More Evidence of liberal media bias

[alonzomourning23]

[quote name='neopolss']

What makes it better is that you maintain what you rightfully earned. It's your money - you keep it. What makes it better is that you have a choice in where your money is contributed within your community or government. Choice makes many things better. I currently have two children and maintain an income of $22,000 before taxes. I'd rather have all $22,000 that I earned for my family, and I would opt out in a second to social security and the social programs that are taking money from my kids.

Wait till they reach college age, you won't think the same (colleges around here run equal to or more than your salary per year, except for state schools, which are half your salary) . I also don't know what it's like in kansas, but at 22k a year you wouldn't be able to afford anything other than public schools and the basics in the northeast. I have a friend who lives in an apartment with his family and his family makes about 35k a year, and he consistently got fees reduced do to his families lack of income. For instance, the private high school I attended ($9,500 a year), let him attend for $1,000. He was one of only a few to get any reducation, let alone one of that size. You would also be lucky to find an apartment suitable for 2 adults and 2 kids for under 12k a year. Believe me, if kansas is anything like here, any problem and you will need those social services. You lose your job, medical problem (unlike canada and most western nations, we don't have free health insurance, and you almost have to have a death wish to go to the free clinics in the u.s., I hope your job provides quality health insurance), college, car breaks down etc. you're going to be in trouble and in need of those services. Also, as far as I'm concerned, those who are under the poverty line (I think it should be raised to around 20k) should not pay most taxes. You should keep mostly all, or all, of your paycheck, while my family (when it was making 100k) should have paid more in taxes than it did.

But ok, sales tax seems to range from as low a 0% (a few states, such as nh), up to %9.25 (parts, if not all of, NY). I think it generally hovers around 6. Let's up that to around 50% and then maybe the government will have enough to survive on that and tariffs alone. You don't seem to realize that underfunded police, military, volunteers etc. are prone to bribery, far beyond anything we are used to. Just look at the police in most of africa for an example of what happens when cops aren't paid enough. And with increased poverty comes increased crime, requiring more police of higher quality, not less. You seem to think that this is america, and it can only rise or fall a little, but without the right programs it can crash just like any other nation.[/quote]

Actually I'm already planning for their college education. I am setting aside money each month into an education IRA, as well as maintaining my own 401k, an outside IRA, and savings account. Financial services and safety nets are provided very well in the private sector, and would grant you a higher rate of return than what the government can. The cost of living is lower in the midwest (I'm not sure what the income rate comparison would be), however it is still a struggle. But I manage.

Correction, private sector investments may grant you a better return, they may also plunge you into debt (one of the problems with my family).

I dutifully save my money and invest in a mixture of safe bonds and agressive funds. I have never needed or wanted social services. When my car broke down we fixed it the first time, sold it the next and purchased a new vehicle. It was rough, but we managed. I do use free clinics when I do not have insurance (around here they are just fine). Currently I have insurance for my children and underwent a minor operation last year. It wasn't too much to pay off once I worked out an arrangement of payment with them (afterall, they do want their money).

Use of the free clinic shows that you do need assistance.

You don't need mandatory social services. If there is a need, it will be filled in the private sector. Many companies realized long ago the need for retirement planning, and 401ks and IRAs have come about. Should you have no social security or unemployment, you could invest your money into savings and retirement plans. If something happened, borrow against your plan until on your feet and start saving again. If things get real bad, others will help you if you reach out.

So how should I invest if I can barely make rent to begin with? What if I borrow and my investments fail? Though, the people who could help you out are there regardless, and yet there are still homeless families, families being evicted, kids without adequate food etc. Why aren't they all pitching in?

Why would you need a 50% tax rate? If you are reducing the bulk of your government and streamlining its operations, many of the wasteful spending is gone. Think how many billions of dollars are used in unknown programs that are only beneficial to businesses or a select few? How many redundant overlapping programs do you think exist that could also be found in some form in the private sector? Your vision of anarchy and chaos, and the thin line between is mostly fear tactics that have been sold to you. Give the american public more credit than that. You know how much the public just loves a good scandel! And how would you retaining your money suddenly plunge us into poverty? Do you not believe that you can manage your money, invest it wisely, and save? Do you not believe that if something unfortunate happened that you would not find some way of managing, through either charities or reducing your means of living for awhile?

Your system works if everyone gets lucky, everyone has the means to have a succesful start in life, everyone invests wisely, everyone makes rational decisions, everyone gets quality schooling etc. In reality, that's not the case, and you will have children paying severely for the mistakes of the parents. Though I would like you to find me examples of countries with minimal regulation, minimal tax income, minimal government infrastructure etc. that are succesful, whose people generally live well? The nations that seem to fit most closely your line of thinking do not exist in europe, east asia and north america. The nations that are closer to my line of thinking seem to do much better than those who follow your line of thinking, and seem to have much lower levels of corruption and bribery, and much higher living standards.

 

[Msut77]

You find it acceptable that your income is used to pay for others care

Yes, and I consider it an investment, especially a lot of the people who are on it have kids, I consider a long term investment the dividends come from keeping those kids healthy and sane so they can be productive citizens.

The whole Conservatarian attitude of "Give it to me ITS MINE" and more common "MINE!" strikes me as kind of silly funny thing is a lot of them (Even Ayn Rand devotees) consider themselves Christians.

Why do you need government to manage your money?

Do you even understand the concept of Safety Net? I support in case shit happens, no matter how smart you invest shit happens.

BTW Neo you do know what the FDIC is right?

 

[alonzomourning23]

[quote name='neopolss'][quote name='Msut77']
Yeah, and even if not does that apply to progams you arent using now and may use in the future?[/quote]

And there's the tactic that has brainwashed you into believing you need it. Images of starvation and poverty, unfortunate accidents, joblessness. The fear drives you to keep the programs. But couldn't you provide those same savings plans for yourself? Why do you need government to manage your money?[/quote]

Starvation and poverty, unfortunate accidents, joblessness, those problems exist all over the work, and all but 1 (starvation) are widespread in the u.s. Do you honestly think unfortunate and joblessness cannot happen to you? You said it's a struggle as it is, that's with your job. What if you lose your job and then are hospitalized shortly after? That's not 1 in a million, that almost happened to my family, my father was going to be fired but was hospitalized 2 days before the decision was finalized (he was fired as soon as he was going to start work again). We are the ones with money in our family, everyone else is hovering around the poverty line except one, and that's only recently. There is/was no one else to give us the money we needed, no charity to pay our debts/bills etc. And with your system I would be stuck paying everything for them when I'm older (in debt in your mid 50's is not a good place to be), that is if I have the money. We were also the ones most responsible with our money, yet our investments failed and only increased our debt. How will your ideas do anything to improve this? Many never have the money to invest to begin with, and those that do will be dependant on luck, know how, and good fortune.

Again, how will your programs raise, or even maintain, the living standard of the population? If they cannot do that then your ideas are worthless.

 

[neopolss]

[quote name='Msut77']

You find it acceptable that your income is used to pay for others care

Yes, and I consider it an investment, especially a lot of the people who are on it have kids, I consider a long term investment the dividends come from keeping those kids healthy and sane so they can be productive citizens.

The whole Conservatarian attitude of "Give it to me ITS MINE" and more common "MINE!" strikes me as kind of silly funny thing is a lot of them (Even Ayn Rand devotees) consider themselves Christians.

Why do you need government to manage your money?

Do you even understand the concept of Safety Net? I support in case shit happens, no matter how smart you invest shit happens.

BTW Neo you do know what the FDIC is right?[/quote]

It's not a conservative attitude to want what you earned. Grouping me with the conservative body simply for the sake that I don't want to pay for everyone else doesn't cut it. There are just as many who label themselves liberal who simply want a broader base of rights, but don't necessarily believe in public welfare.

Again with the picture of starving children or impoverished families. Suddenly if there is no unemployment, welfare, or social security, no one will help them? I find this vision ridiculous and contradictary to what most average Americans will do for their fellow neighbor or community. Those children and their families will survive, and will grow up to be productive members of society. Don't believe in the fear that has you supporting the government podium.

If you have read any other posts, or looked around your hometown, then you would see that many of the same services that government is providing are maintained in the private sector, and often perform better. Shit does happen, that's exactly why you put money away and save. How many safety nets do you need? Why do you allow the government to manage your money for you? You can just as well place that money away for "shit happens" yourself, and earn a better return while doing it. Unless you find it okay that the government considers you a moron with your money, otherwise I think I could control it better myself.

Secondly, what happens when the safety net you have entrusted your money into disappears? Afterall, the money you are placing into social security is not going into an account with your name on it, it is going right back out to current retirees. The system is not going to work forever. I trust my money much better in an account that has my own name on it.

It isn't a matter of selfishness vs. Christianity. These are people who want what they rightfully earned, and the choice to distribute the wealth as they see fit. No one should feel guilty about wanting to keep something they have worked hard to earn.

Exactly what makes it acceptable that I must pay a portion of what I earn into the government to protect someone else in case they screw up? Are we punishing the responsible by doing so?

 

[neopolss]

[quote name='alonzomourning23']
Starvation and poverty, unfortunate accidents, joblessness, those problems exist all over the work, and all but 1 (starvation) are widespread in the u.s. Do you honestly think unfortunate and joblessness cannot happen to you? You said it's a struggle as it is, that's with your job. What if you lose your job and then are hospitalized shortly after? That's not 1 in a million, that almost happened to my family, my father was going to be fired but was hospitalized 2 days before the decision was finalized (he was fired as soon as he was going to start work again). We are the ones with money in our family, everyone else is hovering around the poverty line except one, and that's only recently. There is/was no one else to give us the money we needed, no charity to pay our debts/bills etc. And with your system I would be stuck paying everything for them when I'm older (in debt in your mid 50's is not a good place to be), that is if I have the money. We were also the ones most responsible with our money, yet our investments failed and only increased our debt. How will your ideas do anything to improve this? Many never have the money to invest to begin with, and those that do will be dependant on luck, know how, and good fortune.

Again, how will your programs raise, or even maintain, the living standard of the population? If they cannot do that then your ideas are worthless.[/quote]

Your father would have found some way to make it. If it meant living below your current standard of living, the choice would be made to sell the home, find a cheaper place, maybe rent, etc. It is not the ideal thing to happen, but this could still happen even under the current system. You portray a dire situation and assume that since there is unemployment and welfare, that it saved you. It did not. It may have helped, but should there not have been any (and often many run out of benefit very quickly), there would have been other means. Whether that meant sellling some of the uneccessary items, moving with relatives, or some other means, not having unemployment would not put you on the street.

You make it seem as if I tout an entirely new system of government. I am not. I only advocate to trim the fat from the growing money-eating machine known as the federal government. Nothing changes in the system except reducing the sheer amount of mom and dad work that the government does, and streamlining it into covering the most basic of functions. The rest is placed back into the hands of the citizens, and they happily incvest it where they see fit.

Many can invest properly when the government is no longer taking the money from them to do so. Even with zero taxes taken out, you will still pay the government a certain percentage for social security and medicare. For those lesser fortunate than that, private charities and shelters, goodwill, united way, red cross, salvation army, and many many other public programs would still exist.

Government provides no more of a safety net than an IRA or 401k does. So why does it seem so apocylyptic when I ask if you would rather have your money to invest in your own account, or keep it with the government? In the first scenario, you invest, you retire, and they pay you, those who aren't interested don't invest. In the second instance, everyone pays, some collect, and everyone earns a mediocre return - but you have no choice.

It's simply the same scenario with respect to many of the other programs out there. If you paid no social security or medicare or unemployment, you would have almost 20% more than you do now - weekly. Your employer would have 40% more than they currently have. I'm not sure what you think of that, but poverty line doesn't seem to strike me when I see there is more money on the table.

 

[neopolss]

[quote name='alonzomourning23'][quote name='neopolss']

What makes it better is that you maintain what you rightfully earned. It's your money - you keep it. What makes it better is that you have a choice in where your money is contributed within your community or government. Choice makes many things better. I currently have two children and maintain an income of $22,000 before taxes. I'd rather have all $22,000 that I earned for my family, and I would opt out in a second to social security and the social programs that are taking money from my kids.

Wait till they reach college age, you won't think the same (colleges around here run equal to or more than your salary per year, except for state schools, which are half your salary) . I also don't know what it's like in kansas, but at 22k a year you wouldn't be able to afford anything other than public schools and the basics in the northeast. I have a friend who lives in an apartment with his family and his family makes about 35k a year, and he consistently got fees reduced do to his families lack of income. For instance, the private high school I attended ($9,500 a year), let him attend for $1,000. He was one of only a few to get any reducation, let alone one of that size. You would also be lucky to find an apartment suitable for 2 adults and 2 kids for under 12k a year. Believe me, if kansas is anything like here, any problem and you will need those social services. You lose your job, medical problem (unlike canada and most western nations, we don't have free health insurance, and you almost have to have a death wish to go to the free clinics in the u.s., I hope your job provides quality health insurance), college, car breaks down etc. you're going to be in trouble and in need of those services. Also, as far as I'm concerned, those who are under the poverty line (I think it should be raised to around 20k) should not pay most taxes. You should keep mostly all, or all, of your paycheck, while my family (when it was making 100k) should have paid more in taxes than it did.

But ok, sales tax seems to range from as low a 0% (a few states, such as nh), up to %9.25 (parts, if not all of, NY). I think it generally hovers around 6. Let's up that to around 50% and then maybe the government will have enough to survive on that and tariffs alone. You don't seem to realize that underfunded police, military, volunteers etc. are prone to bribery, far beyond anything we are used to. Just look at the police in most of africa for an example of what happens when cops aren't paid enough. And with increased poverty comes increased crime, requiring more police of higher quality, not less. You seem to think that this is america, and it can only rise or fall a little, but without the right programs it can crash just like any other nation.[/quote]

Actually I'm already planning for their college education. I am setting aside money each month into an education IRA, as well as maintaining my own 401k, an outside IRA, and savings account. Financial services and safety nets are provided very well in the private sector, and would grant you a higher rate of return than what the government can. The cost of living is lower in the midwest (I'm not sure what the income rate comparison would be), however it is still a struggle. But I manage.

Correction, private sector investments may grant you a better return, they may also plunge you into debt (one of the problems with my family).

I dutifully save my money and invest in a mixture of safe bonds and agressive funds. I have never needed or wanted social services. When my car broke down we fixed it the first time, sold it the next and purchased a new vehicle. It was rough, but we managed. I do use free clinics when I do not have insurance (around here they are just fine). Currently I have insurance for my children and underwent a minor operation last year. It wasn't too much to pay off once I worked out an arrangement of payment with them (afterall, they do want their money).

Use of the free clinic shows that you do need assistance.

You don't need mandatory social services. If there is a need, it will be filled in the private sector. Many companies realized long ago the need for retirement planning, and 401ks and IRAs have come about. Should you have no social security or unemployment, you could invest your money into savings and retirement plans. If something happened, borrow against your plan until on your feet and start saving again. If things get real bad, others will help you if you reach out.

So how should I invest if I can barely make rent to begin with? What if I borrow and my investments fail? Though, the people who could help you out are there regardless, and yet there are still homeless families, families being evicted, kids without adequate food etc. Why aren't they all pitching in?

Why would you need a 50% tax rate? If you are reducing the bulk of your government and streamlining its operations, many of the wasteful spending is gone. Think how many billions of dollars are used in unknown programs that are only beneficial to businesses or a select few? How many redundant overlapping programs do you think exist that could also be found in some form in the private sector? Your vision of anarchy and chaos, and the thin line between is mostly fear tactics that have been sold to you. Give the american public more credit than that. You know how much the public just loves a good scandel! And how would you retaining your money suddenly plunge us into poverty? Do you not believe that you can manage your money, invest it wisely, and save? Do you not believe that if something unfortunate happened that you would not find some way of managing, through either charities or reducing your means of living for awhile?

Your system works if everyone gets lucky, everyone has the means to have a succesful start in life, everyone invests wisely, everyone makes rational decisions, everyone gets quality schooling etc. In reality, that's not the case, and you will have children paying severely for the mistakes of the parents. Though I would like you to find me examples of countries with minimal regulation, minimal tax income, minimal government infrastructure etc. that are succesful, whose people generally live well? The nations that seem to fit most closely your line of thinking do not exist in europe, east asia and north america. The nations that are closer to my line of thinking seem to do much better than those who follow your line of thinking, and seem to have much lower levels of corruption and bribery, and much higher living standards.[/quote]

China is closer to your line of thinking. Everything is pristine, clean and well kept, and everyone is provided for. It also means that you have given up most of your rights in order to have it. By supporting theses social programs and safety nets, you hand control over to the government to manage all aspects for you. Evertime you advocate for government regulation, control, you're stepping on someone. Hence the problems of the current struggle in rural and suburban america - conservative values leanng more and more into government regulation. The irresponsible are winning right now. They petition the government by claiming the need to change everyone, and soon none of us can choose for ourselves. Mom and Dad's place is great, but living on your own is far better.

 

[Msut77]

China is closer to your line of thinking. Everything is pristine, clean and well kept, and everyone is provided for.

Is he joking or gone off the deep end?

BTW your post was a bunch of nice sounding nonense, private charities cannot handle the load even now, let alone if all government aid was cut.

 

[alonzomourning23]

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I still have stuff to say.[quote name='neopolss']
Again with the picture of starving children or impoverished families. Suddenly if there is no unemployment, welfare, or social security, no one will help them? I find this vision ridiculous and contradictary to what most average Americans will do for their fellow neighbor or community. Those children and their families will survive, and will grow up to be productive members of society. Don't believe in the fear that has you supporting the government podium. [/quote]

Since, as we can see, children who grow up in inner city ghetoes grow up (on average) to be just as succesful as children who grow up in wealthy suburbs. That's true, right? There are no impoverished americans, right? And in the future, no matter what policies our country follows, we could never have people as poor as in countries such as india, zaire, nigeria, etc. Our people would never starve, no matter what our country did, correct?

Though you argue as if people help each other in that manner now, that it is normal for towns to take up collections or for people to constantly help pay for another rent. Those are the exceptions, not the norm.

If you have read any other posts, or looked around your hometown, then you would see that many of the same services that government is providing are maintained in the private sector, and often perform better. Shit does happen, that's exactly why you put money away and save. How many safety nets do you need? Why do you allow the government to manage your money for you? You can just as well place that money away for "shit happens" yourself, and earn a better return while doing it. Unless you find it okay that the government considers you a moron with your money, otherwise I think I could control it better myself.

Yes, so many charities helping people make rent. So many charities helping to feed children of the non homeless but impoverished. So many charities providing free day care. So many charities helping people who lost there jobs.

Secondly, what happens when the safety net you have entrusted your money into disappears? Afterall, the money you are placing into social security is not going into an account with your name on it, it is going right back out to current retirees. The system is not going to work forever. I trust my money much better in an account that has my own name on it.

It is more likely the money the individual invests won't be there, as happened in my families case. And unless people like you get control, or some major unforseen problem occurs, the money will still be there if the government has it. And there will be money for those who need it, not just those who knew how to invest well.

It isn't a matter of selfishness vs. Christianity. These are people who want what they rightfully earned, and the choice to distribute the wealth as they see fit. No one should feel guilty about wanting to keep something they have worked hard to earn.

Exactly what makes it acceptable that I must pay a portion of what I earn into the government to protect someone else in case they screw up? Are we punishing the responsible by doing so?

I'm on the side of christians now, what a strange world we live in.

Though, what's fair, a working single mother loses her job and has to still find a way to pay rent and raise a kid, so she gets government aid yet you pay taxes. Or is it more fair that she gets no aid and she and her kid have nothing to slow their fall and you keep all your money. Again, your ideas contribute nothing to the public good, do not help those who need it, and do not raise, or even maintain, the current standard of living.

 

[alonzomourning23]

[quote name='neopolss']Your father would have found some way to make it. [/quote]

Such optimism. Who would you want to hire a 57 year old accountant? The type of work he does is drying up to begin with, and few want someone of that age.

If it meant living below your current standard of living, the choice would be made to sell the home, find a cheaper place, maybe rent, etc. It is not the ideal thing to happen, but this could still happen even under the current system. You portray a dire situation and assume that since there is unemployment and welfare, that it saved you. It did not. It may have helped, but should there not have been any (and often many run out of benefit very quickly), there would have been other means. Whether that meant sellling some of the uneccessary items, moving with relatives, or some other means, not having unemployment would not put you on the street.

No we would not have been homeless, my and I father would have moved to vermont (and leaving the first chance I got, I can't stand the country), away from family and everyone we knew near boston, my mother is 3 years from getting retirement benefits and a pension, meaning she would have either moved in with relatives, effectively splitting my parents, or left the job and never gained those benefits. I would have had to delay college until we had some stability. Also, only one person in our family has any stability, and there house is barely large enough for those who are already in it (3 people and a pitbull). It isn't large enough for 3 more people and another dog. Though since we still have our house, I wonder how you can argue that unemployment did not save us. No unemployment= lose home and move to VT, unemployment= staying in MA and keeping house. My family may very well have been more succesful than you family ever will (I have no idea what you do, or if any other adults in your family work, just that your salary is low), but that did not help them in the end. They still fell and needed those programs, partially due to apparently safe, but still failed investments.

You make it seem as if I tout an entirely new system of government. I am not.

Then I'm sure you'd be more than happy to provide examples of places where you system is in place.

For those lesser fortunate than that, private charities and shelters, goodwill, united way, red cross, salvation army, and many many other public programs would still exist.

They do little to stop people from falling, what charity helps a middle class family get through tough times and avoid falling into poverty? Also, some (such as the salvation army) practice religious discrimination against there employees.

Government provides no more of a safety net than an IRA or 401k does. So why does it seem so apocylyptic when I ask if you would rather have your money to invest in your own account, or keep it with the government? In the first scenario, you invest, you retire, and they pay you, those who aren't interested don't invest. In the second instance, everyone pays, some collect, and everyone earns a mediocre return - but you have no choice.

You forgot to mention all the people who lose there shirts when there investments fall through. Again, (I never viewed myself as a good example of ecpnomic troubles, and I don't even think of myself that way until I realize parts of my life make good examples on this board), when your 57 and your previous investments have all fallen through, what exactly are you going to do when you are too old to work, or to get a decent job?

It's simply the same scenario with respect to many of the other programs out there. If you paid no social security or medicare or unemployment, you would have almost 20% more than you do now - weekly. Your employer would have 40% more than they currently have. I'm not sure what you think of that, but poverty line doesn't seem to strike me when I see there is more money on the table.

Unless it effects the people they higher (and as we have seen now, more money does not mean more jobs), then I don't care if they make 5% of 50%, they don't need the money. And 20% to a poor family does not cover the schooling, police, roads etc. everything else they use. There money is not enough to sustain it, it's those with more money who pay enough to sustain those programs and services. You seem to think that nothing would change if suddenly the government didn't have the money to support all these things, that the only effect would be you have more money.

 

[alonzomourning23]

[quote name='neopolss']

Your system works if everyone gets lucky, everyone has the means to have a succesful start in life, everyone invests wisely, everyone makes rational decisions, everyone gets quality schooling etc. In reality, that's not the case, and you will have children paying severely for the mistakes of the parents. Though I would like you to find me examples of countries with minimal regulation, minimal tax income, minimal government infrastructure etc. that are succesful, whose people generally live well? The nations that seem to fit most closely your line of thinking do not exist in europe, east asia and north america. The nations that are closer to my line of thinking seem to do much better than those who follow your line of thinking, and seem to have much lower levels of corruption and bribery, and much higher living standards.[/quote]

China is closer to your line of thinking. Everything is pristine, clean and well kept, and everyone is provided for. It also means that you have given up most of your rights in order to have it. By supporting theses social programs and safety nets, you hand control over to the government to manage all aspects for you. Evertime you advocate for government regulation, control, you're stepping on someone. Hence the problems of the current struggle in rural and suburban america - conservative values leanng more and more into government regulation. The irresponsible are winning right now. They petition the government by claiming the need to change everyone, and soon none of us can choose for ourselves. Mom and Dad's place is great, but living on your own is far better.

Yes, since I'm such an advocate of restricting free speech and the like. Like giving welfare has anything to do with social freedoms. Though if that's true I wonder why the chinese countryside is so far behind the cities and so much poorer. Sure people have enough food, but it is far from pristine. Sweden is more in line with my kind of thinking (which seems to produce the highest, or among the highest, living standards in the world according to most rankings), I don't know a country that agrees with you, but some of the least regulated seem to be in Africa, I'm sure you want to duplicate there success.

Though with the push to privatize social security and such, the move is away from regulation (if you want an example of deregulation look at what happened when some provinces in canada deregulated car insurance, prices sky rocketed and some can't even get a company to take them). Though I wonder, which area is doing better, middle america or the northeast? Which area is more regulated? That's not to say that's all there is to it. Also, who pushed for more regulation, bush or clinton? Under who has the middle class done better?

 

[neopolss]

[quote name='Msut77']

China is closer to your line of thinking. Everything is pristine, clean and well kept, and everyone is provided for.

Is he joking or gone off the deep end?

BTW your post was a bunch of nice sounding nonense, private charities cannot handle the load even now, let alone if all government aid was cut.[/quote]

China is a perfect example of total socialist commitment. It doesn't get more social then that. All of your needs are taken care of. You have every safety net you'll ever want.

Private charities would do fine. As people receive more money, they give more as well. You'd be surprised at the kind of help you would get from your community if you reach out.

 

[neopolss]

[quote name='alonzomourning23']

Yes, since I'm such an advocate of restricting free speech and the like. Like giving welfare has anything to do with social freedoms. Though if that's true I wonder why the chinese countryside is so far behind the cities and so much poorer. Sure people have enough food, but it is far from pristine. Sweden is more in line with my kind of thinking (which seems to produce the highest, or among the highest, living standards in the world according to most rankings), I don't know a country that agrees with you, but some of the least regulated seem to be in Africa, I'm sure you want to duplicate there success.

Though with the push to privatize social security and such, the move is away from regulation (if you want an example of deregulation look at what happened when some provinces in canada deregulated car insurance, prices sky rocketed and some can't even get a company to take them). Though I wonder, which area is doing better, middle america or the northeast? Which area is more regulated? That's not to say that's all there is to it. Also, who pushed for more regulation, bush or clinton? Under who has the middle class done better?[/quote]

Did I say at all that you restict free speech? No. But you are advocating to restrict choice.

China is an example of socialism at its highest level. You tout socialist programs as the savior of humanity, China is an example of how far socialism can go. Sweden is great if you don't mind forking over half of your paycheck each week. At some point you'll grow tired of taking care of everyone else with your money. At some point there will be another group petitioning the government to pay for this or that, and your taxes raise again. It's fantastic if you don't mind taking away the rights of others to make decisions for themselves. And that essentially is what it is. Your agreement to these programs is an agreement that you do not want your neighbor to have his money, you want him to pay into your plan, and you do not want to make any choices for yourself.

Giving welfare has alot to do with social freedoms. By advocating for social programs, you are in essence saying it is okay to take my money to help quell your concerns. How do you find that acceptable? I do not want or need your social programs, yet your continued fervor has forced me to be a participant. If you want safety and security, invest privately where only you contribute - don't force me to go along with it so that you can feel better about yourself.

Insurance is just another example of a social program. Everyone is required to have insurance, and with a large pool of money at disposal, the prices affixed to claims are outside of realistic expectations. Much akin to medical insurance. The cost will keep rising on medical insurance because the money is being paid by a huge pool of contributors, and since no one person on insurance ever pays the total cost (only a copay or %) the industry is not forced to try to make it affordable. The money will come from the pool, not you directly, and you continue to pay for eternity as the costs will never come down to a reasonable affordable level. Regulated insurance is basically a socialist policy on top of an already socialist idea.

A good example of what I want is the US in the 1910-1920 era, minus government's hand in controlling business (which in the end only helped create the downfall).

 

[neopolss]

[quote name='alonzomourning23']
Since, as we can see, children who grow up in inner city ghetoes grow up (on average) to be just as succesful as children who grow up in wealthy suburbs. That's true, right? There are no impoverished americans, right? And in the future, no matter what policies our country follows, we could never have people as poor as in countries such as india, zaire, nigeria, etc. Our people would never starve, no matter what our country did, correct?[/quote]

And inner city ghettos are getting so much better with the social programs we have right? Do you actually know how much your employer and yourself pay into the government for all of these programs? No wonder employers pay such low wages and cut benefits. Since the 50s the sheer amount of programs has balooned, and what once could be maintained by a single working parent now requires two, and a second job. You will continue to add programs and programs and expect to have lower taxes. It cannot work like that. The more you want from government, the more you will need to pay, you will eventually grow weary of contributing to social programs, especially when they are NOT WORKING.

Is welfare helping anyone stay above the poverty line? Or do they continue to collect a paycheck with no desire to move forward - the money is always there for them. What desire is there?

Though you argue as if people help each other in that manner now, that it is normal for towns to take up collections or for people to constantly help pay for another rent. Those are the exceptions, not the norm.

More images painted of families going bust without the help of everyone's tax dollars. It can still happen under the current system. One cannot draw unemployment for very long if they maintained a high standard of living. At some point they would have to make the same choice whether they had unemployment or not - to reduce their living means in order ot get back on their feet. If there were no unemployment or welfare, millions of families would not suddenly be hitting the streets overnight. I certainly am not considered a high income by any means, and I don't forsee myself on the street anytime soon. I save and plan, and I could save more if I wasn't paying into a SS plan that I won't collect from.

Yes, so many charities helping people make rent. So many charities helping to feed children of the non homeless but impoverished. So many charities providing free day care. So many charities helping people who lost there jobs.

Yes, yes and yes. Look around your community or volunteer more. You'll discover a multitude of volunteer and community help centers that you never knew about.

It is more likely the money the individual invests won't be there, as happened in my families case. And unless people like you get control, or some major unforseen problem occurs, the money will still be there if the government has it. And there will be money for those who need it, not just those who knew how to invest well.

Are you sure about that? Social Security doesn't look like it will be paying off as well in the fututre for yourself or kids. About the most it will afford you is half the costs of sitting in a retirement home. SS doesn't pay much for benefits. Most likely you will need the support of your children unless you invested in IRAs and bonds.

I'm on the side of christians now, what a strange world we live in.

Though, what's fair, a working single mother loses her job and has to still find a way to pay rent and raise a kid, so she gets government aid yet you pay taxes. Or is it more fair that she gets no aid and she and her kid have nothing to slow their fall and you keep all your money. Again, your ideas contribute nothing to the public good, do not help those who need it, and do not raise, or even maintain, the current standard of living.

Fair is that I keep my money. Don't try to guilt trip me into paying for a social program so that you can feel warm and fuzzy about helping others. I earned every cent and am entitled to do with it however I see fit. That's like buying yourself a new outfit and someone guilt tripping you about the homeless people on the street. The single mother has family, she has a community, and people will help her. I myself had a difficult time with my first child (single), but I depended on support from others to get me through it. Dredge up all of the impoversihed starving families all you like, the guilt trip inspires me less to accept any pity for my decisions. Don't feel like you are doing anyone a favor by paying into a social program. The truth is, you contribute for yourself, because you want it to be there for you. It's not about helping others, it is for feeding your own sense of security - and you don't care that I have to pay for it also.

 

[neopolss]

[quote name='alonzomourning23']
Such optimism. Who would you want to hire a 57 year old accountant? The type of work he does is drying up to begin with, and few want someone of that age. [/quote]

Sure. If he has the skills. And accountants are still popular around here. There's other fields that accounting experience would be very beneficial in.

No we would not have been homeless, my and I father would have moved to vermont (and leaving the first chance I got, I can't stand the country), away from family and everyone we knew near boston, my mother is 3 years from getting retirement benefits and a pension, meaning she would have either moved in with relatives, effectively splitting my parents, or left the job and never gained those benefits. I would have had to delay college until we had some stability. Also, only one person in our family has any stability, and there house is barely large enough for those who are already in it (3 people and a pitbull). It isn't large enough for 3 more people and another dog. Though since we still have our house, I wonder how you can argue that unemployment did not save us. No unemployment= lose home and move to VT, unemployment= staying in MA and keeping house. My family may very well have been more succesful than you family ever will (I have no idea what you do, or if any other adults in your family work, just that your salary is low), but that did not help them in the end. They still fell and needed those programs, partially due to apparently safe, but still failed investments.

unemployment prevented you from having to sell the home, but as you paint the picture, should there have been none you wouldn't have been on the street (which is what you had implied earlier). So no, it did not save you, but it did help. That's not to say that you among others would probably have an entirely different idea of savings and investment if you knew there was no SS or unemployment. You dad must have found another job then? So wouldn't that negate the question of "who would want to hire him?" Unemployment benefits do not last long, espeically if at a higher income. Benefits can quickly run out in less than a few months.

Did you invest in bonds, savings accounts, and IRAs? A diversification of assetts, I find it hard to believe they all went belly up. I'm not saying your family was careless, but it sounds as if these investments were not as safe as make them out to be.

Then I'm sure you'd be more than happy to provide examples of places where you system is in place.

It's working right here in the US, except for that nagging SS and other non-working programs that are slowly draining all of our pockets.

They do little to stop people from falling, what charity helps a middle class family get through tough times and avoid falling into poverty? Also, some (such as the salvation army) practice religious discrimination against there employees.

Try church. Discrimination? And your point?

You forgot to mention all the people who lose there shirts when there investments fall through. Again, (I never viewed myself as a good example of ecpnomic troubles, and I don't even think of myself that way until I realize parts of my life make good examples on this board), when your 57 and your previous investments have all fallen through, what exactly are you going to do when you are too old to work, or to get a decent job?

That's why you do not invest everything into one place. You also do not place money into unsafe or worrisome stocks without understanding that you may lose your money. 57 is too old? When do you plan to die, at 60? So because I may lose all of my investments and I am fearful of all the terrible things that may happen, I should support forcing everyone else to help pay for my benefits. And what happens when I reach 65, all of my investments are gone, and SS is belly up? We can make speculations and what ifs all day.

Unless it effects the people they higher (and as we have seen now, more money does not mean more jobs), then I don't care if they make 5% of 50%, they don't need the money. And 20% to a poor family does not cover the schooling, police, roads etc. everything else they use. There money is not enough to sustain it, it's those with more money who pay enough to sustain those programs and services. You seem to think that nothing would change if suddenly the government didn't have the money to support all these things, that the only effect would be you have more money.

Twenty percent to a family such as myself is like an extra paycheck every month. That's huge. We're used to having very little leftover, let alone and entire check's worth to put into the children's education or into savings. You seem to think that everything would fall apart if there were less social programs, but a 150 year history of the US prior to most of the social reforms shows that it did indeed survive. These programs will continue to bloat the federal government and it will eventually dawn on you that the only way to go is reduction.

 

[Msut77]

All of your needs are taken care of. You have every safety net you'll ever want.

So that explains it, you are a dumbass.

Much of Chinas population are subsistence farmers, the many that do work in factories have almost now rights. Which is pretty much the direction you want this country to take.

Private charities would do fine.

Lets see they havent in the past, they arent right now why would they do better in the future.

Did you invest in bonds, savings accounts, and IRAs? A diversification of assetts, I find it hard to believe they all went belly up. I'm not saying your family was careless, but it sounds as if these investments were not as safe as make them out to be.

Again you are attempting to use your ignorance as an ignorance as an argument. Even mutal funds which are supposed to be very safe since they are safe (They are very diversified) have been taking a beating.

I earned every cent and am entitled to do with it however I see fit.

Good luck finding a country that will let you do that, you wont find it here or in any first world country.

Maybe you can find an island somewhere, course it wont have roads or a sewage system....

But hell you are a rugged individualist arent you?

 

[alonzomourning23]

[quote name='neopolss']
Did I say at all that you restict free speech? No. But you are advocating to restrict choice.[/quote]

Considering the poor are better taken care of in places like sweden, I don't see how my ideas compare to china the most. There's a whole problem with freedom in China.

China is an example of socialism at its highest level. You tout socialist programs as the savior of humanity, China is an example of how far socialism can go.

I'm going to take it you don't know much about china. Look at all the poor and how they are treated compared to how the poor live in much of the west. Most people seem to think china is worse than it is, you seem to think it's better than it is.

Sweden is great if you don't mind forking over half of your paycheck each week. At some point you'll grow tired of taking care of everyone else with your money. At some point there will be another group petitioning the government to pay for this or that, and your taxes raise again. It's fantastic if you don't mind taking away the rights of others to make decisions for themselves. And that essentially is what it is. Your agreement to these programs is an agreement that you do not want your neighbor to have his money, you want him to pay into your plan, and you do not want to make any choices for yourself.

Lets compare living standards and social freedoms. Also, if you want to start arguing that all these taxes are repressive, you probably want to get a sizeable percentage of the population to agree with you. Right now you're saying how the population is repressed due to it, but they don't seem to agree with you.

Giving welfare has alot to do with social freedoms. By advocating for social programs, you are in essence saying it is okay to take my money to help quell your concerns. How do you find that acceptable? I do not want or need your social programs, yet your continued fervor has forced me to be a participant. If you want safety and security, invest privately where only you contribute - don't force me to go along with it so that you can feel better about yourself.

Social freedoms= free speach, expression, freedom of religion, right to criticize government, freedom of movement etc. Welfare does not affect that. Look at the living standard of societies without those safety nets. Why should I concern myself primarily with the wealthy? They have the means, the poor don't.

Insurance is just another example of a social program. Everyone is required to have insurance, and with a large pool of money at disposal, the prices affixed to claims are outside of realistic expectations. Much akin to medical insurance. The cost will keep rising on medical insurance because the money is being paid by a huge pool of contributors, and since no one person on insurance ever pays the total cost (only a copay or %) the industry is not forced to try to make it affordable. The money will come from the pool, not you directly, and you continue to pay for eternity as the costs will never come down to a reasonable affordable level. Regulated insurance is basically a socialist policy on top of an already socialist idea.

Ok, so if I get into a car accident, what do I do if the guy has no insurance? If my car is worth 12k and it is totalled, who's to say the guy has the money? We are not required to have health insurance. About 16% of the population has none, compared to many countries where it is free and considered a basic right. Also, calling something a socialist policy isn't much of an argument. I'd also like to see you make an argument about how your policies will affect the living standard of this country, you keep ignoring that.

A good example of what I want is the US in the 1910-1920 era, minus government's hand in controlling business (which in the end only helped create the downfall).

Downfall of what? Are you telling me the living standard has decreased since 1910?

AGAIN, HOW DO YOU POLICIES IMPROVE THE LIVING STANDARD?

 

[Msut77]

AGAIN, HOW DO YOUR POLICIES IMPROVE THE LIVING STANDARD?

You are making the mistake of assuming he cares. He obviously doesn't , look at what his posts they boil down to "IT'S MINE".

He hasn't even tried to make an argument that it works better or is moral or good for the country all he cares is that he gets what he considers his.

 

[alonzomourning23]

[quote name='neopolss']

And inner city ghettos are getting so much better with the social programs we have right? Do you actually know how much your employer and yourself pay into the government for all of these programs? No wonder employers pay such low wages and cut benefits. Since the 50s the sheer amount of programs has balooned, and what once could be maintained by a single working parent now requires two, and a second job. You will continue to add programs and programs and expect to have lower taxes. It cannot work like that. The more you want from government, the more you will need to pay, you will eventually grow weary of contributing to social programs, especially when they are NOT WORKING. [/quote]

Since, as we can see, wages were so much high (relatively) in the early 1900's than they are now. I also like to know where I said I expect to have lower taxes, I think I've complained multiple times on this board about bush's tax cuts. Though, as for programs, job training has worked. Helping released prisoners find work does work. Providing day care allows mothers to work. After school programs help to reduce crime by keeping kids off the street. Though, if social programs don't work, why is the poverty level so much lower in nations such as sweden (around 5%), france (around 8%) etc. compared with the u.s. (around 16%). You can't reduce every problem to programs though, for example, every person who does improve moves out of the ghetto, leaving only the poorest behind. And again, how would your ideas improve the lives of those people?

Is welfare helping anyone stay above the poverty line? Or do they continue to collect a paycheck with no desire to move forward - the money is always there for them. What desire is there?

It's kind of meant for those who have already fallen.

Though you argue as if people help each other in that manner now, that it is normal for towns to take up collections or for people to constantly help pay for another rent. Those are the exceptions, not the norm.

More images painted of families going bust without the help of everyone's tax dollars. It can still happen under the current system. One cannot draw unemployment for very long if they maintained a high standard of living. At some point they would have to make the same choice whether they had unemployment or not - to reduce their living means in order ot get back on their feet. If there were no unemployment or welfare, millions of families would not suddenly be hitting the streets overnight. I certainly am not considered a high income by any means, and I don't forsee myself on the street anytime soon. I save and plan, and I could save more if I wasn't paying into a SS plan that I won't collect from.

Unemployment is a cushion, it helps during the period where you attempt to find work. Though I'd like to know why you won't collect, you plan on dying soon?

Yes, so many charities helping people make rent. So many charities helping to feed children of the non homeless but impoverished. So many charities providing free day care. So many charities helping people who lost there jobs.

Yes, yes and yes. Look around your community or volunteer more. You'll discover a multitude of volunteer and community help centers that you never knew about.

Ok, examples? You say there are plenty, there better be a lot since when they are the only means around they are going to be swamped, and most charities are stretched as it is.

It is more likely the money the individual invests won't be there, as happened in my families case. And unless people like you get control, or some major unforseen problem occurs, the money will still be there if the government has it. And there will be money for those who need it, not just those who knew how to invest well.

Are you sure about that? Social Security doesn't look like it will be paying off as well in the fututre for yourself or kids. About the most it will afford you is half the costs of sitting in a retirement home. SS doesn't pay much for benefits. Most likely you will need the support of your children unless you invested in IRAs and bonds.

Your plan means no money for my parents when they are older period, I like our current one better.

I'm on the side of christians now, what a strange world we live in.

Though, what's fair, a working single mother loses her job and has to still find a way to pay rent and raise a kid, so she gets government aid yet you pay taxes. Or is it more fair that she gets no aid and she and her kid have nothing to slow their fall and you keep all your money. Again, your ideas contribute nothing to the public good, do not help those who need it, and do not raise, or even maintain, the current standard of living.

Fair is that I keep my money. Don't try to guilt trip me into paying for a social program so that you can feel warm and fuzzy about helping others. I earned every cent and am entitled to do with it however I see fit. That's like buying yourself a new outfit and someone guilt tripping you about the homeless people on the street. The single mother has family, she has a community, and people will help her. I myself had a difficult time with my first child (single), but I depended on support from others to get me through it. Dredge up all of the impoversihed starving families all you like, the guilt trip inspires me less to accept any pity for my decisions. Don't feel like you are doing anyone a favor by paying into a social program. The truth is, you contribute for yourself, because you want it to be there for you. It's not about helping others, it is for feeding your own sense of security - and you don't care that I have to pay for it also.

You don't want to explain why I should concern myself more with someone who has the means than with someone who doesn't.

 

[alonzomourning23]

[quote name='"neopolss"'][quote name='alonzomourning23']
Such optimism. Who would you want to hire a 57 year old accountant? The type of work he does is drying up to begin with, and few want someone of that age. [/quote]

Sure. If he has the skills. And accountants are still popular around here. There's other fields that accounting experience would be very beneficial in.

Why hire a 57 year old who is years away from retirement, when you can get a 30 year old? Most employers wouldn't touch him (I also think there are different types of accountants).

unemployment prevented you from having to sell the home, but as you paint the picture, should there have been none you wouldn't have been on the street (which is what you had implied earlier). So no, it did not save you, but it did help. That's not to say that you among others would probably have an entirely different idea of savings and investment if you knew there was no SS or unemployment. You dad must have found another job then? So wouldn't that negate the question of "who would want to hire him?" Unemployment benefits do not last long, espeically if at a higher income. Benefits can quickly run out in less than a few months.

It took him about 8 months to find a job, he only got hired since he found a company who wanted someone with plenty of experience since they never had someone who did the work he does.

Did you invest in bonds, savings accounts, and IRAs? A diversification of assetts, I find it hard to believe they all went belly up. I'm not saying your family was careless, but it sounds as if these investments were not as safe as make them out to be.

Stocks, family run business (the main problem), apartments, I also think you'd be suprised with bonds, after tax, inflation and the 15+ years it takes to mature, you aren't getting much of anything. Then again, we did have money to put aside at one point, many families don't.

Then I'm sure you'd be more than happy to provide examples of places where you system is in place.

It's working right here in the US, except for that nagging SS and other non-working programs that are slowly draining all of our pockets.

It is? Income tax, welfar, unemployment, mandatory car insurance, SS etc. You want to explain how you can argue your ideas are working here? Again though, look at the poverty levels in europe.

They do little to stop people from falling, what charity helps a middle class family get through tough times and avoid falling into poverty? Also, some (such as the salvation army) practice religious discrimination against there employees.

Try church. Discrimination? And your point?

Few things, one churches do not do that (maybe a small community one, where everyone knows each other might help a bit, but the best they'd do is provide moral support, or help one everyone loved). Second, even if churches did help every one who needs it, what to do with the atheists, agnostics, or people who aren't muslim/jewish/christian/hindu (those are the houses of worship around here)?

Though I don't get your next point, I think if you want to deny they practice discrimination that's fine, but I don't see how you can agree and then ask what's the problem.

57 is too old? When do you plan to die, at 60? So because I may lose all of my investments and I am fearful of all the terrible things that may happen, I should support forcing everyone else to help pay for my benefits. And what happens when I reach 65, all of my investments are gone, and SS is belly up? We can make speculations and what ifs all day.

Again, most companies won't hire someone who is 57, no point when you can hire a 30 year old. And most people don't work until they die either, often because they are not physically able to.

Unless it effects the people they higher (and as we have seen now, more money does not mean more jobs), then I don't care if they make 5% of 50%, they don't need the money. And 20% to a poor family does not cover the schooling, police, roads etc. everything else they use. There money is not enough to sustain it, it's those with more money who pay enough to sustain those programs and services. You seem to think that nothing would change if suddenly the government didn't have the money to support all these things, that the only effect would be you have more money.

Twenty percent to a family such as myself is like an extra paycheck every month. That's huge. We're used to having very little leftover, let alone and entire check's worth to put into the children's education or into savings. You seem to think that everything would fall apart if there were less social programs, but a 150 year history of the US prior to most of the social reforms shows that it did indeed survive. These programs will continue to bloat the federal government and it will eventually dawn on you that the only way to go is reduction.

First of, I already said someone who is essentially in poverty should not be paying those taxes. Second, what to do with funding for public schools, the roads, police etc. You're delusional to think that sales tax and tariffs can cover all that.

 

[neopolss]

[quote name='Msut77']
So that explains it, you are a dumbass.

Much of Chinas population are subsistence farmers, the many that do work in factories have almost now rights. Which is pretty much the direction you want this country to take.[/quote]

The only dumbass is you, who doesn't see the dripping sarcasm in it. I oppose social programs 100%, China being an example of socialism at its most abundant. Perhaps you should take the time to understand what you read before commenting.

Lets see they havent in the past, they arent right now why would they do better in the future.

Examples please. And further, an example of how social programs have cured the poverty and need for charities currently.

Again you are attempting to use your ignorance as an ignorance as an argument. Even mutal funds which are supposed to be very safe since they are safe (They are very diversified) have been taking a beating.

Then store it under your matress. I really have no means to dictate how you should invest your meny, but the government saving it for you is no safer than private accounts in the consumer market.

Good luck finding a country that will let you do that, you wont find it here or in any first world country.

Maybe you can find an island somewhere, course it wont have roads or a sewage system....

But hell you are a rugged individualist arent you?

I see a country that continues to balloon in size and girth due to massive programns being continously added. The only outcome of that is you will need to pay more money to keep these programs going. At some point you will need to look at a reduction in government spending and programs in order to better your standard of living - or switch to communism. Now, unless you can give a great example of how expanding the powers of government to incorporate more fields and provide better quality of life at lower cost, you'll see also that government needs trimming.

I'm not talking an overnight change of cutting all programs, I'm talking a gradual reduction in benefits over the course of 40-50 years, in order to ween everyone from it. The end result is less money paid to the government, more in your pocket, and more reliance on responsible individuals to make better decisions. If you still want social programs, look to the private sector. Contribute money to an unemployment fund of your own if it makes you feel secure, but in no way is it everyone's obligation to contribute to your security.

 

[neopolss]

[quote name='alonzomourning23']
Considering the poor are better taken care of in places like sweden, I don't see how my ideas compare to china the most. There's a whole problem with freedom in China.[/quote]

And a restriction of freedom in Sweden. Social programs aren't curing the problem of the poor, so what are they doing besides wasting your money?

I'm going to take it you don't know much about china. Look at all the poor and how they are treated compared to how the poor live in much of the west. Most people seem to think china is worse than it is, you seem to think it's better than it is.

And you can't grasp sarcasm. China is an example of extreme socialism, and the end result when one person feels the need to care for the rest of society. In now way is China a great country - it's the worst wwhen it comes to personall freedom and earning a living. All workers money have been funnelled into social programs 100%

Lets compare living standards and social freedoms. Also, if you want to start arguing that all these taxes are repressive, you probably want to get a sizeable percentage of the population to agree with you. Right now you're saying how the population is repressed due to it, but they don't seem to agree with you.

You'll find many people out there who think a large bulk of government programs are nothing but fat that needs trimming.

Social freedoms= free speach, expression, freedom of religion, right to criticize government, freedom of movement etc. Welfare does not affect that. Look at the living standard of societies without those safety nets. Why should I concern myself primarily with the wealthy? They have the means, the poor don't.

The FCC does. Part of your dollars pays for a program that regulates and monitors for what they consider obscene language and pictures. Whether you agree with the censorship or not (and as an adult can make decisions for yourself) the choice is made for you. The FCC is by all means a social program that does not allow you the freedom as a consumer to watch content as you see fit.

Why should you concern yourself with the poor?

Ok, so if I get into a car accident, what do I do if the guy has no insurance? If my car is worth 12k and it is totalled, who's to say the guy has the money? We are not required to have health insurance. About 16% of the population has none, compared to many countries where it is free and considered a basic right. Also, calling something a socialist policy isn't much of an argument. I'd also like to see you make an argument about how your policies will affect the living standard of this country, you keep ignoring that.

You sue. He has damaged your property. In other case even if you did have insurance, liability will not repair your car (you must have full), and under certain circumstances (no fault states) no fault can be established and insurance doesn't necessarily need to pay you a dime (I've had it happen).

No, calling it a socialist policy isn't an argument, it's a statement of fact. Only to display it as another example of social policy that in the end doesn't benefit you. Can you provide an example of social policy raising the standard of living in this country? I still see poor & homeless, and chairities seem to run rampant despite the safety nets we have it place.

Downfall of what? Are you telling me the living standard has decreased since 1910?

At least since 1950. Look at the average worker now. It requires 2 for most families to maintain a household, and for many a second job on top of it. Increasing the amount of programs has forced employers to cut on wages, benefits, and jobs in order to make a profit. Don't forget that your employer pays into social security and unemployment. The solution to raising the standard isn't to add more social programs that cost more money. It needs trimming.

AGAIN, HOW DO YOU POLICIES IMPROVE THE LIVING STANDARD?

How do yours? By reducing the amount of dependance on social programs, we give the decision back to the consumer. It's inevitable that government will need to streamline in order to be more effective. Programs will need to be cut, and most importantly, graduated over a period of time to allow adjustment. Who knows? Perhaps when some of the bulk is trimmed, you'll be able to keep your slavery-retirment system, otherwise, you may have to manage your savings yourself.

 

[neopolss]

[quote name='alonzomourning23']
Why hire a 57 year old who is years away from retirement, when you can get a 30 year old? Most employers wouldn't touch him (I also think there are different types of accountants).[/quote]

But someone did.

It took him about 8 months to find a job, he only got hired since he found a company who wanted someone with plenty of experience since they never had someone who did the work he does.

I don't contribute it to luck, I contribute it to your father's skills and his drive to find work. Congrats.

Stocks, family run business (the main problem), apartments, I also think you'd be suprised with bonds, after tax, inflation and the 15+ years it takes to mature, you aren't getting much of anything. Then again, we did have money to put aside at one point, many families don't.

I'm giving examples. You can invest in whatever you like, but if you feel the government is needed to manage your money, you are sadly mistaken. You haven't addressed why social security is necessary.

It is? Income tax, welfar, unemployment, mandatory car insurance, SS etc. You want to explain how you can argue your ideas are working here? Again though, look at the poverty levels in europe.

Because people manage to retire from their private savings and have a better standard of living in retirement that they would not have with social security.

Few things, one churches do not do that (maybe a small community one, where everyone knows each other might help a bit, but the best they'd do is provide moral support, or help one everyone loved). Second, even if churches did help every one who needs it, what to do with the atheists, agnostics, or people who aren't muslim/jewish/christian/hindu (those are the houses of worship around here)?

Though I don't get your next point, I think if you want to deny they practice discrimination that's fine, but I don't see how you can agree and then ask what's the problem.

Chruches alone do not do it. But when you combine church, charity, donations, volunteer work, and community, people are taken care of.

Next point, a business is no fault and can hire fire whomever they wish.

Again, most companies won't hire someone who is 57, no point when you can hire a 30 year old. And most people don't work until they die either, often because they are not physically able to.

Most do not retire at 57 either. And I beg to differ on a company not hiring based on age. If you have the qualifications, you will be considered.

First of, I already said someone who is essentially in poverty should not be paying those taxes. Second, what to do with funding for public schools, the roads, police etc. You're delusional to think that sales tax and tariffs can cover all that.

public education is a mandatory socialist program. Home school is a great alternative, and the results prove that home schooled children have better test scores. Local police maintain currently just fine from donations, public auctions, and city sales taxes.

 

[Msut77]

The only dumbass is you, who doesn't see the dripping sarcasm in it.

I asked you if you were kidding and apparently you werent.

However Commie China is supposed to be they really do not take care of their poor or their workers.

And again Chruches cannot handle the load even know all the shelters and other private programs are strained right now if we cut of all government they would collapse. Please cut the BS.

 

[neopolss]

[quote name='Msut77']

The only dumbass is you, who doesn't see the dripping sarcasm in it.

I asked you if you were kidding and apparently you werent.

However Commie China is supposed to be they really do not take care of their poor or their workers.

And again Chruches cannot handle the load even know all the shelters and other private programs are strained right now if we cut of all government they would collapse. Please cut the BS.[/quote]

I wouldn't imagine China would be able to. It's the entire problem with a socialist system. Everyone gets mediocre treatment, and if you can longer work and contribute to the collective, you are of no use.

Private programs are strained because American citizens are pinched in the pocketbook. If these socialist programs worked so well, there would be no strain on the private sector. The fact that despite all of the social reform issues, the problem inherently exists, should show you that the programs do not work. How can a private charity collapse when it is funded by donations and volunteers? Everyone is taking home more money yet somehow we are poorer and more stressed? Contradictory. There are great humanitarians, even among the wealthy.

 

[neopolss]

[quote name='Msut77']

AGAIN, HOW DO YOUR POLICIES IMPROVE THE LIVING STANDARD?

You are making the mistake of assuming he cares. He obviously doesn't , look at what his posts they boil down to "IT'S MINE".

He hasn't even tried to make an argument that it works better or is moral or good for the country all he cares is that he gets what he considers his.[/quote]

There's nothing to be ashamed of or feel guilty for in wanting to keep what you worked hard for. I shouldn't be forced to hand it over to cover your insecurities of the future or make you feel batter to help someone else out. I'd rather have my income, and decide for myself where I donate my money.

As for social programs helping low income families like myself, I do not need nor want your pity, nor would I demand a portion of your check to cover my expenses. You earned it, you keep it, donate it, whatever you wish.

I have spent 40 hours a week (plus a few in a side job) at work taking time away from my family, and you want to guilt trip me because I want that money to go towards my family directly? When it comes to taking care of my family or yours, I choose mine.

 

[Msut77]

It's the entire problem with a socialist system.

Thing is China never took care of farmers and workers.
It isnt a Socialist thing.

How can a private charity collapse when it is funded by donations and volunteers?

When they cannot handle the load of people seeking assistance?

Like I said this isnt a question of your self centerdness
I and many others view it as an investment.

Problem is with many Conservatarian they want Star Wars they want an enormous military industrial complex so thats ok to suck money away from tax payers, feed a child and its like nope cant afford Commie.

 

[neopolss]

[quote name='alonzomourning23']
Since, as we can see, wages were so much high (relatively) in the early 1900's than they are now. I also like to know where I said I expect to have lower taxes, I think I've complained multiple times on this board about bush's tax cuts. Though, as for programs, job training has worked. Helping released prisoners find work does work. Providing day care allows mothers to work. After school programs help to reduce crime by keeping kids off the street. Though, if social programs don't work, why is the poverty level so much lower in nations such as sweden (around 5%), france (around 8%) etc. compared with the u.s. (around 16%). You can't reduce every problem to programs though, for example, every person who does improve moves out of the ghetto, leaving only the poorest behind. And again, how would your ideas improve the lives of those people?[/quote]

Comparable to today, wages then could maintain a family with only one member working. Job training, released prisoner work, daycare, after school programs, are all programs that do not need to be funded by the taxpayer. Big Brothers and Big Sisters, 4H, and other similar programs that are private and volunteer work as effectively and are not funded by taxpayer dollars. I'm pointing out to you that there are alternatives to mandatory social programs.

Another issue to examine is why the working mother cannot afford daycare? I would say that it is in part due to the massive amount of social programs that must be paid by her taxes and her employer that she makes a lesser wage than she should be making. She is instead forced to become dependant on the social programs.

Even the social programs cannot eliminate poverty though can they? You may have a big heart, but you cannot help everyone. Keep your money, and take it directly to someone who needs help, volunteer, and if no chairty exists to help, create one! If the social programs are so great, why do so many leave to come to the US?

It's kind of meant for those who have already fallen.

And massively abused.

Unemployment is a cushion, it helps during the period where you attempt to find work. Though I'd like to know why you won't collect, you plan on dying soon?

A savings account is a cusion also. Why do you not trust saving money for yourself for hard times?

I won't collect because the social security system is becoming overloaded. The only answer has been private accounts (investments in bonds and savings), which begs the question, why does the government need to do that for me?

SS also does not provide well enough to live on. Neither of my parents could afford their living after retiring. SS pretty much pays for a stay at the retirement home, and I could never do that to my family.

Ok, examples? You say there are plenty, there better be a lot since when they are the only means around they are going to be swamped, and most charities are stretched as it is.

In my local phone book, there are well over fifty different organizations covering clothing, food, shelter, and work. There are almost one hundred different churches alone. This city is 80,000 in population.

And how will the system be swamped? We're not talking an overnight overhaul of government, we're talking a 50 year phase out of certain programs that the public has become dependant on. Like it or not, unless you wish to continue to pay more and more from your check, the government is going to have to trim down.

Your plan means no money for my parents when they are older period, I like our current one better.

They don't save anything? They don't plan on selling their home once the kids move out, or selling a vehicle as they find their demands don't require as much? If they weren't paying for SS, they would have been placing that money into a future savings account for their retirement. The only money that is there is what they pay, similar to what exists now, except currently your meny doesn't go into an account for you, and the government does little to earn any return on it. There is no difference except choice. Currently you pay (guessing) $60 a week to SS to the government. Instead you would pay $60 (or more) a week into a savings account, IRA, bonds, or stocks. The safest would be savings, but then again you control that decision, as well as how much.

You don't want to explain why I should concern myself more with someone who has the means than with someone who doesn't.

Because it isn't about someone else is it? It is about your own insecurity and fears of your future. You'd rather have everyone else pay into the pot so that you can feel secure about your retirement. You'd rather have everyone pay into welfare programs and medicare so that you can feel good about helping others. If you think it is selfish for me to want to keep the money I earned, I find it far more selfish to gladly take everyone else's money to insure your retirement. You don't want to face the conclusion that you should be managing money for yourself, and not having the government do it for you.

 

[neopolss]

[quote name='Msut77']

It's the entire problem with a socialist system.

Thing is China never took care of farmers and workers.
It isnt a Socialist thing.

How can a private charity collapse when it is funded by donations and volunteers?

When they cannot handle the load of people seeking assistance?

Like I said this isnt a question of your self centerdness
I and many others view it as an investment.

Problem is with many Conservatarian they want Star Wars they want an enormous military industrial complex so thats ok to suck money away from tax payers, feed a child and its like nope cant afford Commie.[/quote]

You can probably guess, but I do not support a large military, nor do I support our role in world politics. I also despise the no child left behind act, SS in all forms, and especially moral legislation trying to enforce its way into the public law. I've stated numerous times that the republican party is as much socialist as the democratic party. Anytime you begin to introduce public mandatory programs funded by taxpayers, you're stepping on someone.

 

[Msut77]

Anytime you begin to introduce public mandatory programs funded by taxpayers, you're stepping on someone.

Even rural electrification even road building and even the FDIC?

 

[neopolss]

[quote name='Msut77']

Anytime you begin to introduce public mandatory programs funded by taxpayers, you're stepping on someone.

Even rural electrification even road building and even the FDIC?[/quote]

It can be funded without direct taxation of your paycheck. A tax on the electricty bill you pay would be an example. Roads can be built using funds from sales tax on consumer goods, as well as sales of automobiles, tires, car services, and all manner of auto related service.

Someone mentioned before that military would be difficult to fund. Not if you aren't pursuing it as much. Sweden and Canada probably have smaller militias combined than the US. Downplaying our role in world politics might ease some of the ferocity aimed at the US.

Most likely the best course of the FDIC would be to continue its funds supported by the banking industry, similar to the crash test instituion of highway safety. They, like the insurance industry, see a need to show the consumer confidence in a product. An unconfident consumer does not buy. A more savvy American public would not trust their money to any company - they would take whoever steps up and can show them that their investments are safe. It's different than the days of the stock market crash. The fervor that swept the nation in the late twenties taught a painful lesson in get rich quick schemes (which essentially what the stock market used to lull investors).

 

[alonzomourning23]

You have repeatedly talked about reducing your spending, I don't think you've ever dealt with debt. The bills are what usually drives people to lose there home, the paychecks aren't covering the bills, mortgage etc. coming in. It's not just "I'm going to spend less now", because now isn't what the problem is.

How do yours? By reducing the amount of dependance on social programs, we give the decision back to the consumer. It's inevitable that government will need to streamline in order to be more effective. Programs will need to be cut, and most importantly, graduated over a period of time to allow adjustment. Who knows? Perhaps when some of the bulk is trimmed, you'll be able to keep your slavery-retirment system, otherwise, you may have to manage your savings yourself.

The poor can attend school, can recieve quality medical care (in most western countries, doesn't apply to the u.s.), can recieve affordable housing etc. Again, why do nations that have social programs have higher liver standards, particularly among the poor. Compare our poverty levels with europe, or even canada (where it's high, but ours is still a sizeable jump)?

I don't contribute it to luck, I contribute it to your father's skills and his drive to find work. Congrats.

He was lucky to find a company who was just creating his position, they never had an employee who did the work he does. That's why his age wasn't detrimental. It seems obvious you haven't actually had to look for work at that age, it gets harder and harder as you age.

Next point, a business is no fault and can hire fire whomever they wish.

I'm sure black people and women love you. Or the Irish in the northeast in the 50's and back, with all the "Irish need not apply" signs.

Most do not retire at 57 either. And I beg to differ on a company not hiring based on age. If you have the qualifications, you will be considered.

Yes, and I'm sure women get the same as men. They have the qualifications, those numbers showing they get about 75% of the pay can't be accurate.

public education is a mandatory socialist program. Home school is a great alternative, and the results prove that home schooled children have better test scores. Local police maintain currently just fine from donations, public auctions, and city sales taxes.

Yes, since local police recieve no funding outside of sales tax, donations and auctions. And home schooling is fine if you don't think developing social competence is important.

How can a private charity collapse when it is funded by donations and volunteers? Everyone is taking home more money yet somehow we are poorer and more stressed? Contradictory.

Yes, since if you recieve some donations that has to be enough to fund whatever programs are needed, no matter how much they cost.

It is only contradictory if you don't look at the indirect effects of cutting taxes and social programs. "Yay taxes are cut!", but funding for books and library material for public schools was cut, poor people can't afford private schools (as for home schools, how exactly is a single mother or father supposed to work full time and home school her children?) , and the quality of education in public schools suffer even more, meaning less educated poor people.

Even the social programs cannot eliminate poverty though can they? You may have a big heart, but you cannot help everyone. Keep your money, and take it directly to someone who needs help, volunteer, and if no chairty exists to help, create one! If the social programs are so great, why do so many leave to come to the US?

You should visit canada, there are more chinese going to canada per year than to the u.s., and Europe gets the bulk of middle eastern and african immigrants. Our immigrants are primarily south american and mexican. Also, no one ever said eliminating poverty was a goal, only idealists strive for something so unattainable.

In my local phone book, there are well over fifty different organizations covering clothing, food, shelter, and work. There are almost one hundred different churches alone. This city is 80,000 in population.

50 different organizations, who are they and who are they designed to help?

They don't save anything? They don't plan on selling their home once the kids move out, or selling a vehicle as they find their demands don't require as much? If they weren't paying for SS, they would have been placing that money into a future savings account for their retirement.

Debt, debt, debt, debt. Do you know what that is? Selling their home means moving to vermont (far away from friends and family, but my father likes it and my mother can't stand the thought, but it's affordable, so that's the alternative), since you aren't going to get much of anything for under 300k around here, about the value of ours. And selling your car? And do what? You can't get anywhere without a car, you would have to walk for at least an hour just to go grocery shopping (ridiculous, and also impossible for people who have trouble walking), or pay a taxi. You can't go anywhere without a car. And if there wasn't SS the extra money would have been used to try to get out of debt, or to attempt to keep the family business afloat (when we had one).

Someone mentioned before that military would be difficult to fund. Not if you aren't pursuing it as much. Sweden and Canada probably have smaller militias combined than the US. Downplaying our role in world politics might ease some of the ferocity aimed at the US.

Yes, but they are designed only for essential self defense, they know that stronger nations (such as the u.s., which is too strong and bloated in my mind, the u.k. etc. helping) would likely aid them if it was every necessary. Though the statement "they PROBABLY have smaller militias combined" again shows you don't know what you're talking about, and just throwing out things hoping they are correct.

The FCC does. Part of your dollars pays for a program that regulates and monitors for what they consider obscene language and pictures. Whether you agree with the censorship or not (and as an adult can make decisions for yourself) the choice is made for you. The FCC is by all means a social program that does not allow you the freedom as a consumer to watch content as you see fit.

Why should you concern yourself with the poor?

All government programs are not social programs in terms of helping people. The fcc is never something I said I supported.

Also, I think that last line is where I give up, there is no point in continuing.

 

[neopolss]

[quote name='alonzomourning23']You have repeatedly talked about reducing your spending, I don't think you've ever dealt with debt. The bills are what usually drives people to lose there home, the paychecks aren't covering the bills, mortgage etc. coming in. It's not just "I'm going to spend less now", because now isn't what the problem is. [/quote]

At one point I owed almost $30,000 in back debt, much of it dues to poor mismanagement. I'm down to less than $10,000 now. Part of what drives people into debt is living above their means. Your debt to income ration is significant, and hopefully, most of us learn it at the age of 18 or 19, when those first college credit cards come around. At one point all of us will lose a job, home, have an emergency, a family crisis, or a child. All of these things require saving and planning for, and you should not rely on a social program to be the safety guard. You should be prepared yourself.

The poor can attend school, can recieve quality medical care (in most western countries, doesn't apply to the u.s.), can recieve affordable housing etc. Again, why do nations that have social programs have higher liver standards, particularly among the poor. Compare our poverty levels with europe, or even canada (where it's high, but ours is still a sizeable jump)?

Yet they still remain poor. Believe it or not, you can still receive medical care even if uninsured. The poor can even be home schooled, and as I've pointed out before, generates on average better scores than public education. Home school is growing in popularity as the cost of education increases.

There's a tradeoff to government social programs, which is why I point to socialist countries. When the government begins to provide more and more, and the average person pays more, the end result is that everyone recieves mediocre treatment. It also means that the government begins to see something as well. Why should you have the freedoms to make the choices when you're so willing to hand them over? The social programs will spill over into the moral programs, as the government begins to decide what is proper to hear, view, and do.

Despite all of the "wonderful" social programs in Europe, there are still more coming here everyday, 33% of current immigrants being college graduates. I guess they find that private non regulated fields pay better even with the social programs we have. It sends a clear message that despite the provisions they are being provided, many would rather have the choice, and many would rather have their income as opposed to providing for the masses.

He was lucky to find a company who was just creating his position, they never had an employee who did the work he does. That's why his age wasn't detrimental. It seems obvious you haven't actually had to look for work at that age, it gets harder and harder as you age.

8 months is actually very good. On average, many take a year or more. It wasn't luck. Your father was educated and well versed in the field they were looking for. Give your dad more credit than that.

I'm sure black people and women love you. Or the Irish in the northeast in the 50's and back, with all the "Irish need not apply" signs.

If I owned a business I would not have a difference as to who I hire, but it shouldn't give me the right to dictate how other companies do their business. When I am looking for a job, I'm agreeing to work for them and be paid on their terms. But then again, I probably would to a degree. I wouldn't want a klan supporter working in my business - it's a reflection of my image.

Yes, and I'm sure women get the same as men. They have the qualifications, those numbers showing they get about 75% of the pay can't be accurate.

Try Des Moines. Amazing, the private sector is stepping in.
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Business/story?id=492912&page=1

Stop being a victim. If you have the skills, then you will get hired. If the pay is not fair or not high enough, then put in your two weeks and find a place that pays better. One of the best things about being at the bottom of the ladder is that you don't find much complaining down here. Life IS unfair, and hard. But apply yourself and work at it, and you will be rewarded. If you have time to complain, you're not working hard enough. Take the lumps and keep pushing forward.

Yes, since local police recieve no funding outside of sales tax, donations and auctions. And home schooling is fine if you don't think developing social competence is important.

Homeschooling is actually proven to be more effective both academically and socially for children.

"In the research conducted by Galloway & Sutton (2000), homeschoolers who went to college showed no significant social skill deprivation from their experience. Leadership domain among the homeschooled group was substantially higher than their counterparts from the private as well as public high school groups."
http://homeschooling.gomilpitas.com/articles/071003.htm

Yes, since if you recieve some donations that has to be enough to fund whatever programs are needed, no matter how much they cost.

It is only contradictory if you don't look at the indirect effects of cutting taxes and social programs. "Yay taxes are cut!", but funding for books and library material for public schools was cut, poor people can't afford private schools (as for home schools, how exactly is a single mother or father supposed to work full time and home school her children?) , and the quality of education in public schools suffer even more, meaning less educated poor people.

Social programs cost you far more than in just your paycheck. You pay out of every check, on every yearly ownership of property. It extends to your employer paying as well. 20 - 25% of your income is paying into these programs. And the poor pay as well. So who's benefiting? It's public education, yet you still pay books and fees when you enroll your children. You're taking each example to the furthest slope, and not realizing that this would need to occur over a long period. A gradual reduction of benefits and increase in income. This image of poor is in your head. Parents sacrifice a lot for their children, and I'm sure you've seen plenty of stories on the single mothers who sent their kids through college working three jobs. She wasn't doing it from social programs. She was working harder in order to make up for the lost wages those programs cost her.

You should visit canada, there are more chinese going to canada per year than to the u.s., and Europe gets the bulk of middle eastern and african immigrants. Our immigrants are primarily south american and mexican. Also, no one ever said eliminating poverty was a goal, only idealists strive for something so unattainable.

15% of all immigrants this year were from Africa. I won't comment on our world politics concerning Africa, suffice to say that it is part of the reason we must maintain a level of taxation. 33% of immigrants from Europe are college graduates.

What is the goal? Force everyone to pay into your plan of security? The only reason the plan is made mandatory is because otherwise not everyone would pay in. It would be great if everyone who WANTED to pay could, and others opt out. Unfortunately then the plans would cost much more, and programs like retirement planning and savings for unemployment (like your employer pay) exist in the private sector.

In my local phone book, there are well over fifty different organizations covering clothing, food, shelter, and work. There are almost one hundred different churches alone. This city is 80,000 in population.

I'll name a few (maybe pst the list later). Salvation Army, Goodwill, Habitat for Humanity, Penn House, 4H, Boys and Girls club, KU center of research, Hope for healing, Dream Factory, Make a Wish, Catholic Community Services, Christian Family Services, University of Fellow Christians, Heart of America, Pledge a phone, Lawrence workforce Centeretc.

They deal with a variety of issues form domestic help and family problems, after school programs, clothing, shelter, food, jobs, and medical problems.

[quiote]
Debt, debt, debt, debt. Do you know what that is? Selling their home means moving to vermont (far away from friends and family, but my father likes it and my mother can't stand the thought, but it's affordable, so that's the alternative), since you aren't going to get much of anything for under 300k around here, about the value of ours. And selling your car? And do what? You can't get anywhere without a car, you would have to walk for at least an hour just to go grocery shopping (ridiculous, and also impossible for people who have trouble walking), or pay a taxi. You can't go anywhere without a car. And if there wasn't SS the extra money would have been used to try to get out of debt, or to attempt to keep the family business afloat (when we had one). [/quote]

I know debt well. I've discussed that on another post. Wait till you have kids. You'll have some hefty bills thanks to that insurance. Most plans don't cover 100% until you at least meet the deductable, and will not cover certain things (like a private room to sleep in). Can't go anywhere without a car? You haven't lived in the midwest then. Either way, you would have survived even without the aid of unemployment (you dad would have been bringing more home to save as well).

Yes, but they are designed only for essential self defense, they know that stronger nations (such as the u.s., which is too strong and bloated in my mind, the u.k. etc. helping) would likely aid them if it was every necessary. Though the statement "they PROBABLY have smaller militias combined" again shows you don't know what you're talking about, and just throwing out things hoping they are correct.

The US is probably too strong and bloated because of massive amounts of spending. So I guess we could reduce that a bit, and it would help pave our roads adequately. So now the US needs to be the socialist protector of the world? Yes, let's play the pick a word tactic. Since I didn't have the time to research it offhand, I had to make a logical guess. And I'm PROBABLY right.

All government programs are not social programs in terms of helping people. The fcc is never something I said I supported.

Also, I think that last line is where I give up, there is no point in continuing.

Social prgrams eventually work their way into moral social programs. It cannot work any other way. Once the mindset is there to create mandatory obligation, it becomes even more clear to give the people a set of rules to live by. Mom and Dad don't give you a roof and feed you without having to obey a few rules do they?

 

[alonzomourning23]

Yes, but they are designed only for essential self defense, they know that stronger nations (such as the u.s., which is too strong and bloated in my mind, the u.k. etc. helping) would likely aid them if it was every necessary. Though the statement "they PROBABLY have smaller militias combined" again shows you don't know what you're talking about, and just throwing out things hoping they are correct.

The US is probably too strong and bloated because of massive amounts of spending. So I guess we could reduce that a bit, and it would help pave our roads adequately. So now the US needs to be the socialist protector of the world? Yes, let's play the pick a word tactic. Since I didn't have the time to research it offhand, I had to make a logical guess. And I'm PROBABLY right.

My point was the u.s. is much larger, it's not even close. Canada has about 20 thousand, I can't seem to find statistics on sweden.

 

[Msut77]

A tax on the electricty bill you pay would be an example.

For rural electrification? They didnt have it before this program so how would you tax something that didnt exist?

 

[neopolss]

[quote name='Msut77']

A tax on the electricty bill you pay would be an example.

For rural electrification? They didnt have it before this program so how would you tax something that didnt exist?[/quote]

Like anything else, over time as companies grew, they would find a profitable way to bring electricity to farmers. Similar to how many rural areas do not have cable here, but then DSL came along to fill the gap. For eveything there is an eager adventurist waiting for an oppurtunity. Government does not need to fill the gap. Rural electrification may have helped (as with many programs) to a degree, but it was not essential to survival.

"Rural electrification was based on the belief that affordable electricity would improve the standard of living and the economic competitiveness of the family farm. But electric power alone was not enough to stop the transformation of America's farm communities. Rural electrification did not halt the continuing migration of rural people from the country to the city. Nor did it stop the decline in the total number of family farms."
http://newdeal.feri.org/tva/tva10.htm

 

[neopolss]

My point was the u.s. is much larger, it's not even close. Canada has about 20 thousand, I can't seem to find statistics on sweden.

I wouldn't imagine Sweden's to be very large. We don't see swedish troops invading other countries like the US does (taking a shot at the current admin's efforts to rule Iraq).

 

[Msut77]

Thats the sad thing about some Liberatarians.

Their beliefs are faith based, just a higher being is replaced with the free market.

BTW you still havent manetioned where you stand on the FDIC.

 

[neopolss]

[quote name='Msut77']Thats the sad thing about some Liberatarians.

Their beliefs are faith based, just a higher being is replaced with the free market.

BTW you still havent manetioned where you stand on the FDIC.[/quote]

That's the sad thing about socialists.

Their beliefs are faith based, just a higher being is replaced with the oppressive hand of government.

Actually I did mention the FDIC in an earlier post. Independant agency created by the banking industry, similar to the institute of highway safety. Consumers these days don't trust anything that doesn't have a check or balance (no pun intended).

 

[Drocket]

[quote name='neopolss'] Consumers these days don't trust anything that doesn't have a check or balance (no pun intended).[/quote]
Perhaps you should examine why. History is full of lessons for those who take the time to learn them.

 

[alonzomourning23]

[quote name='neopolss'][quote name='Msut77']Thats the sad thing about some Liberatarians.

Their beliefs are faith based, just a higher being is replaced with the free market.

BTW you still havent manetioned where you stand on the FDIC.[/quote]

That's the sad thing about socialists.

Their beliefs are faith based, just a higher being is replaced with the oppressive hand of government.

Actually I did mention the FDIC in an earlier post. Independant agency created by the banking industry, similar to the institute of highway safety. Consumers these days don't trust anything that doesn't have a check or balance (no pun intended).[/quote]

If it was faith based (what you call socialism), then the examples would be what could happen, what could be done, not what programs are being done, the way certain societies currently are.

 

[Msut77]

That's the sad thing about socialists.

Their beliefs are faith based, just a higher being is replaced with the oppressive hand of government.

I provided examples of programs that worked.

You mentioned DSL reached to places that dont have cable modems, not exactly a ginormous public works project.

What you said about the other things was "eh freemarket will take care of it".

Actually I did mention the FDIC in an earlier post.

Where? It is independant but still a government agency, so is it evil and oppresive to make sure your money in the bank is there?

 

[neopolss]

[quote name='Drocket'][quote name='neopolss'] Consumers these days don't trust anything that doesn't have a check or balance (no pun intended).[/quote]
Perhaps you should examine why. History is full of lessons for those who take the time to learn them.[/quote]

I see the why. However a knowledgeable consumer base doesn't need government intervention to decide it for them.

 

[neopolss]

[quote name='Msut77']That's the sad thing about socialists.

Their beliefs are faith based, just a higher being is replaced with the oppressive hand of government.

I provided examples of programs that worked.

You mentioned DSL reached to places that dont have cable modems, not exactly a ginormous public works project.

What you said about the other things was "eh freemarket will take care of it".

Actually I did mention the FDIC in an earlier post.

Where? It is independant but still a government agency, so is it evil and oppresive to make sure your money in the bank is there?[/quote]

DSL may no be a large enormous project, but it is an example of the private sector filling in gaps instead of government social programs forcing the hand of the taxpayer.

The FDIC may not necessarily be evil (I don't consider anything good vs. evil, only choice vs. no choice), however it is funded by taxpayer dollars and you do pay for its continuance whether you believe in it or not. I am simply dispelling the myth that has been sold to you by your government. Social programs are not essential to your lives, social programs will not cause anarchy if ended. The government is extremely wasteful in its spending, and yet you continue to trust your hard earned money to them. You been sold by your government that you need them to make decisions for you, and that you couldn't survive without their help. The creation is your dependance, do not fall victim.

It is not evil and oppressive in its goals, it's oppressive of your choice.

It's not a government agency funded by public tax dollars when it is an agency created and monitored by its own industry. It is paid for by the industry.

The highway institute of safety is a completely independant agency created and maintained by the car insurance companies, benefitting both consumers and insurance companies. The consumers see what vehicles are at fault, the insurance companies see which vehicles are at risk. It's not earth shattering revelations I know, it's a small subtle change that you would not realize, yet the end result is you no longer pay for it, the insurance company does. Otherwise, this program may have been sold to you the taxpayer as a program that monitors vehicles for compliance and safety, and you foot the bill. The truth is that the consumer foots the entire bill for a program that the insurance companies receive the most benefit from. At least that's how it would have been. Thankfully, it's not a tax payer program.

 

[neopolss]

[quote name='alonzomourning23'][quote name='neopolss'][quote name='Msut77']Thats the sad thing about some Liberatarians.

Their beliefs are faith based, just a higher being is replaced with the free market.

BTW you still havent manetioned where you stand on the FDIC.[/quote]

That's the sad thing about socialists.

Their beliefs are faith based, just a higher being is replaced with the oppressive hand of government.

Actually I did mention the FDIC in an earlier post. Independant agency created by the banking industry, similar to the institute of highway safety. Consumers these days don't trust anything that doesn't have a check or balance (no pun intended).[/quote]

If it was faith based (what you call socialism), then the examples would be what could happen, what could be done, not what programs are being done, the way certain societies currently are.[/quote]

And now you see the sarcasm as it pertains to Msut77's post.

 

[Trancendental]

[quote name='Msut77']Thats the sad thing about some Liberatarians.

Their beliefs are faith based, just a higher being is replaced with the free market.

BTW you still havent manetioned where you stand on the FDIC.[/quote]

Free markets do not work in every situation, but as far as a "one-size-fits-all" solution they are much more efficient and effective then big government developed projects, government regulation dominated enterprise, or communist/socialist enterprise.

I would like to see market-inspired and capitalistic ideas applied to policy driven fields such as charities and schooling. I think you could cut out alot of waste if the PC was cut from these programs (look at the graduation rate in DC vs the amount spent per student to see what I'm talking about)

 

[alonzomourning23]

[quote name='neopolss'][quote name='alonzomourning23'][quote name='neopolss'][quote name='Msut77']Thats the sad thing about some Liberatarians.

Their beliefs are faith based, just a higher being is replaced with the free market.

BTW you still havent manetioned where you stand on the FDIC.[/quote]

That's the sad thing about socialists.

Their beliefs are faith based, just a higher being is replaced with the oppressive hand of government.

Actually I did mention the FDIC in an earlier post. Independant agency created by the banking industry, similar to the institute of highway safety. Consumers these days don't trust anything that doesn't have a check or balance (no pun intended).[/quote]

If it was faith based (what you call socialism), then the examples would be what could happen, what could be done, not what programs are being done, the way certain societies currently are.[/quote]

And now you see the sarcasm as it pertains to Msut77's post.[/quote]

But you're arguing what could be, he's arguing what is. He's not even arguing about how to improve the system, just that the current one is better than what you want to replace it with.

 

[Drocket]

[quote name='neopolss'][quote name='Drocket'][quote name='neopolss'] Consumers these days don't trust anything that doesn't have a check or balance (no pun intended).[/quote]
Perhaps you should examine why. History is full of lessons for those who take the time to learn them.[/quote]

I see the why. However a knowledgeable consumer base doesn't need government intervention to decide it for them.[/quote]

I see: so what you're arguing isn't that your plan doesn't actually have anything to do with reality. You're just arguing that it works better in theory than the current reality does in reality. I really can't argue with you there - EVERYTHING works out better in theory than anything does in reality.

 

[neopolss]

[quote name='Drocket'][quote name='neopolss'][quote name='Drocket'][quote name='neopolss'] Consumers these days don't trust anything that doesn't have a check or balance (no pun intended).[/quote]
Perhaps you should examine why. History is full of lessons for those who take the time to learn them.[/quote]

I see the why. However a knowledgeable consumer base doesn't need government intervention to decide it for them.[/quote]

I see: so what you're arguing isn't that your plan doesn't actually have anything to do with reality. You're just arguing that it works better in theory than the current reality does in reality. I really can't argue with you there - EVERYTHING works out better in theory than anything does in reality.[/quote]

I'm making you aware that you are wasting your tax dollars, and perhaps you should reconsider your support of programs that demand your money and support, but not your approval.

There's too many people who simply go along with it, and refuse to speak up. Eventually a reality needs to be faced. Continue expansion and limit choice, or trim the fat and return responsibilty to the consumer? I advocate choice, and a slow progression of trimming the programs that continue to leech away at each of us.

It's not theory so much as it is a course of action for the future. I've never pushed for an overnight overhaul, but I do push for people to get the mentality out of their head. They've been sold on fear and insecurities that they need government to work things out for them. It just isn't so. Once you realize that, then you will see that the only real objective is control over the subjects, not humanitarian.

 

[neopolss]

[quote name='alonzomourning23'][quote name='neopolss'][quote name='alonzomourning23'][quote name='neopolss'][quote name='Msut77']Thats the sad thing about some Liberatarians.

Their beliefs are faith based, just a higher being is replaced with the free market.

BTW you still havent manetioned where you stand on the FDIC.[/quote]

That's the sad thing about socialists.

Their beliefs are faith based, just a higher being is replaced with the oppressive hand of government.

Actually I did mention the FDIC in an earlier post. Independant agency created by the banking industry, similar to the institute of highway safety. Consumers these days don't trust anything that doesn't have a check or balance (no pun intended).[/quote]

If it was faith based (what you call socialism), then the examples would be what could happen, what could be done, not what programs are being done, the way certain societies currently are.[/quote]

And now you see the sarcasm as it pertains to Msut77's post.[/quote]

But you're arguing what could be, he's arguing what is. He's not even arguing about how to improve the system, just that the current one is better than what you want to replace it with.[/quote]

And I'm trying to get you to look in front of you, not see simply what exists.

 

[neopolss]

[quote name='camoor'][quote name='Msut77']Thats the sad thing about some Liberatarians.

Their beliefs are faith based, just a higher being is replaced with the free market.

BTW you still havent manetioned where you stand on the FDIC.[/quote]

Free markets do not work in every situation, but as far as a "one-size-fits-all" solution they are much more efficient and effective then big government developed projects, government regulation dominated enterprise, or communist/socialist enterprise.

I would like to see market-inspired and capitalistic ideas applied to policy driven fields such as charities and schooling. I think you could cut out alot of waste if the PC was cut from these programs (look at the graduation rate in DC vs the amount spent per student to see what I'm talking about)[/quote]

Many do not like the system of capitalism because it is more akin to true nature. Prey and predators. Some would rather have us all be sheep, ruled by one wolf - I prefer a few wolves to keep the balance.