"WTF is wrong with Americans? This guy nails it"

Page 5 of 6 [ 88 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,960
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

14 May 2014, 7:25 pm

LoveNotHate wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Social security and Medicare will be insolvent In ten years? Where did you get such information?


Well, it is common knowledge.

However, the trustees who run these programs have testified about their projected insolvency.

Quoted: "Social Security's trust fund reaches insolvency in 2033 while Medicare will be insolvent by 2026 unless the U.S. Congress acts, the trustees' report said"
source, http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/05/ ... 370020498/

Right now 38% of all spending goes towards these two programs alone.

You can see here that they are the largest budget items (bigger than defense spending).
source, http://www.usdebtclock.org/


I've been hearing about social security's death knell since I was in grade school. The fact is, it can be twerked here and there to keep it up and running, and I have no doubt that will happen. You conservatives seem to be giddy with reporting on social security's impending demise.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,694
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

14 May 2014, 7:31 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
I've been hearing about social security's death knell since I was in grade school. The fact is, it can be twerked here and there to keep it up and running, and I have no doubt that will happen. You conservatives seem to be giddy with reporting on social security's impending demise.


Hardly. :roll:
I've been paying in to it so I'd better get something out of it.


_________________
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
- William F. Buckley


RunningFox
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 8 May 2014
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 174

14 May 2014, 7:34 pm

marshall wrote:
RunningFox wrote:
AspieOtaku wrote:
America=everyone out for themselves where only the elites benefit while the poor masses are stuck with dreams practically unobtainable.


Funny, its the most charitable nation in the world, we give more money to poor people around the world than the entire rest of the world does. I get really sick of people talking like this some times. When is the rest of the world going to shut up with this crap and step up to the plate them selfs? Why is it that almost any time there is a massive national disaster or crisis in a land that most Americans cant even spell its always U.S. convoys bringing in the food and supplies? Why is it always medicine and clean water that is either paid for by US tax payers or donated by the millions from US corporations? On top of that have a look at where the most personal donations around the world come from when there is a disastrous in some far away land that cant fend for its self. You will find that the majority of personal donations come from us greedy U.S. citizens in a lot of cases.

I would really like to know. If the rest of the world wants to talk sh** like this we could save billions for our self and spend that money on "free education" instead of 3rd world villagers who have no national crisis response plan. Our poor people living on the street have a better quality of life than most of the rest of the world. I would rather be an uneducated hobo in American than living in a filthy shanty some where in India or China.

So really, WTF iswrong with Americans? Based on what I read on the internet it seems to be that we are wasting all of our free education money on crap like making sure people have clean water in Africa. The amount of money we spend on foreign aid is more than enough for all of us to spend on our selvs and get a free college education.

So I wonder, how hard does the rest of the world want to push this issue? My guess would be that foreign people wouldnt be willing to push the issue to the point where their own governments had to spend enough monies to fill in the vacuum that U.S. would leave if we decided to stop giving foreign aid.


People who think like you are the problem with America.


People who make stupid comments with no intelligence like you are whats wrong with the internet.

Sweetleaf wrote:
RunningFox wrote:
AspieOtaku wrote:
America=everyone out for themselves where only the elites benefit while the poor masses are stuck with dreams practically unobtainable.


Funny, its the most charitable nation in the world, we give more money to poor people around the world than the entire rest of the world does. I get really sick of people talking like this some times. When is the rest of the world going to shut up with this crap and step up to the plate them selfs? Why is it that almost any time there is a massive national disaster or crisis in a land that most Americans cant even spell its always U.S. convoys bringing in the food and supplies? Why is it always medicine and clean water that is either paid for by US tax payers or donated by the millions from US corporations? On top of that have a look at where the most personal donations around the world come from when there is a disastrous in some far away land that cant fend for its self. You will find that the majority of personal donations come from us greedy U.S. citizens in a lot of cases.

I would really like to know. If the rest of the world wants to talk sh** like this we could save billions for our self and spend that money on "free education" instead of 3rd world villagers who have no national crisis response plan. Our poor people living on the street have a better quality of life than most of the rest of the world. I would rather be an uneducated hobo in American than living in a filthy shanty some where in India or China.

So really, WTF iswrong with Americans? Based on what I read on the internet it seems to be that we are wasting all of our free education money on crap like making sure people have clean water in Africa. The amount of money we spend on foreign aid is more than enough for all of us to spend on our selvs and get a free college education.

So I wonder, how hard does the rest of the world want to push this issue? My guess would be that foreign people wouldnt be willing to push the issue to the point where their own governments had to spend enough monies to fill in the vacuum that U.S. would leave if we decided to stop giving foreign aid.


So the U.S donates some stuff, we're not the only country that helps other countries in times of need....sure the U.S has plenty of money to throw around. The U.S may be chairtible in some ways but how does that make up for all the problems in the world the U.S and U.S corporations contribute to. The U.S exploits resources and people of poorer countries in the name of 'making life better' while making chairitble donations so we look good while still doing just as much damage. Charity does not make up for everything else wrong with this country or the problems its contributed to in the rest of the world....people in other countries have every right to criticize this one, they are under no obligation to 'love' the U.S.


I am not saying that anyone is obligated to love the U.S. I am not saying that we dont exploit things. But I sure as SH*T am not personally responsible for Obamas drones killing small kids in the desert, I voted for a libertarian. I am not responsible the Bush wars that were started over oil, opium, lithium and strategic land acquisition by force in order to surround China and Russia with our bases. I am not responsible for De Beers wars over diamonds that are sold at fraudulent price fixed levels in the U.S. and around the rest of the world.

No one is obligated to love the U.S. but literally hundreds of millions are obligated to die if we stopped sending them aid because there is no way the rest of world would be able to step up to the plate and do what the U.S. does. It is a really big part of the reason why we have most of the rest of the world under our boot right and we are getting away with so much s**t and the U.N. damn well knows it. We effectively have a billion people hostage to the wealth and prosperity of the U.S. around the world every year. Anyone who triesto deny that is a low grade moron(not you Sweetleaf, but a few other people are). These people have been made a global dependent class on U.S. handouts. But this isnt just a play by the U.S. to gain power, the rest of the world has made it clear to the U.S. over the past many decades that they are not willing or able to do what we do. If we dont spend billions in aid its made out to be those peoples blood on our hands because we could have done something. Then it gets used against us on a global stage. Our military is used the same way. So in some ways, the U.S. is being held hostage by the rest of the world to take care of their s**t.

So I get kind of pissed off when I see idiots posting BS cartoons with false data trying to make the U.S. look bad for all the wrong reasons. Yes we have our problems, but if the rest of the world really wanted to hurt us they could start be becoming economically independent from us and stop asking for bail outs when their currency collapses. They could stop using the U.S. as the default nation to go to when their school girls are all kidnapped in their lawless shitty countries. They should stop using us as their main ally when their larger neighbor starts threatening them with war. Maybe we should just tell Putin he can do what ever the hell he wants to and let the Nordic countries and East Europe fend for them selvs since they have free education and all that.
Or now wait, we have already stationed troops there and drawn up plans for a massive occupation of troops and bases there in case the sht really does hit the fan. To late I guess.



Last edited by RunningFox on 14 May 2014, 7:39 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,960
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

14 May 2014, 7:34 pm

Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
I've been hearing about social security's death knell since I was in grade school. The fact is, it can be twerked here and there to keep it up and running, and I have no doubt that will happen. You conservatives seem to be giddy with reporting on social security's impending demise.


Hardly. :roll:
I've been paying in to it so I'd better get something out of it.


I'm glad you don't share your party's delusion.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,694
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

14 May 2014, 8:03 pm

/\ I'm not even going to bother to go look up what the dastardly republicans are accused of doing to social security this week.
And I tend to vote R only because the R's arent quite as terrible as the D's.


_________________
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
- William F. Buckley


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,960
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

14 May 2014, 8:28 pm

Raptor wrote:
/\ I'm not even going to bother to go look up what the dastardly republicans are accused of doing to social security this week.
And I tend to vote R only because the R's arent quite as terrible as the D's.


Suit yourself.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

14 May 2014, 10:36 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Social security and Medicare will be insolvent In ten years? Where did you get such information?


Well, it is common knowledge.

However, the trustees who run these programs have testified about their projected insolvency.

Quoted: "Social Security's trust fund reaches insolvency in 2033 while Medicare will be insolvent by 2026 unless the U.S. Congress acts, the trustees' report said"
source, http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/05/ ... 370020498/

Right now 38% of all spending goes towards these two programs alone.

You can see here that they are the largest budget items (bigger than defense spending).
source, http://www.usdebtclock.org/


I've been hearing about social security's death knell since I was in grade school. The fact is, it can be twerked here and there to keep it up and running, and I have no doubt that will happen. You conservatives seem to be giddy with reporting on social security's impending demise.


It is a not left/right issue.

Democrat President Obama's budget contained a change to use the "chained CPI" as the formula for calculating the Social Security COLAs (Cost of Living Adjustments). The chained CPI assumes people switch to lower priced products if products get expensive. Thus, this assumption would result in smaller COLA increases, and let inflation eat away at how much must be paid out in Social Security. However, he backed down after some Democrats banded together to stop it.

Quoted: "Obama's budget would use chained CPI instead of the current version of the consumer price index to calculate annual adjustments to tax brackets and Social Security benefits, simultaneously raising more than $100 billion in revenue and cutting more than $100 billion in spending".

source, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/1 ... 55343.html


_________________
After a failure, the easiest thing to do is to blame someone else.


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,960
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

14 May 2014, 10:42 pm

LoveNotHate wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Social security and Medicare will be insolvent In ten years? Where did you get such information?


Well, it is common knowledge.

However, the trustees who run these programs have testified about their projected insolvency.

Quoted: "Social Security's trust fund reaches insolvency in 2033 while Medicare will be insolvent by 2026 unless the U.S. Congress acts, the trustees' report said"
source, http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/05/ ... 370020498/

Right now 38% of all spending goes towards these two programs alone.

You can see here that they are the largest budget items (bigger than defense spending).
source, http://www.usdebtclock.org/


I've been hearing about social security's death knell since I was in grade school. The fact is, it can be twerked here and there to keep it up and running, and I have no doubt that will happen. You conservatives seem to be giddy with reporting on social security's impending demise.


It is a not left/right issue.

Democrat President Obama's budget contained a change to use the "chained CPI" as the formula for calculating the Social Security COLAs (Cost of Living Adjustments). The chained CPI assumes people switch to lower priced products if products get expensive. Thus, this assumption would result in smaller COLA increases, and let inflation eat away at how much must be paid out in Social Security. However, he backed down after some Democrats banded together to stop it.

Quoted: "Obama's budget would use chained CPI instead of the current version of the consumer price index to calculate annual adjustments to tax brackets and Social Security benefits, simultaneously raising more than $100 billion in revenue and cutting more than $100 billion in spending".

source, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/1 ... 55343.html


Say what you will, but every other time social security was in trouble, people got their acts togather and fixed it.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


em_tsuj
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,786

16 May 2014, 1:40 am

LoveNotHate wrote:
The U.S. government has taken over industries e.g., the student loan industry. So, according to the above definition, then the U.S. is a socialist country ? Is it that simple? A single example of the government taking over an industry and then the country is properly labeled 'Socialist' ?


You are the one saying that the U.S. is socialist, not me. The U.S. is based on private ownership of property. We are definitely not very socialist.

LoveNotHate wrote:
em_tsuj wrote:
What do social welfare programs have to do with socialism, Limbaugh?


It is the platform of the Socialist parties to provide better social welfare for workers. People who call themselves 'Socialists' and promote 'Socialism" count 'increased welfare' as their ideas.

? "We call for increased and expanded welfare assistance and increased and expanded unemployment compensation at 100% of a worker's previous income or the minimum wage, whichever is higher, for the full period of unemployment or re-training, whichever is longer".

source, http://socialistparty-usa.net/platform.html


That is very tangential reasoning. The main thing about socialism is that capital should be owned by the people (On a practical level, it is controlled by the government, leading to state-owned and operated industries). In a socialist country, private industry is discouraged so that state-run industry can thrive. Just because a government chooses to provide welfare programs for its citizens does not mean that the country is socialist.



LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

16 May 2014, 3:08 am

em_tsuj wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
Socialism is the government owning the means of production as a opposed to private enterprise. It is about state-run companies versus companies that are privately held.

The U.S. government has taken over industries e.g., the student loan industry. So, according to the above definition, then the U.S. is a socialist country ? Is it that simple? A single example of the government taking over an industry and then the country is properly labeled 'Socialist' ?


You are the one saying that the U.S. is socialist, not me. The U.S. is based on private ownership of property. We are definitely not very socialist.


No. I asked the question if the U.S. is socialist.

1. In the U.S., land is always legally owned by the governing authority of the jurisdiction. You can be given a title to your property that outlines your land and real estate, however, it is merely a "lease" that the jurisdiction granted you. The jurisdiction still maintains ownership of that land.

This is how they can tax you for using their property, and pass rules that you have to follow on their property, take their property back for easements say if they desire.

I studied this in a business law class, however I am not an expert. So, here is a legal website ...

- Quoted: "In America today people think they own their land, but unless they have the Land Patent on the land they may not own it. Most people today obtain "Real Estate" by contract and then on fulfillment of the contract they transfer control of land by "Warranty Deed". However, a "Warranty Deed" is merely a "color of title"; and, color of title can mean: ?that which in appearance is title, but which in reality is no title?. Howth v. Farrar, C.C.A. Tex.; 94 F.2d 654, 658; McCoy v. Lowrie, 42 Wash. 2d 24, Black's Law Sixth Ed".

source, http://www.teamlaw.org/land.htm

2. Some argue that 'business taxes' means the government owns the equivalent portion of the business (i.e. the U.S. government is a shareholder that takes profits). That would mean the U.S. government owns a percent of most businesses.

This would seem to be Socialism according to your definition?

em_tsuj wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
em_tsuj wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
What do social welfare programs have to do with socialism, Limbaugh?


It is the platform of the Socialist parties to provide better social welfare for workers. People who call themselves 'Socialists' and promote 'Socialism" count 'increased welfare' as their ideas.

? "We call for increased and expanded welfare assistance and increased and expanded unemployment compensation at 100% of a worker's previous income or the minimum wage, whichever is higher, for the full period of unemployment or re-training, whichever is longer".

source, http://socialistparty-usa.net/platform.html


That is very tangential reasoning. The main thing about socialism is that capital should be owned by the people (On a practical level, it is controlled by the government, leading to state-owned and operated industries). In a socialist country, private industry is discouraged so that state-run industry can thrive. Just because a government chooses to provide welfare programs for its citizens does not mean that the country is socialist. Try looking up words before you use them instead of relying on talk radio for your information.


Contrary to what you have stated, it seems like "main thing" to Socialism is not the textbook definition you cite, but rather, "fighting inequality by means of redistribution of wealth" ? Their methodology to accomplish this is to have the state own the "means of production". However, the methodology is not the "main thing"; it is merely the means to an end. The "end" is the main thing (i.e., "fighting inequality by means of redistribution of wealth").

If you still believe that the Socialists who promote fighting inequality by means of redistribution of wealth (i.e., social welfare) are not promoting Socialism , then I would wonder what you think they are promoting ?


_________________
After a failure, the easiest thing to do is to blame someone else.


Danimal
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jun 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 268
Location: West Central Indiana

16 May 2014, 5:10 am

I was raised in a city of 40,000 people in Indiana. My high school had useful things like fully equipped labs, a large vocational program, a large library, and offered five foreign languages. We even had a planetarium. Overall, I received a decent education, and it was mostly free. We paid textbook rental fees. That was the only expense.
That changed once I went to the university. I went to a state-supported university. That meant that state residents paid the lower, instate tuitition. However, textbooks were ridiculously expensive. Dormitories were expensive as well as off-campus apartments. The fraternities and sororities were even worse. Without any family wealth the average college student is limited as to income. Any work usually pays only the minimum wage. Student loans are the only means of financing college costs. However, the lack of higher education in America means you will only get low-wage jobs with little hope of advancement.
Student loans are not the only means of support. High school students with very good grades can get generous scholarships. Military veterans have access to the GI Bill. Some students receive ROTC scholarships. The likelihood that the states and federal government will fund college tuitions is nil.
To characterize the United States as a single, monolithic country is silly. For the most part, the individual states govern themselves. Even many Americans realize how vast this country is. Far more people live in Manhattan than live in Montana, the Dakotas, Wyoming and Nebraska combined. Some states are wealthier than others. Some are more liberal than others. Most of us don't have passports and rarely travel outside the US.
I certainly don't expect other countries to love us. I certainly don't agree with everything we do. If you don't like our military expenditures, keep in mind that we would have been happy to keep a small military had we not been dragged into two European wars. We would have happily disarmed after World War II had we not been constantly threatened by the paranoid USSR. Which countries ruthlessly divided Africa and Asia among themselves? Not us. Which countries tried to kill entire populations of Jews? Again, not us. We would have left Afghanistan alone had the terrorists based there hadn't flown planes into the Pentagon and World Trade Center. We would have left the Japanese alone had they not attacked Pearl Harbor and tried to conquer the Pacific and east Asia. We don't like wars anymore than anyone else.



sonofghandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,540
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)

16 May 2014, 6:38 am

LoveNotHate wrote:
This does not change human nature.

As I asserted earlier, when social programs are offered, then people will examine every angle to get the easy money, and go through the contortions I mentioned previously.


Of course poor people will do everything they can to get money. Stealing metal is very popular around here because a lot of folks have mouths to feed. It got much much worse when several larger employers in the area relocated to other states for the tax breaks.

And do you really think that the majority of the wealthy aren't examining every angle to get easy government money? Or that they don't pay some specialists to do that for them? Why are you singling out the poor?

LoveNotHate wrote:
You say these programs "pay squat" but you are missing the full picture. I know people who "day trade" stocks and have their stock portfolio in their divorced spouse's name, while they sit at home, collect maybe three different welfare programs for the "poor".

I know someone who runs a wood working business from home while collecting disability and truly has a back injury.


I know a ton of people who receive government benefits, but have never met one who is a day trader. I have known a few that were scamming the system, but that is hardly the majority, or even a large minority. Are you really saying that someone who manages to pick up some extra side cash should not be allowed to collect disability benefits if they are disabled?

LoveNotHate wrote:
You can collect social security disability your whole life - which is why they are so appealing.


Do you realize that to collect disability that is anything other than a pittance, it is entirely dependant on how much you have paid in? And qualifying for disability is not a quick and easy process by any means.


_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche


sonofghandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,540
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)

16 May 2014, 6:46 am

LoveNotHate wrote:
Instead, the U.S. Department of Education - which already makes roughly a third of these loans through its direct-lending program - will make 100 percent of them starting July 1


My student loan was managed by the Dept of Education for 3 months before it was taken over by a PA based finance company. My wife's student loans are serviced through a CO based finance company. The Department of Education essentially allows companies to manage the debt while only collecting a portion of the interest.

As for the taking over of student loan programs, you may want to look a little deeper at the details. It will end up the same way as it is currently done. The Department of Education takes control of the debt, and it ends up being "managed" by government approved private institutions.

LoveNotHate wrote:
I believe the reason Socialists want the government to have the means of production is to lower perceived economic inequality. Thus, the social welfare of "sharing the wealth".


This argument makes no sense. The government does not want the means of production, they want people who make the most campaign contributions to control it. As for income inequality, the biggest factor there is that an economy is unsustainable when the wealth concentrates more and more at the top. It is the middle and lower class consumer that drives the economy, not the wealthy who accumulate more and more wealth at the expense of the rest.

Social welfare programs are not about socialism; they are about reducing abject poverty. It is probably the most cost effective way our government can limit rises in crime.


_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche


sonofghandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,540
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)

16 May 2014, 6:52 am

LoveNotHate wrote:
For example, I have known some people get on "disability" because of alcoholism. Alcoholism is not an impairment of the body, so these people can work on the side.


Where are all these disability scammers that you supposedly know?

You cannot get benefits for alcoholism alone, but once you have destroyed your liver you can. At that point you probably won't be too thrilled about it, as you will be close to death and your medical bills will exceed your benefits.

As for the $770/month limit, that is not very much. A 500 sq ft studio apartment in a halfway decent apartment building around here will cost you that much. The 320 sq ft spot that I am renting in someone's attic in a very unpleasant neighborhood runs $400 a month (and the racist folks downstairs are quite open about the fact that they are giving me a good deal because I'm not one of those "blacks that will tear the place up").


_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche


LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

16 May 2014, 7:01 am

sonofghandi wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
Instead, the U.S. Department of Education - which already makes roughly a third of these loans through its direct-lending program - will make 100 percent of them starting July 1


My student loan was managed by the Dept of Education for 3 months before it was taken over by a PA based finance company. My wife's student loans are serviced through a CO based finance company. The Department of Education essentially allows companies to manage the debt while only collecting a portion of the interest.

As for the taking over of student loan programs, you may want to look a little deeper at the details. It will end up the same way as it is currently done. The Department of Education takes control of the debt, and it ends up being "managed" by government approved private institutions.


I simply cited an example of the government taking over an area of society. Despite your arguments, apparently, you agree. It does not matter who they delegate to run their loans - it is their loans. They have full control, not the private industry calling the shots.

sonofghandi wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
I believe the reason Socialists want the government to have the means of production is to lower perceived economic inequality. Thus, the social welfare of "sharing the wealth".


This argument makes no sense. The government does not want the means of production, they want people who make the most campaign contributions to control it. As for income inequality, the biggest factor there is that an economy is unsustainable when the wealth concentrates more and more at the top. It is the middle and lower class consumer that drives the economy, not the wealthy who accumulate more and more wealth at the expense of the rest.

Social welfare programs are not about socialism; they are about reducing abject poverty. It is probably the most cost effective way our government can limit rises in crime.


You quoted me, so you can see what I wrote. I never said "the government wants the means of production". I said Socialists want the government to have the means of production. That is the textbook definition. The reason they want it is to fight against perceived economic inequality (i.e. to share the wealth to poorer people).

The whole point of Socialism is "sharing the wealth" which is social welfare to poorer people to fight perceived inequality. The Socialist methodology is to have the government i.e. "the people" control the means of production to implement social welfare. Social welfare is what Socialism is all about.

I earlier cited the Socialist USA party platform that explains this.


_________________
After a failure, the easiest thing to do is to blame someone else.


Last edited by LoveNotHate on 16 May 2014, 7:23 am, edited 6 times in total.

LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

16 May 2014, 7:09 am

sonofghandi wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
For example, I have known some people get on "disability" because of alcoholism. Alcoholism is not an impairment of the body, so these people can work on the side.


Where are all these disability scammers that you supposedly know?

You cannot get benefits for alcoholism alone, but once you have destroyed your liver you can. At that point you probably won't be too thrilled about it, as you will be close to death and your medical bills will exceed your benefits.

As for the $770/month limit, that is not very much. A 500 sq ft studio apartment in a halfway decent apartment building around here will cost you that much. The 320 sq ft spot that I am renting in someone's attic in a very unpleasant neighborhood runs $400 a month (and the racist folks downstairs are quite open about the fact that they are giving me a good deal because I'm not one of those "blacks that will tear the place up").


Why do you call them "scammers" ? I repeatedly said these people were not committing fraud.

You may be right about needing a casual disability associated with alcoholism. I knew of two people. One person was a truck driver , constantly drunk, and fired from a few jobs, commonly going to the hospital. Last I heard , he was very bad off, and supposedly, I was told it was from his drinking.

sonofghandi wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
This does not change human nature.

As I asserted earlier, when social programs are offered, then people will examine every angle to get the easy money, and go through the contortions I mentioned previously.


Of course poor people will do everything they can to get money. Stealing metal is very popular around here because a lot of folks have mouths to feed. It got much much worse when several larger employers in the area relocated to other states for the tax breaks.

And do you really think that the majority of the wealthy aren't examining every angle to get easy government money? Or that they don't pay some specialists to do that for them? Why are you singling out the poor?.


I am not singling out anyone.

It is you that apparently thinks to research and understand the world, then one must have some hidden political motive. I responded to questions, and these answers led me to point out what I have learned, and observed.


_________________
After a failure, the easiest thing to do is to blame someone else.