3 ms·

> Your argument is that we should not pass anything to help those affected by the virus and help prevent the spread No. My argument is that if we don't sunset

by all2 7y ago

> Your argument is that we should not pass anything to help those affected by the virus and help prevent the spread No. My argument is that if we don't sunset socialist policies, they will become rule of law. Without a time-limit provision the socialist programs in this bill are partisan. > we should also end medicare, medicaid, snap and social security because that's not what the framers intended Yes. Social Security removes a person's ability to choose how they spend and save the money that gets shuttled to the government. All social programs create dependency on the state; a state of being that we call "unhealthy" when it is between two consenting adults. I think that it is even less healthy when a person becomes dependent on a bureaucratic behemoth that does not have their best interest at heart. I'll point you to the cases of Alfie Evans [0] and Bloomberg's comments on death panels [1]. Social programs aren't about helping people (even though they are talked about that way). Social programs are about power and removing choice from people. > Condemning the poor to death is not the way to go. I do not condemn the poor to death. I say that the states are responsible for their people, not the Federal government. This isn't an all-or-nothing proposition. It is possible for states, family, friends, etc. to see to the welfare of their own and for the Fed to stay in its lane. No one is condemned to anything. [0] https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/25/health/alfie-evans-appeal-bn/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/25/health/alfie-evans-appeal-bn/... [1] https://twitter.com/CANCEL_SAM/status/1229127380402393088 https://twitter.com/CANCEL_SAM/status/1229127380402393088 [edit for spelling]

crooked-v 7y ago
> Social programs aren't about helping people One of the primary arguments against Social Security at the time of its enactment was that it would reduce the labor by allowing more people to safely retire in old age. I think we can safely say that this is, in fact, what actually happened.
wonderwonder 7y ago
What is the difference between the states or federal government running social programs. Different states have vastly different financial capabilities, that's why they each pay into the federal government who then provides the same benefits to all regardless of their state. This prevents people in a state such as Kentucky receiving a tiny percentage of the benefits an economy like California could provide. I get we are coming at this from vastly different perspectives but I see no issue with a social program such as sick leave, and medical care becoming permanent. I would argue this pandemic is a strong argument for universal health care. The poorest among us by not getting tested can spread the virus to those who are able to afford getting tested and treated. If I am a poor hourly worker and I get sick, I am still going to go to work because if I stay home my kids don't eat. When I am at work I likely make food for wealthier people who then get sick due to my lack of ability to afford to take time off. Guaranteed paid time off fixes this. This pandemic is not a one time event, there will be more and they could be worse. Of course social programs are about helping people. If I am poor and cannot afford food for my family, what choice has SNAP taken from me? If I am am cold and cannot afford heat, what choice has LIHEAP taken from me?

by all2 7y ago

crooked-v 7y ago

> Social programs aren't about helping people One of the primary arguments against Social Security at the time of its enactment was that it would reduce the labor by allowing more people to safely retire in old age. I think we can safely say that this is, in fact, what actually happened.

wonderwonder 7y ago

What is the difference between the states or federal government running social programs. Different states have vastly different financial capabilities, that's why they each pay into the federal government who then provides the same benefits to all regardless of their state. This prevents people in a state such as Kentucky receiving a tiny percentage of the benefits an economy like California could provide. I get we are coming at this from vastly different perspectives but I see no issue with a social program such as sick leave, and medical care becoming permanent. I would argue this pandemic is a strong argument for universal health care. The poorest among us by not getting tested can spread the virus to those who are able to afford getting tested and treated. If I am a poor hourly worker and I get sick, I am still going to go to work because if I stay home my kids don't eat. When I am at work I likely make food for wealthier people who then get sick due to my lack of ability to afford to take time off. Guaranteed paid time off fixes this. This pandemic is not a one time event, there will be more and they could be worse. Of course social programs are about helping people. If I am poor and cannot afford food for my family, what choice has SNAP taken from me? If I am am cold and cannot afford heat, what choice has LIHEAP taken from me?