CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Planned Parenthood, as a private organization, should not be funded by government, but rather by private citizens.
For those who interpret this as indicating a stance on abortion, the abortion thing is irrelevant.
The Federal Government should not be involved in funding any medical insurance or medical care (except the VA, because that is part of a contract between the government and people who enlisted in the military.) This is far beyond the scope of what the government can do effectively or cost effectively.
Nor should the government be involved in free handouts of any kind, whether to any charities, businesses, banks, universities (except the national military academies, which are federally run,) individuals, or other countries. The national government is 21 Trillion dollars in debt, so it is unconscionably irresponsible to give money away when we have 21 Trillion dollars of prior financial obligations.
Now, at the state level, it is a different story. Support of various organizations (except businesses) within a state can make sense, depending on the solvency of the state government. Health care, housing, universities, social services are all within the purview of the state. More to the point, voters in that state have a better chance of controlling what their tax dollars buy for them, and ensuring the needs particular to the state are decided by them, not by the most populous states (California, New York, or Texas.)
Since when is saving lives (of even ACTUAL babies), questionable spending?? People deserve health care no matter WHO they are! Isn't it the Christian thing to do?? Evangelicals should be leading the pack to care for the sick! What would Jesus do??? The hypocrisy of the right on this matter is unfathomable! WHY would the American Government defund a health care facility?? (Because the religious right TOLD them to!!) To HELL with you all! Jesus, if you are listening...…….
Evangelicals should be leading the pack to care for the sick!
I agree with you on this sentence. Charity, kindness, sacrifice for the good of others is an important part of their beliefs. Moreover, it is a critical part of being a member of a community and of being a member of society.
However, there is only virtue in giving of your own money, possessions, time, and opportunities. The minute you are giving someone else's money to help others, you have stopped being generous.
The hypocrisy of the right on this matter is unfathomable! WHY would the American Government defund a health care facility??
What is so hypocritical about acknowledging that government does things poorly, and should be kept out of people's private lives? Health care, marriage, sexual preference, what farmers grow, etc. are none of the government's business.
Those who believe the services Planned Parenthood provides are good things, and who believe that organization does these things effectively should be free to support it. Likewise, those who disagree should be free not to.
By the same token, those who believe the services the NRA provides are good things, and who believe that organization does these things effectively should be free to support it, and those who disagree should be free not to.
Speaking only for myself, I have a problem with people in Congress funneling money to private organizations like Planned Parenthood, the NRA, etc., all of which contribute to campaigns, take sides in elections, and do all manner of things that create clear conflicts of interest.
We agree on many things. I cannot agree on libertarian "freedom of about everything" with a tiny government whose hands are tied. Chaos.
I'm still a democracy fan and a government of, by and FOR the people. I don't mind paying taxes, I just want my money's worth out of them and THAT includes having a "kitty" that the whole country benefits from. We must weed out the crooks and those that are getting the most should pony-up the most.
I cannot agree on libertarian "freedom of about everything" with a tiny government whose hands are tied.
I do not want "freedom of about everything." It is only the federal government that I think should be tiny and have its hands tied. The military, treaties, foreign trade regulations, control of federal lands and infrastructure, and control of immigration and borders is already an awful lot of power. I think it is unwise to put all the other eggs in that basket, as well.
If we leave the rest of the powers and responsibilities with the states and local governments, then there is greater ability for the people to exercise the democratic ideals you believe in. That way the voters in each state shape their governments to meet their own ideals and needs, and people can move to those states that are more in line with their personal visions and needs.
I don't mind paying taxes, I just want my money's worth out of them and THAT includes having a "kitty" that the whole country benefits from.
I understand your point, and it is not without merit. I think the points at which we differ on this come down to either scope or expectations of execution.
Regarding the scope
- 1 - I think we need to follow the maxim that is standard in elder care, particularly nursing homes: Never do for a person what that person can do for himself/herself.
To use the planned parenthood example, I consider the broader scope of "take charge of one's own reproduction." By contrast, I suspect you think of the scope more narrowly as "pay for one's own abortion."
People do not need federal funding in order to be able to take charge of their own reproduction.
- 2 - I also think it is reasonable to have a kitty. but I think the scope should not be national, but rather at the state and local levels. A lot of this is because there are enough regional differences in needs that more people are likely to receive appropriate assistance (get their money's worth) if the kitty is dealt with closer to home. More populous states are likely, by virtue of being in a republic, to push for, and get, federal spending that disproportionately meets their residents' needs to the cost of residents with different needs in smaller states.
Regarding expectations of execution
I have gotten the impression over time that you believe that people are both more honest and less competent than government is. As a result, you seem to think that the crooks and system-abusers are fewer than I think exist, and that there are more people who need help than I think exist. It seems that you think the government is both honest enough to try to faithfully administer these funds, and competent enough to do so effectively enough to matter, and that it is actually able to "weed out the crooks."
I disagree. I think that, when presented with the opportunity to get a handout, the vast majority of people present themselves as having a far greater need for help than they actually do. This is especially true when the assistance is taxpayer funded, because people perceive the assistance as a right, and therefore feel entitled to help they would not need were they to try harder, think ahead, or adjust their strategies.
By the same token, the federal government (elected, appointed, and bureaucratic) is operated by people who, in general, are not held accountable for their performance. This is publicly visible at the highest levels like Congress (where useless and corrupt people are regularly reelected for decades) and privately visible to anyone who deals regularly with the ineptitude, laziness, and complacency that is so pervasive among civil service employees.
I think it is unrealistic to trust these people with trillions of dollars, and expect them to use it to effectively for the public good. If you want people in need to actually get the results they need, you will be much more successful if you personally provide the help.
...those that are getting the most should pony-up the most.
Absolutely. For example, families with kids get more public services (public education, etc..) We need to get rid of the tax deductions for children in the household, and make those people with kids pay extra tax for each kid.
Again, this should be taken care of at the state level.
We should also get rid of ALL loopholes and ALL deductions. Institute a slant tax (like the flat tax, but graduated hyperbolically.) No Earned Income Credit, and EVERY man, woman, and child owes a minimum of a dollar/year. The bottom half of people pay no more, and at the 50th percentile, the tax begins to graduate.
The problem with state control is that it breaks up the country, much like Europe that has no central government, with countries not much larger than our states. They just can't seem to agree for long about anything. That would just intensify party differences and open the country to radicalism.
I was in Spain before Britain joined the EU. I had my camera and some other stuff stolen at DE Gaul Airport. I went into a store in Spain to buy a new one. The clerk asked" "Are you American?", I said yes, she said "Good, it would cost you more if you were British." They didn't like the Brits not joining the EU. Same thing is happening now, I'm sure. THAT would also happen in the U.S., state to state. We would be a MUCH weaker country without unison … like in "united"! Each state would have a different tax structure, different health plan structure, different voting structure, a nightmare! You just, without federal control, multiply government chances of corruption and graft times 50!
As is happening in Michigan and Wisconsin TODAY, The party in power will do all it can to screw the other when they have power, REGARDLESS of what the people have, clearly, objected to! At least, with democracy and a democratically elected federal government BY the states, you have a chance every few years to correct these problems. It's MUCH cheaper for "big money" to buy one state at a time, and profit from each, to get the money to buy the NEXT!
I STILL like the UNITED states! The Oligarchy of America would be SO like Russia today. Putin would LOVE IT!
There is lots of stuff to unpack, here. Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
I STILL like the UNITED states!
I think this is where what it means to be an American conservative comes into play. Being an American conservative means being slightly left of center on the overall political spectrum, which puts us in line with the framers of the US Constitution, and therefore wanting to conserve the ideals of the framers by conserving the original intent and meaning of the Constitution.
How this applies to our discussion is that when the United States was founded, the word state meant "independent political body" (e.g., Greek or Italian city states,) not "province" (i.e., a mere geographical subsection of a single nation.) During and after the Civil War, Lincoln and Johnson disregarded the intent of the Framers of the Constitution. One of the results is that their policies disregarded the limits to the powers of the federal government, and the original relationship between it and the states. One of the ramifications of these changes is that Americans had to completely redefine the word state in order to cope with the cognitive dissonance between the changing American political reality and the meaning of both the Constitution and our Nation's name at its founding.
Accepting this change did result in an added level of stability and national unity, but that was at the cost of the independence and self-determination of the states, and the related freedom of the American people.
They just can't seem to agree for long about anything. That would just intensify party differences and open the country to radicalism.
I do not see how a tendency toward radicalism is population-dependent.
Regardless, the advantage of stronger state governments (vice a stronger central government) is that when radicals come to power (whether in a single state or at the federal level,) there are other strong state governments to check the power of the radicals.
By the same token, as I stated in a previous post, the citizens have the ability to choose among widely varying states. For example, they can leave mildly oppressive sates (like California) or high tax states (like California and New York) and move to states that grant more freedom and have lower taxes (like Texas and Montana.)
The problem with state control is that it breaks up the country, much like Europe that has no central government, with countries not much larger than our states.
That is not necessarily a disadvantage. Europe's rich cultural diversity is a direct result of this. Obviously, there was not nearly so much difference between individual states in the United States (as originally conceived and executed) as between the pre-EU European nations (an obvious result of centuries or millennia of completely separate nations in Europe.)
By the way, the EU DOES have a central government in Brussels.
Interestingly, based on your camera story, you seem to be in favor of the EU. The current EU is remarkably similar to the US as originally conceived: common currency, centralized control of trade and broad immigration rules, free trade and movement between member states, and strong state governance of their internal affairs. Even the lack of a central EU military and the delegation of military to the individual member states is how the original US was set up.
The main difference between the EU and the original incarnation of the US is that individual nations at the border of the EU essentially control immigration from outside the EU into their nations, and therefore the EU.
Each state would have a different tax structure, different health plan structure, different voting structure, a nightmare!
This is what we have. It is not a nightmare. We have a variety of options from which to choose, and we can move to the states that fit with our personal preferences. How is that bad?
The party in power will do all it can to screw the other when they have power, REGARDLESS of what the people have, clearly, objected to!
This is what we have at the federal level, so it constantly screws with all 330 million of us, instead of only Michigan or only Illinois.
This is what happened with Obamacare. Despite the fact that EVERY poll indicated the majority of Americans did not want it, the Democrats foisted it on the whole country, radically increasing insurance premiums, without ever dealing with the underlying problem of health care costs. (All they had to do was expand HIPAA to the individual insurance market, and add that kids can stay on parent plans until 26.)
It's MUCH cheaper for "big money" to buy one state at a time, and profit from each, to get the money to buy the NEXT!
It is also MUCH cheaper for individual citizens to fight big money at the state level.
Once big money buys a strong central government, it owns the whole shebang. This has already happened. ONLY big money has been elected to the presidency since the mid1800's. Only big money elects the Senate, and almost only big money elects people to the House of Representatives. It is easier to buy one strong central government than it is to buy 50 strong state governments. It is interest of citizens to keep from putting the strongest eggs in a single strong central basket.
