a question about human rights

uh, its called communism, liberalism, etc.

That's actually a very interesting question... interested to hear the views

is this an Asia Carrera question?

i'd hit it

Well, it is actually more of Personal choice thing lets look at it this way:

Canada has a very good welfare system you pay out the ass for it however, taxes are in excess of 50% plus tax on everything you buy however their is a relatively low crime rate and the streets are safe.

USA has an alright welfare system you pay for it but there is a lot of crime however you pay a nominal fee and have a lot of upward mobility opportunties(the best in the world).

Mexico has no welfare system, lots of crime and if you have money you will soon enough be a victim.

Basically you are paying not to have this guy grow up and shoot you one night cause he needed some cash ;)

Brian its your personal choice where do you want to live? LOL

Canada has a very good welfare system you pay out the ass for it however, taxes are in excess of 50% plus tax on everything you buy however their is a relatively low crime rate and the streets are safe.

*** I'm under the impression that violent crime is on the rise in Canada

USA has an alright welfare system
Mexico has no welfare system,

*** so what gives people the right to have kids anywhere in the world and demand that I pay for them? this is the question I'm asking . . where are my rights in this? do I not have rights as a human to spend my resources on my own children, to spend the money on their education and health care. I'm paying $350 a month for health ins for myself , my daughter is still with my ex for another year then I'll pick her up . . + I'm paying for her collage stuff . . why must I pay for all the people that have kid with no intention of ever paying their way? what give them the right to have children and demand that I pay? . . . this is my question .

It is odd to see an intelligent answer on GFY.

Nicely done!

Violent rise in Canada, yeah if you are directly involved in gangs, drugs or both.

Anyway what do you mean paying whos kids ar eyou paying for?

well 90% of the babies born in LA are illigeals, 80% of the blacks are on welfare . . 1/2 of eastern europe is here in LA on welfare . . you're kidding me right?

While I generally agree with most rights and freedoms, I heartily disagree with freedom of religion. I believe that America should adopt a policy of freedom FROM religion, banning religion and ending the debate of whose god wears the shinier hat. As for kid thing... I can see your point, but the only thing I would ask you to consider is that child had no say in the matter of being born into this world, he is a victim just like you the tax-payer is. If anything severely punish the parents by removing their ability to reproduce in the future if they don't want to care for their kids (minus rape victims, etc.).

what hold on, how are you paying for them?

A vote for a Liberal candidate. The same people who are looking for handouts are the ones who are lining up to put the people in office who make it possible.

It's simple economics, and they don't need much schooling to grasp it -- the politicians CAMPAIGN on this shit in poor areas.

Because living in LA on benefit is better than living in Czech or Poland.

Your racist remark just destroyed your credibility.

Who's forcing you to pay for their kids? Oh, you're referring to Social Security maybe?

Social Security isn't mandatory. It isn't in the US Constitution. It's something your elected representatives have passed into law on your behalf so that America isn't even more of an "every man woman and child for themselves" society than it is now.

If you want to scrap Social Security then vote for a party that wants to scrap it.

But don't badmouth "human rights". You and your elected representive aren't being forced to maintain Social Security by anyone other than public opinion.

What party did you vote for last election? Was it part of their platform to scrap Social Security completely? If yes, you didn't vote Republican or Democrat. I can't imagine who you voted for because not too many parties, even among the fringe, want to scrap Social Security completely.

America doesn't suffer from too much "human rights", it suffers from bad government.

The poor are one of the worse at voting. It's changing but not that fast.

Wanton, why do we as a society look after people less fortunate than ourselves? Because we care. It's that simple.

Yes we could do it better, but until you can show a working alternative don't attack a system that works.

AllStar's post pointed it out. would you like parts of LA to be more like Soweto?

Also it's about distribution of wealth, give a millionaire a 5% tax cut and he's likely to spend it in the Bahamas, give it to someone in Downtown LA and he will probably spend it in the local store.

Or are you pissed off because if they are on welfare they're not turning up to pose nude?

I thought this was going to be a question about why people with children are given extra tax allowances: something which has always puzzled me. A shame it turned out to be just another bash state benefits thread...

If you are going to start pulling apart the inequities of taxes and benefits, either declare that you have an entrenched view about a particular aspect or else go through the whole smorgasbord from top to bottom. There is something patently naive about a middle class guy whingeing on about how he pays for someone's baby, when he may be having to take out loans to pay for his kids' college while some wealthier guy has had the funds stashed away in tax-free trusts since the day his children were born. Sure there are inequities, they run from top to bottom and the middle class is mostly on the losing side. But don't kid yourself the picture would change too much if benefits for the poor were slashed.

If you wanted to be thorough, you could even ask, why in the US and most of western Europe, there are sliding rates of tax on everything from income to property? Why do you get tax relief on a mortage but not when you buy a Harley Davidson? If we are good capitalists, shouldn't every individual pay exactly the same tax regardless of income and how he/she chooses to spend that income?

I live in a town of 10,000 people. The equivalent of the population of 7 towns like this one live homeless in our capital city. In that same city, men living a mile apart have life-spans that are 20 years different. If you can be proud of a country in which those are realities and you are damn sure that you, your children, your grandchildren, etc., will always be able to handle every speedbump life puts in their paths, by all means campaign to cut benefits. Don't be too surprized if you have to spend all the money you save on security and protection, but hey, it's your choice.

When you are done with that, maybe you can do something about the US having the most expensive education system in the world, yet one which functions so badly. Then perhaps you can fix the most expensive health care system so that it costs less and serves people better. Lots of ways to save yourself money if you put your mind to it...

Depends on the election. A couple of Democrats around here got caught paying poor people to vote for them (overtly, not the way they usually do, with welfare), and having dead people vote about 7 times.

I don't subscribe to the bullshit of either party, but I look on with amusement.

Brian...
I am sorry that immigrants bother you.
However rest assured that most of the immigrants I have met work very hard.
I do not want to cut my lawn. They will and will do it with no health benefits, nothing other then $20. When I moved 3 months ago, the "American" guys who showed up said they wouldn't move me cause they had to go down a hill with the furniture. I phoned the office and the guy laughed in my face and hung up on me. I had the flu and was really sick and they just fucked me over, I called every moving company in the phone book and said they wouldn't do it.
Fuck it I went down to Home Depot and picked up two guys from El Salvador(a brutally poor country) and they did everything and more and with a smile on their faces and I paid them $100 each. The next day my girlfriend moved and the movers were swearing the entire time, broke her dishes, smashed a cabinet, dropped the fridge and then fucked her over on the bill...
I tell you something if it wasn't for immigrants the USA wouldn't be what it is today.
If you take economics and I can't freakin remember which course it is but it states that for a country to prosper it must have poor immigrants come in it is the only way to shift people up the ladder as they come in on the bottom rung. They have to buy everything and they will take the bottom jobs to do so.
Don't worry about the benifits that the gov't pays some poor person, cause I can tell you something every penny of that goes back into the economy. Tell me this where does all the money go from the American Capitalists who destroy companies and loot them go?

Come on Brian...

tax allowances are far different than hand outs. A tax allowance is given to someone who ACTIVELY EARNS MONEY AND PAYS TAXES.

I have an entrenched view that says everyone should pay the same amount of tax but I'll settle for the same percentage. The rich should not be taxed at a higher rate just because the voting pool is predominantly NOT rich and politicians cater to that.
[/QUOTE]There is something patently naive about a middle class guy whingeing on about how he pays for someone's baby, when he may be having to take out loans to pay for his kids' college while some wealthier guy has had the funds stashed away in tax-free trusts since the day his children were born.[/QUOTE]
No, actually they aren't naive, they understand the world. They understand that people who talk about tax free trusts just like the status quo and aren't serious about change for the better. Most responsible people have children when they can afford them and only have as many as they think they can afford. Why should a middle class family who wants 3 kids, only have two because so much is taken in taxes they can't afford the third.
The problem is not the rich, the problem is the poor and the politician's them.



well, thats only because the polititians would spend it elsewhere.


Again, the sliding scale exists because of the "stick it to the rich" mentality that politicians and people who talk about tax free trusts can muster. If we all paid the same, the middle class would stop voting for polititians who do nothing but spend money.

hmmmm, here in my state they stopped paying welfare mothers more money when they had more kids and guess what? they magically stopped having kids.
Lets not pretend that most people living in poverty aren't there because of their bad choices or those of their parents.

this is nothing more than a falicy. we don't lead the world in eveerything because we're dumb and lucky. the bottom of the barrel whom we presently pay to reproduce, drag down our overall statistics.
same with healthcare.
when people who have all the money in the world get sick, they come to America to get cured.

you're kidding me right? you pay taxes? our roads and hi-ways are shit, the schools systems are shit, the jails are over full. . because there are not enough people working and too many peolple taking a free ride, having as many kids as they feel like with out any resposibility . . and I'm being 'regultaled' to death because these people are pushing the responsibilty of rasing their kids to the gov and using my $$$ (and yours)

you're avoiding a simple question with rhetoric, convoluted theories and unrelated issues.

Here's the question again: 'what give people the right to have kids and make me pay for it?'

ahahahaha, they burn it to light their cigars.

I agree, your parents should have been sterilized.

What right. There is no right that exists. It is however one of the threads that helps hold society together

Some of my money in taxes every year go to support the local fire department. While I've never needed the services of the local fire department, you can bet your ass I WANT my tax dollars to go to the local fire department because when I NEED them I'll want them to be there.

Our tax dollars are used for things we don't want or need. Why should the tax dollars of someone barely making a living in LA go to a freeway in NORCAL for the rich folk to get to Tahoe quicker? At the same time, why should my tax dollars go to build a bridge in LA some 400 miles away from me?

Personally I think anyone making less than $50k a year shouldn't have to pay taxes.

The implication of your "simple" question is that you would like to keep the taxes you pay for yourself. Fair enough, at least it would be if the economic equation were a simple as you maintain your question is. Your question might also seem less agenda based if not only might you save money by making the lives of the poor more miserable than they are already, but also if it were one of the more significant aspects of your expenditure that offered potential for saving.

Go back 50 years if you like and the statistics are solid right the way through. Every time poverty in this country rises, crime rises and unfortunately some criminals are smart enough to realize how little sense it makes to prey on others no better off than themselves. The numbers are equally solid in illustrating that spending on police does not reduce the crime rate. So forget morality and be strictly practical: would you rather spend some tax dollars and actually help alleviate crime via alleviating poverty, or are you so dead set against the poor that you would rather waste the money on the illusion of security?

That's just one angle. Another is, do you have the slightest idea how much of your taxes and your taxed income will be spent on you and your family's health and education, during your lifetime and how much higher than necessary those expenses are? You don't have to get too deep into the calculations before it becomes obvious that the sum involved is far greater than the small part of your taxes which benefit the poor. So again, is your concern to get the most value from your dollar, or are you simply regurgitating secondhand prejudice?

In short, your question was itself somewhat transparent rhetoric. Foolish too. People rant against the poor as if, should all support be withdrawn, they will simply fade away. Nope. We live in a more-or-less stable, more-or-less law-abiding society solely because the vast majority of our citizens have a vested interest in it staying that way. That's the only reason: not police forces, nor armies and certainly not the inherent goodness of the human animal. If we were foolish enough to take away the limited safety nets which exist, how long do you imagine it would be before millions of people began asking themselves why they should tolerate such a state of affairs?

I suppose we could gun them all down. But then what? Western economies depend on a surplus of demand over supply, so once we have eliminated all of today's poor, the dynamics of our society will be busy creating new poor. Shoot them all too. And so on. Then one day it is your turn...

I'm sorry, but I get p*ssed at the smugness of many middle class people, because another thing the statistics show without question is that since the 1950's far more people are slipping down the economic ladder than climbing up it. Very, very few people any longer succeed in escaping whatever path their parents' economic status put them on. So what is to be smug about? Most are no more responsible for whatever success they enjoy than the poor are for being poor. If we were penalized for failing to match up to reasonable expectations, over 90% of us would be guilty.

they've had this discussion in LA several times concerning the fires in Malibu . . why should tax payers rebuild rich peoples homes in a fire prone area?

Interesting, a trickle up theory.

The implication of your "simple" question is that you would like to keep the taxes you pay for yourself.

***** nope, simple question with no implications at all: why should people have the right to have children and force socity to pay for them

Fair enough, at least it would be if the economic equation were a simple as you maintain your question is. Your question might also seem less agenda based if not only might you save money by making the lives of the poor more miserable than they are already, but also if it were one of the more significant aspects of your expenditure that offered potential for saving.

Go back 50 years if you like and the statistics are solid right the way through. Every time poverty in this country rises, crime rises and unfortunately some criminals are smart enough to realize how little sense it makes to prey on others no better off than themselves. The numbers are equally solid in illustrating that spending on police does not reduce the crime rate. So forget morality and be strictly practical: would you rather spend some tax dollars and actually help alleviate crime via alleviating poverty, or are you so dead set against the poor that you would rather waste the money on the illusion of security?

***** you're avioding the question again, simple question with no implications at all: why should people have, the right to have children and force socity to pay for them



That's just one angle. Another is, do you have the slightest idea how much of your taxes and your taxed income will be spent on you and your family's health and education, during your lifetime and how much higher than necessary those expenses are? You don't have to get too deep into the calculations before it becomes obvious that the sum involved is far greater than the small part of your taxes which benefit the poor. So again, is your concern to get the most value from your dollar, or are you simply regurgitating secondhand prejudice?

******** so your idea of answering a simple question is to imply that I'm uninformed, prejudiced and semi intelligent. Simple question one more time: why should people have the right to have children and force socity to pay for them?


In short, your question was itself somewhat transparent rhetoric. Foolish too. People rant against the poor as if, should all support be withdrawn, they will simply fade away. Nope. We live in a more-or-less stable, more-or-less law-abiding society solely because the vast majority of our citizens have a vested interest in it staying that way. That's the only reason: not police forces, nor armies and certainly not the inherent goodness of the human animal. If we were foolish enough to take away the limited safety nets which exist, how long do you imagine it would be before millions of people began asking themselves why they should tolerate such a state of affairs?

*** now your calling me a fool and again not answering a simple question . . what right to people have to have kids thay can't afford and make me pay?



I suppose we could gun them all down. But then what? Western economies depend on a surplus of demand over supply, so once we have eliminated all of today's poor, the dynamics of our society will be busy creating new poor. Shoot them all too. And so on. Then one day it is your turn...


**** still no answer from you but you are making very negitive asumptions about my chracter with no real world reference to me at all . .




I'm sorry, but I get p*ssed at the smugness of many middle class people, because another thing the statistics show without question is that since the 1950's far more people are slipping down the economic ladder than climbing up it. Very, very few people any longer succeed in escaping whatever path their parents' economic status put them on. So what is to be smug about? Most are no more responsible for whatever success they enjoy than the poor are for being poor. If we were penalized for failing to match up to reasonable expectations, over 90% of us would be guilty

*** this is very interesting to me, you've called me foolish, smug, implied that I'm prejudiced, uniformed, selfish, possibly unitelligent and condemed my character and yet you have not once answered a very simple question; what give people the right to have children and force me to pay for them?

typical 'non answer' my parents paid my every expense as a child . . yours?

another fine example of hostility, abusive comments, reference to my character and intelligence, with again no answer to a simple question: why should I be forced to pay for other mens children?

so how long will this tend last with the affluent lowering their birth rate while those without the resources to cloth, feed and educate their children continue to have as many childrenas they would like without out excepting any responsibilty . .

how about I impregnate your wife/girlfriend/sister/mother and you raise all my kids?

is this what holds the fabric of our socity together?

This is definately a GFY thread.

Our future will look like the current Mexico. A filthy corrupt mess.

I didn't intend to be abusive or attack your character or intelligence - sorry if it came across that way. I was just saying you are lumping in human rights with having to pay your taxes - they are not connected (not in the US). If you don't want to pay for someone else's children in any way, then you need to either withhold your taxes or have your elected representative scrap Social Security. No third party is forcing America to have a Social Security system, let alone under the banner of "human rights".

lets disconet the question for any other aspects and just answer: do people have the right to have childeren and force me to pay for them?