Ask Me Help Desk - Birth control pills

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

Your empathy for disadvantaged kids abroad is admirable. To bad it doesn't extend to the ones here,

Do you REALLY want to challenge my compassion for children anywhere? Do you REALLY want to go there?

Quote:

as you are for the candidate that wants you and the poor kids and their parents to pay for them to get even bigger tax cuts to pee on your head.

The left apparently has no concept of incentives and thinks rich people are stupid. You whine about the wealthy, who already pay most taxes, but promote policies that encourage them to do exactly what you're pi$$ed about. You're peeing on your own heads.

Quote:

What's confusing is that you are against abortions (so am I to be fair), and birth control pills (the best solution to abortions)

.

Wrong, I am not against contraceptives that PREVENT pregnancy. I just happen to believe the first amendment trumps the mandate. You apparently believe crushing the first amendment and forcing the church to violate its beliefs or give up her ministries is no big deal. You might want to think about that the next time you imply I don't care about poor kids in America. I'm not the one trying to close ministries to the poor.

Quote:

But of course I can understand it! You would extract money from the economy, hide it, and forget about your own country, and that's okay? Let me know how that voucher works for you in your old age! Maybe your kids will like it too!

You can have policies that encourage success or you can have policies that punish success. Your choice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

It is that straightforward Tut. I don't know where entrepreneurs came in, the comparison is between charitable organizations and the government. But the question was "Why do you need some organization to do this for you?"

It's obvious, World Vision can do much more with combined resources than I can with $35.00 on my own.

"Why do you need some government organization doing this for you?"

The short answer is that the government must play a major role in this process.

Many, if not most charitable organizations operate on a altruistic basis.In other words, their motives are self-less. They provide help where needed regardless of politics. As you say they are much more efficient in distributing resources to where it is needed.

However, you cannot have a society distributing resources based solely on altruism. Altruism is one of many reasons resources should be distributed but it is not the only motivation- nor can it be the only motivation.

Another motive for distributing resources can found in the self-serving individual. These individuals see that by promoting their own welfare they are promoting the welfare of others in the process. I am not disputing this- but the important point is that this represents a political position.

Why? Because when these people object to governments taking their money and distributing it inefficiently. They also object to the fact that the payer has no part in this redistribution process.

Two different motives that can appear to be the same but are in fact very different.

No one has said government has no role but we are talking about two different things. You want to talk motives when I am only addressing results.

Fact is and you seem to agree, the private sector is far more efficient regardless of motive.

I have no doubt that liberals are sincere (for the most part) in helping others via government means. In practice the government can't touch the efficiency of the private sector, so why keep investing more hope and resources in a failed system while destroying what works?

It's not logical.

I think we take the failures in the system, and correct them rather than tear down the structure of what's in place. I think I can agree that inefficient results are not logical, and the intended result can be ineffective.

It doesn't have to be that way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

I think we take the failures in the system, and correct them rather than tear down the structure of whats in place. I think I can agree that inefficient results are not logical, and the intended result can be ineffective.

It doesn't have to be that way.

Ok, let's correct the failures. You don't do that by throwing more money at it and gutting the welfare work requirements.

If unemployment is 8%, then what's the point of having strict work requirements that cannot be met? How about some mandatory training, and day cares for the working moms with no skills? Maybe bus passes for those that don't, or can't drive, or have no car?

Requiring work when there is little or none is not very fair is it? I mean what work would you be requiring them to do for their benefits?

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

If unemployment is 8%, then whats the point of having strict work requirements that cannot be met? How about some mandatory training, and day cares for the working moms with no skills? Maybe bus passes for those that don't, or can't drive, or have no car?

Requiring work when there is little or none is not very fair is it?

I said nothing about punishing people if they can't find work did I? Let's discuss what is in evidence and stop the assumptions.

You can't eliminate work requirements and expect people to have any incentive to get off welfare, which should be reserved for the truly needy. It's likes the voter ID uproar, a fraudulent vote disenfranchises those who play by the rules. If a guy can find work but sucks the system dry anyway it takes food from the one who needs it. And a working member of society contributes to the benefit of all.

I thought libs were about fairness and what works. Well, are they or is that just more bluster?

Quote:

The nature of government is such that programs are almost always implemented in a way to benefit those with a vested interest in them rather than to actually achieve the programs' stated goals… Among the nonpoor with a vital interest in antipoverty programs are social workers and government employees who administer the programs and business people, such as landlords and physicians, who are paid to provide services to the poor. Thus, anti-poverty programs are usually more concerned with protecting the prerogatives of the bureaucracy than with actually fighting poverty.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/PA694.pdf
The measure of success is not how many people are administered to ;it's how well they are administered to . That is where private charities run circles around government run charity.

And now for some Christmas in July ;courtesy of Scrooge the lib .

Quote:

"At this festive season of the year, Mr. Scrooge," said the gentleman, taking up a pen, "it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and Destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir."

"Are there no prisons?" asked Scrooge.

"Plenty of prisons," said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.

"And the Union workhouses?" demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?"

"They are. Still," returned the gentleman, "I wish I could say they were not."

"The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?" said Scrooge.

"Both very busy, sir."

"Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course," said Scrooge. "I'm very glad to hear it."

"Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude," returned the gentleman, "a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?"

"Nothing!" Scrooge replied.

"You wish to be anonymous?"

"I wish to be left alone," said Scrooge.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

I said nothing about punishing people if they can't find work did I? Let's discuss what is in evidence and stop the assumptions.

You can't eliminate work requirements and expect people to have any incentive to get off of welfare, which should be reserved for the truly needy. It's likes the voter ID uproar, a fraudulent vote disenfranchises those who play by the rules. If a guy can find work but sucks the system dry anyway it takes food from the one who needs it. And a working member of society contributes to the benefit of all.

I thought libs were about fairness and what works. Well, are they or is that just more bluster?

I made no assertion that you would punish people so quit making up stuff,Geeeeeeee!

I suggested we change the work requirement to reflect that there are more people than jobs. I was looking back at how other presidents dealt with recessions and they all grew the government at least 3% temporarily to let the economy grow on its own.

I mean they don't have to be paper pushing bureaucrats. Pipeline technicians and inspectors and water, and air testers, and even a few building inspectors could be useful to all of us.

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

I mean they don't have to be paper pushing bureaucrats. Pipeline technicians and inspectors and water, and air testers, and even a few building inspectors could be useful to all of us.

I like former President Clinton's idea of paying people to wield a paintbrush and paint the roofs of buildings white, or turn those roofs into gardens. Chicago is creating urban gardens for food panties and food desert areas out of empty lots or after tearing down derelict buildings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Chicago is creating urban gardens for food panties and food desert areas

Hello Carol:

What are these food panties you speak of? Do they come in chocolate?

excon

And you thought Chicago was a city full of crime, didn't you. That's just a front, the story that we tell out loud

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

I made no assertion that you would punish people so quit making up stuff,Geeeee.

Easily deduced from your comments. I'm not the one making stuff up.

You deduced wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

No one has said government has no role but we are talking about two different things. You want to talk motives when I am only addressing results.

Fact is and you seem to agree, the private sector is far more efficient regardless of motive.

I have no doubt that liberals are sincere (for the most part) in helping others via government means. In practice the government can't touch the efficiency of the private sector, so why keep investing more hope and resources in a failed system while destroying what works?

It's not logical.

Actually we are talking about the same thing. The private sector will always be more efficient because it gains results. Ipso facto, it's motivation is result gaining. No surprises here.

However, organizations are not governments. The private sector being touted as a substitute for government welfare administration is when we find ourselves on a slippery slope.

The important point being overlooked here is that a social contract is an agreement between government and individuals. It is not an agreement between government and private organizations. The Preamble to the Constitution provides an insight into how the social contract works. It is a case of, "We the people",not we the corporations.

Your Constitution is a social contract. Part of the deal is that individuals empower governments to look after the general welfare. Private organizations have an important role to play in making social welfare more efficient, but they should only ever be a signatory to the social contract. They should not make the contracts. Government should always maintain a coercive role when it comes to the general welfare.

If you don't think that some sections of the community fail to understand the importance of this distinction then we need look no further than Tanner's study.

Tom's link to the Tanner study doesn't tell us anything we don't already know in terms of increasing costs of welfare and inefficiencies we find in the programmes being provided. Everything is fine until we reach the concluding remarks. Suddenly we get these bolts from the blue:

We need to create the conditions and incentives that will make it easy for people to escape poverty and the best way is through the free market because the current War on Poverty is a failure.

AND

We should reform the failed school system.

Ok, I'll go along with everything up until the concluding summary of the study. Me thinks they have stuck in a conclusion from a different study?

Where are such things as the free market system providing the best solution and reforming the failed school system discussed in in main part of the study? The answer is they are not discussed in relation to any of the material presented. These comments are tacked on the end as some type of adjunct.

Why are we continually bombarded with poor quality studies when it comes to social welfare?

Tut

Interesting Tut, and unless I am mistaken a partnership that allows companies to meet their employment needs through funding, or subsidizing the many levels of education would keep jobs here in America, and reform the educational system into a more effective endeavor.

That sounds like a way to either drive down costs, or save the government a lot of money. Or will it extract even more loot from a cash strapped government?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TUT317

Actually we are talking about the same thing. The private sector will always be more efficient because it gains results. Ipso facto, it's motivation is result gaining. No surprises here.

However, organizations are not governments. The private sector being touted as a substitute for government welfare administration is when we find ourselves on a slippery slope.

No one has suggested eliminating government welfare, but in my opinion the more dangerous slippery slope is touting government as a replacement for charity.

Quote:

The important point being overlooked here is that a social contract is an agreement between government and individuals. It is not an agreement between government and private organizations. The Preamble to the Constitution provides an insight into how the social contract works. It is a case of, "We the people",not we the corporations.

Again, in reference to the original question you're assuming things that on my part are not in evidence. No one is suggesting eliminating the "coercive role" of government. What I am against is expanding it to the point where the 99 percent are just wards of the state.

My rights and my liberty are at stake here, Tut. You can't find a more perfect example of this than the contraceptive mandate which in essence forces the church to violate her conscience or cease her ministries to the very people this government claims to be looking out for. Our government is not prepared to take on the food pantries, soup kitchens, homeless shelters, orphanages, etc. that will be closed if this mandate prevails.

Jefferson argued “to take from one … in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”

What happened to that being a part of the social contract?

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”

What happened to that being a part of the social contract?

Hello again, Steve:

What happened is, my street has potholes... What?? You don't drive on the street?

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

What happened is, my street has potholes... What??? You don't drive on the street?

excon

I reckon your city should fix its potholes. You're veering off the path wildly again. Not wanting to buy everyone's birth control pills does not indicate I don't want potholes fixed. At least when I pay taxes to maintain the roads I get the benefit of using the roads. If I buy your wife's contraceptives I don't get the benefit of using your wife.

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

You deduced wrong.

So forcing someone to work when there is none or lose your benefits isn't a punishment? OK, we'll call it a penalty.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

So forcing someone to work when there is none or lose your benefits isn't a punishment? OK, we'll call it a penalty.

No... It's a tax!!

But Speech, that was your position! YOU are the one who said people should be required to work to get benefits. If there is no work, then what? No benefits?

And because a person pays for insurance through PREMIUMS, and the INSURANCE COMPANY pays for the meds, whatever they are, doesn't mean YOU are paying for them. Or the church for that matter. What part of the INSURANCE company paying the benefits to its CUSTOMERS is it you don't get??

All of a sudden you think a church can dictate what private business does to service its customers? That's absurd. You rather the church replace the law, and the government. That's absurd too!

I don't recall the church having the right to get between a patient and physician, or stop a pharmacy from filling a perscription from the doctor, and INSURANCE paying for it. I also don't recall the church offering free insurance either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

No ....It's a tax !!!!!

A tax on who? The lazy guy who takes your money because he chose not to buy insurance and goes to the emergency room? I thought you guys hated paying for other peoples stuff?

Almost 50 % of American households already receive Federal Government assistance . How big do you want the safety net to grow ?Means-tested programs, designed to help the needy, accounted for the largest share of recipients last year. Some 34.2 percent of Americans lived in a household that received benefits such as food stamps, subsidized housing, cash welfare or Medicaid.

It wouldn't have to grow if job creators were making jobs here, instead of China. I mean a waitress or cook at Taco Bell doesn't make enough for rent, food, AND a baysitter while she works.

You know the working poor, mostly KIDS!!

Yeah life it tough. As I recall;I didn't start at the top wage scale of my profession either . There were plenty of Taco Bell like jobs in my youth ;and worse .Perhaps if someone was giving me a bunch of freebees while I worked those jobs ,there may not have been the incentive to move on to better jobs.

Things have changed since you walked a mile in a blizzard with no shoes on to go to school, and there are a lot more Taco Bells, but not a lot of higher paying jobs to go to, incentive or NOT!

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

But Speech, that was your position! YOU are the one who said people should be required to work to get benefits. If there is no work, then what? No benefits?

IF a person is able to work and can find work they should be required to do so. That's my position, and quite reasonable. Gutting the work requirements that decreased our welfare roles is stupid, it only promotes more abuse of the system. Benjamin Franklin observed while living in Europe, “in different countries … the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”

It's even worse today, just look at the fits being thrown in Greece, France and Spain over the thought of losing some of their precious government benefits even in the face of it bringing their countries to complete economic failure.

And since you love facts, did you know that the percentage of poor declined from 1947 until the war on poverty and its massive spending increases?

So your choice again, do you want to go with what works or is that so old school?

Quote:

And because a person pays for insurance through PREMIUMS, and the INSURANCE COMPANY pays for the meds, whatever they are, doesn't mean YOU are paying for them. Or the church for that matter.

You simply can't separate the two no matter how much thou doth protest.

Quote:

What part of the INSURANCE company paying the benefits to its CUSTOMERS is it you don't get??

What part of without my premiums no benefits are paid don't you get?

Quote:

All of a sudden you think a church can dictate what private business does to service its customers? That's absurd. You rather the church replace the law, and the government. That's absurd too!

If I'm providing the coverage I get to choose the coverage. Duh.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Gutting the work requirements that decreased our welfare roles is stupid, it only promotes more abuse of the system.

But much of the manufacturing and call-center work has been moved overseas.

Quote:

Quote by Speech!
If I'm providing the coverage I get to choose the coverage. Duh.

You get to choose from what they OFFER, Duh!

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

Things have changed since you walked a mile in a blizzard with no shoes on to go to school, and there are a lot more Taco Bells, but not a lot of higher paying jobs to go to, incentive or NOT!!

I think the job situation was a lot worse when I entered the work force.
Unemployment peaked above 10% when I entered the workforce and was also pretty bad in the years after I graduated . What I recall was that when Mickey D's had a job opening there was a line outside of eager applicants. On top of that ,interest rates were almost 20% on some things like credit card and some loans ,and the official inflation rate was in double digits too.

I didn't park my asset in my parents home ,do whatever the equivant of social media all day long and get a government payout for 99 weeks. I took jobs that are evidently beneath the kids today . I say that because whenever I get served in a fast food store today ;the person serving me barely speaks English . So yeah ;things are indeed not the same as when I was starting . But then again... I started getting paid for doing work before I entered High School. I don't see kids shovelling driveways ,mowing lawns ,doing other odd jobs here in blue NY .

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

I didn't park my asset in my parents home ,do whatever the equivant of social media all day long

There was no equivalent except daytime TV (soaps) and reading books. Working was a far sight better and much more lucrative.

Quote:

Working was a far sight better and much more lucrative

As it is today. I know what I'm talking about . I don't see the ambition or drive from many of the kids. Because one takes a job they are over qualified for doesn't mean they should either assume that is where they will be the rest of their lives ;or even worse... give up and stop looking because Uncle Sam gave you a year and a half reprieve (followed by the new 2009 lax requirements for disability eligibility ) .

It all goes back to the feeling of entitlement too many of them have been infused with since birth. And who did that to them?

Get out of your neighborhood, the kids here are busting there butts.

Tal ,yes I'm sure in a red state they are. It all goes to that thing WG mentioned prior to your response. The kids here have their own personal butt wipers. And kids in your state are experiencing a private sector energy boom . Now I tell kids here all the time to go to Texas and the Dakotas where a young person can make something of themselves.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

The kids here have their own personal butt wipers. and kids in your state are experiencing a private sector energy boom

Hello again, tom:

Sounds like a good reason to FURNISH FREE birth control pills to the libs... It's even BETTER than voter suppression. They'll make themselves extinct.

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

You get to choose from what they OFFER, Duh!

And if I don't like what they offer or they won't tailor to my needs I can go elsewhere. Duh.

Yes speech you always have that option

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

And if I don't like what they offer or they won't tailor to my needs I can go elsewhere. Duh.

Exactly, that's the free market.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

My rights and my liberty are at stake here, Tut. You can't find a more perfect example of this than the contraceptive mandate which in essence forces the church to violate her conscience or cease her ministries to the very people this government claims to be looking out for. Our government is not prepared to take on the food pantries, soup kitchens, homeless shelters, orphanages, etc. that will be closed if this mandate prevails.

If this amounts to your position then I am not prepared to challenge it. I want to be the last person to claim you fears are unwarranted. I don't know what it is like to live in a society whereby you feel as though you are in a state of siege from various quarters.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlessx

Jefferson argued “to take from one … in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”

What happened to that being a part of the social contract?

I don't really know what happened to the social contract in light of this quote.

This is largely because it seems to be a partial quote. I would also need to know the context of the quote.

I think we have talked about the problems of 'contextomy' in another post. I am not saying it is a problem here- but it may well be.

Tut