South Dakota congress bans Abortion accept when mother's life is endangered

[steen]

Are the two topics somehow connected ?

Well, you were talking about having to support what you disagree with, after all. So yes, they are connected.

 

[taxedout]

Well, you were talking about having to support what you disagree with, after all. So yes, they are connected.

Well that'll narrow down the thread.

 

[steen]

South Dakota State Sexual Act Reporting Form

*this form must be submitted within 30 days of any sexual act, including any
fines, to the State office of Moral Purity in Pierre.

Date of Encounter:

Was this with your spouse Yes____ No____
*if you answered no please remit $75 to the state with your return.

If no, was this person of the opposite gender? Yes___ No___
* if you answered no, both parties must return their sex permits
to the state office and surrender themselves for retraining
at the Pukwana moral reconditioning facility within 10 working days.

What position was used _________________
*if any position other than missionary was used, please remit $125 to the state
with your return.

Did you break a smile Yes ___ No___
*if you answered yes, please remit $25 to the state with your return.

Was contraception used Yes ___ No ___
*if you answered yes, please remit $50 to the state with your return.
Please note that repeated use of contraception can result in the
revocation of your sex permit, severe fines and jail time.

Did the act result in pregnancy Yes ___ No___ Pending___
* repeated forms turned in with answers other than yes can be grounds
for a revocation of your sex permit.

Please have all parties sign and submit a copy to the state, one to Roger Hunt and a third to Leslie Unruh.

(courtesy of Bohemian)

 

[Carl]

Should any citizen be required to subsidise someone else's war?

There is no concept of war in our country that could permit the context "someone else's". Unless you're speaking to providing military assistance to another nation that is at war.

Moral government spending, from the viewpoint of Classical Liberalism (known today as Conservatism) which is the founding philosophy of our nation, is that spending which provides equal benefit to all, but for which all would not contribute if left to their own devices (free riders). Defense spending is the clearest example of that concept.

Whether at war, or at peace, all Americans contribute to the defense of the nation. And rightfully so. This aspect of mutual contribution does not change simply because hostilities ensue.

Imoral spending (entitlement spending) is government spending that equates to a transfer of wealth from an individual who earned the money, to one or more individuals who did not earn the money. The benefits of such spending do not accrue equally to all Americans in the manner defense spending, police, highways and roads, public works, etc. do.

So your question is not only internally illogical, in that no such condition exists, but evades the moral distinction between entitlement spending and moral spending.

 

[taxedout]

So your question is not only internally illogical, in that no such condition exists, but evades the moral distinction between entitlement spending and moral spending.

:applaud :yt

 

[tryreading]

There is no concept of war in our country that could permit the context "someone else's". Unless you're speaking to providing military assistance to another nation that is at war.

Moral government spending, from the viewpoint of Classical Liberalism (known today as Conservatism) which is the founding philosophy of our nation, is that spending which provides equal benefit to all, but for which all would not contribute if left to their own devices (free riders). Defense spending is the clearest example of that concept.

Whether at war, or at peace, all Americans contribute to the defense of the nation. And rightfully so. This aspect of mutual contribution does not change simply because hostilities ensue.

Imoral spending (entitlement spending) is government spending that equates to a transfer of wealth from an individual who earned the money, to one or more individuals who did not earn the money. The benefits of such spending do not accrue equally to all Americans in the manner defense spending, police, highways and roads, public works, etc. do.

So your question is not only internally illogical, in that no such condition exists, but evades the moral distinction between entitlement spending and moral spending.

What is the moral distinction between entitlement spending and moral spending? You might explain the sentence before explaining said differences.

 

[Carl]

What is the moral distinction between entitlement spending and moral spending? You might explain the sentence before explaining said differences.

Try reading. :lol:

 

[tryreading]

Try reading. :lol:

Very original...

But what entitlements are 'immoral?'

 

[Carl]

But what entitlements are 'immoral?'

In my view, which is based on the fundaments of Classical Liberalism, any government spending that amounts to a wealth transfer is immoral. I don't subscribe to the notion that anyone has an "entitlement" in the first instance.

Charity is a willful act between a benefactor and his beneficiary. It is not a thing that can be compelled using the power of the State, in any moral sense.

To the extent that government spending provides a necessary benefit, such as National Defense, which every citizen benefits from equally in all cases it is moral.

I think that's exactly what I've already stated. I apologize if I was insufficiently clear.

 

[tryreading]

In my view, which is based on the fundaments of Classical Liberalism, any government spending that amounts to a wealth transfer is immoral. I don't subscribe to the notion that anyone has an "entitlement" in the first instance.

Charity is a willful act between a benefactor and his beneficiary. It is not a thing that can be compelled using the power of the State, in any moral sense.

To the extent that government spending provides a necessary benefit, such as National Defense, which every citizen benefits from equally in all cases it is moral.

I think that's exactly what I've already stated. I apologize if I was insufficiently clear.

As long as you aren't saying that things like Social Security and Medicare are immoral entitlements. On charity, I agree to an extent.

 

[Carl]

As long as you aren't saying that things like Social Security and Medicare are immoral entitlements. On charity, I agree to an extent.

Social Security is a pyramid scheme, and it is immoral on so many levels. First, unlike private investments, you don't own it. If you die at the age of 49, you get squat. If you had a private retirement plan, it would be yours if you died at 49, and would be a part of your estate handed down to your heirs.

Second, it's not an investment. Social Security taxes go straight into the general fund, and benefits are paid from current receipts. No investment, no wealth generation, nothing. It's nothing more than a Ponzi Scheme. It's a method to guarantee a minimum baseline of taxation, regardless of what the people want. It's a lie, a scam, a way to buy votes.

Medicaire is a wealth transfer from the young to the old. The young have virtually nothing, the old have virtually everything, as regards wealth. Yet the young must pay for the old.

It's a sick form of legislative vampirism whereby the old drink the blood of their grandchildren, as enforced by the full power of the State.

 

[tryreading]

Social Security is a pyramid scheme, and it is immoral on so many levels. First, unlike private investments, you don't own it. If you die at the age of 49, you get squat. If you had a private retirement plan, it would be yours if you died at 49, and would be a part of your estate handed down to your heirs.

Second, it's not an investment. Social Security taxes go straight into the general fund, and benefits are paid from current receipts. No investment, no wealth generation, nothing. It's nothing more than a Ponzi Scheme. It's a method to guarantee a minimum baseline of taxation, regardless of what the people want. It's a lie, a scam, a way to buy votes.

Medicaire is a wealth transfer from the young to the old. The young have virtually nothing, the old have virtually everything, as regards wealth. Yet the young must pay for the old.

It's a sick form of legislative vampirism whereby the old drink the blood of their grandchildren, as enforced by the full power of the State.

The systems have been managed improperly, but I have paid Social Security and Medicare withholding for over twenty years and I want the benefits. I am 'entitled' to them. Congress misused the money, I didn't. I want what I paid for.

 

[Carl]

I want what I paid for.

Me too, for thirty years. But it's not going to happen. There's simply no way our grandchildren are going to fork over 80% of their wages to us. And I don't blame them.

What's going to happen is they will vote the suckers out of office, they'll force the government to default on the promise of Social Security and Medicaire.

Unless we do something now, and I mean within the next decade, to get government out of the medical insurance industry and also privatize Social Security, you and I are going to get bupkus. There is no way we can force our grandchildren to pay the cost of our benefits. If they have no political method to correct the situation, they'll go totally black market like the Soviet Union.

You cannot force a class of people to give up 80% of their income for another class of people. They simply won't work in the legal market. That's the reality of the situation we're in.

Either that, or the government will raise the benefits age to 75, then to 85, thereby stealing back huge chunks of what we paid. No matter which way it goes, as long as the government is involved you and I are getting squat.

 

[Navy Pride]

We are getting off topic but the answer is to scrap the IRS and adapt a straight users tax.........That would pay for Medicare, Medicad, SS and every other program with money left over........

 

[Carl]

We are getting off topic but the answer is to scrap the IRS and adapt a straight users tax.........That would pay for Medicare, Medicad, SS and every other program with money left over........

I say we do that, plus we scrap Medicaire, Medicaide, SS and every other program. Then every American could retire a multi-millionaire just from the proceeds of his passbook savings account.

 

[Navy Pride]

I say we do that, plus we scrap Medicaire, Medicaide, SS and every other program. Then every American could retire a multi-millionaire just from the proceeds of his passbook savings account.

I don't know about that since I am on SS.. I tell you what though if I was a youngster I would jump all over the presidents plan to privatize a portion of your SS and invest it........If I had been able to do that I would be a millionaire 3 or 4 times over today........Its sad that young people don't get it though.......

 

[Carl]

I don't know about that since I am on SS..

Well we'd grandfather in all the current subscribers, of course, pops!

 

[tryreading]

Me too, for thirty years. But it's not going to happen. There's simply no way our grandchildren are going to fork over 80% of their wages to us. And I don't blame them.

What's going to happen is they will vote the suckers out of office, they'll force the government to default on the promise of Social Security and Medicaire.

Unless we do something now, and I mean within the next decade, to get government out of the medical insurance industry and also privatize Social Security, you and I are going to get bupkus. There is no way we can force our grandchildren to pay the cost of our benefits. If they have no political method to correct the situation, they'll go totally black market like the Soviet Union.

You cannot force a class of people to give up 80% of their income for another class of people. They simply won't work in the legal market. That's the reality of the situation we're in.

Either that, or the government will raise the benefits age to 75, then to 85, thereby stealing back huge chunks of what we paid. No matter which way it goes, as long as the government is involved you and I are getting squat.

We need to jail some of the Congressmen (who are still alive) for stealing from a pension fund, which is happening to some corporate officers of private companies now. Jail them, fine them, and seize their houses. If a CEO takes pension money and redirects it to his company's operating funds, he has broken the law, and can be jailed. The same should happen in Congress. Also, about Medicare, its system is in worse shape than SS, and isn't being addressed at all.

NP said some SS money should be privately invested by the payer, which is a good idea. Also, IRAs work, they are private, and someone who starts investing in one at an early age well be well off at retirement. People are starting to learn about this now. It should be taught from first grade.

 

[Navy Pride]

Well we'd grandfather in all the current subscribers, of course, pops!

6'2" 195 lbs, hard as steel, not quite ready for the old folks home yet there young fella......

 

[Navy Pride]

[QUOTENP said some SS money should be privately invested by the payer, which is a good idea. Also, IRAs work, they are private, and someone who starts investing in one at an early age well be well off at retirement. People are starting to learn about this now. It should be taught from first grade.][/QUOTE]

Like I said if I was a youngster I would jump all over those private SS accounts.........Even if you put your money in a safe passbook saving account you can make 4% interest where on SS presently you get about 1%......