Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lurch
All right, bring out the insults, moron. Is it your contention that every analogy needs to fit the situation in every respect? I'll take the time to lay out an analogy that fits your oh so exacting specifics, clown.
Suppose I spend my time volunteering at an upaid job. My opportunity cost is that I could have spent the time working - should the government compensate me for my altruism? Volunteering is a societal good, at least in my world, so I've covered that part of your moronic little spiel.
|
I didn't call YOU stupid...I called your analogy stupid, which it was. You compared the decision to be a stay-at-home parent with the decision to remain uneducated. Raising a child properly is apparently the kind of behaviour we want to motivate. Choosing to leave high school and work as as a Wal-Mart greeter is not.
Now, this time you've come up with a better one...but it still doesn't match. Governments offer no financial incentives to work at a regular job...they offer disincentives, by taxing the hell out of you. They'd probably prefer that you worked a regular job so you could contribute to the tax base, but obviously they don't need to motivate that behaviour since the private exchange of money is supposed to. So, in short, why would a government want to promote "volunteerism" by throwing money at volunteers? (...and as for the boldfaced statement above...look up the word "altruism" before you ask to be compensated for it)
Of course, this raises an interesting point--is the Liberals' daycare agenda motivated by the desire to ensure our children are raised well, or to do everything possible to increase the tax base? I think it's the latter, which can only lead to ever-increased spending, and a BIG government that's ever more difficult to shrink back down to a reasonable size.