Sarah Palin, Republican Vice Presidential Candidate

[0ni0n]

He could have bought insurance against that type of accident. He could go back to school and get loans. My girlfriend had massive medical bills at one point and as long as she sent in more than 10$ she was fine. And if property taxes got him kicked out, sounds like a government problem. Judges now have the power to decide mortgage rates so he should renegotiate that when the bank comes after him.

Shit happens, and when it does, you're not entitled to the fruits of someone else's labor. Even in this fucked up economy, charitable giving rose 1% by Americans over the past year.

It's called Workers' Compensation.

[Remyo]

wow nice point chico, didn't quite expect that from you...*fist pump*

[Remyo]

It's called Workers' Compensation.

which isn't awarded if the worker is at fault.

[0ni0n]

if you believe the constitution then yes

The constitution says everyone has the basic rights, and it has nothing to do with chances.

[Chicomagiko]

::blush::

[Remyo]

Also, it was just an acquaintance. My dad falls in the category of people who work hard for their money but don't see anything wrong with using what he doesn't need to help others.

yet you support atleast one person who barely gives anything to charity, but will expect other people to do so?

[Day]

I bet Remy votes for Obama. Actually I know he will.

[Chicomagiko]

Yes because "High Strength" Metal on a volatile machine can never have tiny undetectable occlusions in it that slowly develop over time until there is a catastrophic failure of the machine which causes an accident that injures workers. We have never seen any industrial machines fail without any warning that was not caused by lack of maintenance but by a immeasurable flaw in the crystalline structure of the metal.

Since this scenario is completely impossible it must be someones fault, always.

Blame the engineers

[0ni0n]

which isn't awarded if the worker is at fault.

Wrong. Unless you can prove that there is a malicious intent, he or she will be eligible for worker's compensation. Since it was ruled an accident, the employee should have received worker's compensation benefits consequential of his or her resulting disability. For instance, if you pull a muscle while on the job, you are at fault, but you're still entitled to workers compensation.

[Vandalhart]

My beef is with the people in the world who are making millions of dollars a year and doing what? nothing. An example would be Actors/Actresses. Being paid more money per film, than you would ever spend in a lifetime is absolutely insane. This is the type of situation where I feel they could easily take 10% of their money for themselves and put the rest of the money where it is needed.

Yes, there are people who will abuse a system that has "handouts". There will be people that make excuses for themselves not being better off than they are. There are always people that are able to work that aren't for whatever reason.

There's a difference between giving people "handouts" and giving people the rights they deserve as a human being. People deserve to be educated and healthy. Those are rights that every individual deserves no matter what class they fall into.


Last I heard a health issue doesn't care how much money you make in a year.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

It's called Workers' Compensation.

Yea I know there's that to, but I was talking about private insurance.

[Chicomagiko]

Yea I know there's that to, but I was talking about private insurance.

Most private insurance companies will do their damnest to not pay a single dime.

[0ni0n]

Yea I know there's that to, but I was talking about private insurance.

Life insurance is always available for anyone who seeks additional disability coverage. You can also get multiple life insurance policies if you can afford the premiums.

[Olo401]

unlimited opportunities can be as potent a cause of frustration as a paucity or lack of opportunities.

Oh look you did my work for me - you exposed the paradox in your own argument. Thanks!

There are solutions that are necessary on both sides of the economic scale. On the low-income end, where people lack the economic means to advance themselves up the ladder of capitalism, there must be systems in place to help them both stay above the line of desperation and to help them move out of a constant cycle of poverty. If this is not done, people die from strife, disease and starvation and a society dies. Likewise on the top, you need systems to recycle overaccumulation of capital back into the system. If this is not done, overaccumulation eventually becomes so grossly out of control and leads to massive overinflation, both of which chokes everyone's ability to gain and use capital. And then people die from strife, disease and starvation and a society dies.

The variable in this is human greed - which I personally consider to be a survival instinct. It blinds us all to these strict mathematical balances and, as sentient beings, we make up terms to excuse this instinct when instead we should be making up methods of controlling it as best we can.

This is the major fact that ideological conservatives simply do not understand about the capitalist system that they so adore. Recycling of capital back into the system (or "redistribution of wealth") from pockets of accumulation is necessary to protect the system itself. They can scream all they want about taxes being unfair, or about people taking money that they earned. That's fine that you earned it, but honestly if you can't survive on 50% of a fuckton of earned gross capital, an amount so large that most people won't even see cycle through their hands in an entire lifetime, then you have a severe problem managing capital and the problem's not poor people.

oh and let's tax capital gains so much it won't be worthwhile to sink money into the stock market, which will result in worse conditions than we are in.

I think I addressed this issue thoroughly enough in the above paragraphs. Don't you?

Some of the poor are smug in their squalor, they shudder at the thought of life outside their familiar cesspool. even the respectable poor usually remain inert. it's only the newly poor who throb with the ferment of frustration. The memory of better things burns as a fire in their veins, and they are the only ones to join this cultist movement of obamanomics. it's because they were once well off that they want to return to that to have a second chance to repair their failure.

Some of the rich are smug in their opulence, they shudder at the thought of life outside their familiar mansion or country club. Even the respectable wealthy usually remain inert. It's only the Middle Class who throb with the ferment of frustration. The memory of struggling to make it in a system designed against their efforts burns as a fire in their veins, and they are the only ones to resist joining this cultist movement of Reaganomics. It's because they were once poor as dirt that they want to help others have a better life than the one they once knew themselves.

Don't you ever find generalities to be such a fragile line of debate? I sure do. I'm surprised that you don't see for yourself how much of an insult to your intelligence that paragraph you wrote is (especially after using the word 'paucity' above.. I mean cmon are you that much of a walking paradox?!)

[zoobernut]

Most private insurance companies will do their damnest to not pay a single dime.

There is always someone out there you can attach blame to. Just because you blame someone does not mean they were actually responsible for causing the issue or responsible for not catching it.

[Aerin]

it isn't situational, give me an example of a poor person being poor that isn't a result of them failing.

lmao you just made my day.

[Olo401]

My original statement was this:

*
Yup, Palin sure does energize the base, but what does that say about the base?
*

Nowhere did I say she didn't energize the base, my problem is what this energy says about the base itself. Namely, they're willing to follow an unqualified candidate, probably only because they don't like Obama for whatever reason.

Are we all on the same page now?

Right, and I was stating the point that she didn't truly energize the base, because if she had there would be much more support for her and McCain among self-identified likely-to-vote Republicans. Instead she's driving the more reasoned ones to vote for Obama, while the only ones left to get "energized" are the ones who want a theocratic and racist America.

[Lordender]

Most private insurance companies will do their damnest to not pay a single dime.

Most insurance compaines are pretty gay cause of how they tried to lowball or not pay a shitload of people after hurricane katrina. My friend fought with his insurance company on his home that had flood protection coverage for nearly 4months after having 5ft of water in his home and didn't get money till people threatend a class action lawsuit.

[0ni0n]

Most insurance compaines are pretty gay cause of how they tried to lowball or not pay a shitload of people after hurricane katrina. My friend fought with his insurance company on his home that had flood protection coverage for nearly 4months after having 5ft of water in his home and didn't get money till people threatend a class action lawsuit.

Most insurance companies have flood exclusion written in the coverage agreement. Your friend should get coverage from National Flood Insurance Program, a state sponsored insurance pool that has been around since 1968.
more reading here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFIP

[Beckwin]

And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need...
Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

- (Book of Acts 2:44-45, 4:34-35)


The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state…. The necessaries of life occasion the great expence of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expence of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be any thing very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expence, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

- (The Wealth of Nations, by Adam Smith, the father of modern capitalism)