts. the deck is as it always has been. stacked.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875