Knoxfire wrote:About Canada, we pay less for health care per capita than you do. Sometimes we get crappy service, but it doesn't cost 9 trillion dollars a month either. I'd rather wait in the ER for a few hours than pay 900$ to see a doctor.
As for all this mumbling about Communism, you have to make a stark difference between a political system and an economic system. Capitalism is an economic system, Democracy is a political system, while Communism is a socioeconomic system. (Socialism is technically supposed to be an economic system of means and production, but you all know as well as I do that it means different things to everyone.) Anyway...
Why is Communism or Socialism wrong? Think about the kind of people who are telling you it's wrong for a minute. Most of them have a lot invested in Capitalism being used and abused against you. How odd it is that they'd hate socialism huh? What an utter shock. Come on, wake up for a minute and stop buying the BS they feed you.
Don't think I'm defending Communism or Socialism either. I think it's too centralized, too ideological and too open to corruption. It can be subverted by a handful of people, while Capitalism is spread out and based on greed. You can trust greed, a man will lie about his beliefs but he'll never lie about his appetites. It's easy to hide behind a mask of the good communist, but we always know what the rich always want.
Personallu, I think Capitalism is the best thing to ever happen to the human race. In fact, I'd go so far as saying that it's an invention ranking somewhere up there with the wheel. Without Capitalism we'd still be invading countries just so we could aquire their riches. Billions of dollars squandered, countless dead. A waste in every sense. But with Capitalism we can just buy them out, using greed instead of guns. It's simple, straighforward, pure and honest.
Where I differ with a lot of people is when it comes to social programs. In that one case, think a little socialism is good. Welfare is cheaper than cops and prisons and riots. Free Medical care makes sure that people don't spend all their money on bills, so they can buy goods and help the capitalistic system roll along instead of throwing all their money at insurance companies. Capitalism doesn't work when people spend most of their money in one or two places. It works best when people consume constantly in various ways.
Now all we need to do is fix the housing problem and we'll get the economy rolling again. We got into this whole stupid mess because people spend 90% of their money on a house they can barely afford. Capitalism has only one enemy, and that's the monopoly. Fix housing and you'll fix America.
I never once said I had a problem with Socialism or Communism in its purest form in a society not born of greed it would work spendidly. Its a great idea but for it too work the people of a society must be conditioned from birth to accept and live not to fight for their "rights" and what not. The only reason people think they deserve free speech and all of the other rights is because they are brought up in a world saying that you deserve this and that and the other while someone else tells you that you deserve some other rights and that people are entitled by "natural rights" is just a lot of essentially brainwashing bull. Its brainwashing but no one calls it that because its for the "good and right." If you were born into a pure Communist system where all you knew was sharing and working and you were no better than anyone else thats what you would consider the good and right to be and that idiot standing on the corner preaching democracy and free enterprise would be the nutjob. So who is to say that Socialism is the habringer of doom and that Capitalism is the savior.
Lets ask East Germany, They had both in the last 30 years.
Chris
"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."
Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry
Taetsch Z-24 wrote:Lower gas prices Alone will get the economy on its feet.....
But how long can the cost per gallon stay low?
Chris
no, it most certainly will not.
our problems go so much deeper than paying $4 a gallon for gas. the very system that we use is inherently flawed and we are coming to the end of it. weve been putting bandaids on it for awhile now and each of those bubbles have collapsed. we are teetering on the edge of its complete demise and with it goes control as we know it. this is how the "one world govt" will eventually take hold...because the economic systems have failed and countries keep amalgamating until there are only a few large confederations competing against each other (think european union). but this is really a whole different discussion from the one at hand.
Knoxfire wrote:
Why is Communism or Socialism wrong? Think about the kind of people who are telling you it's wrong for a minute.
communism and socialism are wonderful concepts--but thats all they really work as. ideological utopias where everyone works together for the greater good. those types of systems will never prevail because they dont factor in the true human condition: we are self-centered, greedy, evil beings and will always look out for ourselves over that of someone else. it is that animalistic, human nature that we are attuned to, to the very core.
Knoxfire wrote:
Where I differ with a lot of people is when it comes to social programs. In that one case, think a little socialism is good. Welfare is cheaper than cops and prisons and riots.
i will have to disagree here. perhaps its a simple philosophical difference, but i abhor welfare programs. i feel they are the degradation of society because it robs people of their desire to achieve. it replaces their drive to work and succeed with a sense of entitlement where all they care about is their next hand out. and i feel that a welfare state will ruin humanity much quicker and more effectively than greed or war ever will. in effect it makes a people impotent, with nothing to strive for. that is the antithesis of humanity, in a nutshell.
Quiklilcav wrote:Knoxfire wrote:
Where I differ with a lot of people is when it comes to social programs. In that one case, think a little socialism is good. Welfare is cheaper than cops and prisons and riots.
Because none of the theives and murderers are on welfare, right? Welfare doesn't replace the penal system in any way. It's not a deterrent of crime.
I believe it's actually the opposite, because the people that are on welfare, and don't have to go to work, have more time to get themselves in trouble.
(don't confuse my point, though: I don't think people only get in trouble because they have nothing better to do, but the ones who already have the tendency toward criminal activities have lots of time to act on those tendencies when they don't have anything they have to do)
Welfare has never stopped murders, rapes and drug dealing. Nor will it ever. What it does stop is people stealing food, people stealing in order to get food, people shivving each other to steal stolen food. People squatting in abandoned houses. Gigantic shantytowns and feral children living on the street.
Canada has a 5.3% unemployment rate, the United-States is 6.5% However, both those figures are BS because they account for the total
workforce that can't work, not people who are homeless, retired, crippled, underage or on welfare. So the figures are probably much higher. The best indicator is the poverty rate, which is also flawed, but more accurate. In Canada it's 10.8% and in the US it's 12.6%.
So imagine if you will. all those people suddenly having no access at all to any social program to feed or shelter them. In the US you'd have 38,516,940 people on the street and desperate, in Canada it would be 3,610,753. Where you gonna put them? Where they gonna go? I'm sure a few million, maybe as much as half, could probably find some sort of a job. However, some would turn to prostitution and crime because it pays more than a 9 to 5. Then there are those who are simply too stupid or useless to help themselves, they wouldn't die off, instead they'd linger around forever like alley cats. Getting arrested for vagrancy, filling up jails, sucking up more money than they ever did while on welfare.
Welfare keeps the economy rolling and half of it eventually just cycles right into the government coffers because of taxes of booze, cigarettes and whatever else poor people buy. Just look at any country without welfare and you'll see massive crime and homelessness and shantytowns. If you want that, go for it. But don't say I didn't tell you.
Welfare has killed people. in Milwaukee alone, I've seen shooting for food stamps.
Quote:
Getting arrested for vagrancy, filling up jails, sucking up more money than they ever did while on welfare.
So they get put on a island, in a few years they make another GTO.
whats wrong with that?
Chris
"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."
Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry
Knoxfire wrote:
Welfare has never stopped murders, rapes and drug dealing. Nor will it ever. What it does stop is people stealing food, people stealing in order to get food, people shivving each other to steal stolen food. People squatting in abandoned houses. Gigantic shantytowns and feral children living on the street.
sorry, but most people who steal or commit crimes like that are not doing so for basic human needs such as food. they do it because they are greedy or are just predisposed to that type of activity. welfare encourages this type of behavior because it tends to take the lower social element (i.e dumb and lazy people) and it just hands them money. they, in turn, just use it to propagate their lifestyles. i dont know how many times ive seen a family use food stamps on something small like a loaf of bread, get the change back, and then buy beer or cigarettes with it while their child is asking for a candy bar and their parents wont let them have one. theyve been partly prevented from doing that since they came out with the food stamp cards, but thats how it used to work.
Quiklilcav wrote:I'm not against the welfare system in basic concept, but I'm against the current form. There needs to be a safety net of sorts for people who truly need it, but it needs to have limits, and it should require minimum community service hours to keep on it. There are far too many people on welfare that have no business being on it, because it's just plain laziness. We shouldn't pay people who have no ambition to never leave their house exept to go to McD's or pick up cigarettes, and be paying town/city/state employees OT on a regular basis. It could be an all around savings on the taxpayers. Taxes could be lower, which (surprize, surprize) would mean more revenue due to more spending, etc., etc....
as with most communistic or socialistic ideas, they work and look great in theory; rarely so in practice.
i support a temporary "safety net" as a means of support for those who fall on bad times. but not only does it need to have a time limit, it also needs to have a work program associated with it. i see too many people like construction workers who, when laid off in the winter, just get to chill and soak up unemployment until spring rolls around. its like a vacation for them. i say put them to public works!
in the same way if someone wants welfare assistance of some sort, they should produce a good or service for the state in exchange that money. it would act as a temporary job until they find a new one, but more importantly it would give the state value for their dollar and would discourage welfare squatters. the state would have their labor or good produced to resell, giving the state more revenue which, in turn, would be passed back to its residents in the form of better roads and public works, less dependence on federal money (thats a big deal as it would bolster states rights) and could help the economy in other areas, such as if enough people worked in the state tourism department. that would help draw in external money giving the state's constituents an even better quality of life.
welfare's problem is that it impotizes people. the money just gets recycled into itself and doesnt do any good like that. but if you build on it, then everyone is better off. im pretty sure thats what the original idea fdr had back when he created the TVA and stuff like that back in the 30s. if we could get back to that, then it would be great. but after decades of abuse and the more liberal aspect in politics not wanting to stir up the pot by making people work, it has gone to @!#$ and will just continue to be a drain on society.
Taetsch Z-24 wrote:Lets ask East Germany, They had both in the last 30 years.
Chris
They've also had couchebags for leaders. You have douchebags as leaders, even in a free democracy, you will have rights trampled (Patriot act comes to mind), you have benevolent leaders, even a feudal or communist system will work. The system is not the issue, it's the motives of the person running it. If it's greed, power, or whatnot, you're gonna get screwed.
Quik: In theory, that would be optimal, but you have to also figure out a way to make sure that the money gotten through welfare is at least minimum wage, and, considering that the states would be hard pressed to find jobs for that many people--many of them without any skills, convince the private sector that it makes more sense than shipping work out overseas for cents on the dollar.
Unfortunately, since those corporations are in every politician's pocket, good luck in getting a tax act passed where any business that oursources unskilled or lightly skilled labor when there's unemployment in their vicinity is taxed out the poopchute, and then it would simply mean layoffs for skilled employees.
Goodbye Callisto & Skađi, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
quik: yeah thats what i figured you meant. just thought id elaborate
keep: you can always find busy work for people, especially when they aren't skilled labor. all you have to do is have them put cogs or sprockets on a doohickey so the state can sell it or have them produce a service, even if its cleaning up the highways and roads or planting pretty flowers in the medians....any beautification project that just needs mass labor and no thinking or talent can be done. this would help bring in tourists who would spend external money in a state which could lower taxes or improve public works in other areas, etc etc etc feeding on itself and making it better. the system we have now just kills itself and will continue to do so until something is done about it.
do the math like this: if a person gets 1200 a month in welfare, make them work 40 hours a week to get that 1200. thats the equivalent of $7.50/hr
after taxes. that would be around $10-11/hr
before taxes! to put that in perspective--a generic bachelor's degree would get you about $12 starting out here and in lots of other states.
^^ I agree 100 %
Find/Make work for these people
The only problem is... how are you going to make sure that the people keep working? It's not like you can fire them from welfare? Or can you? I supose you could always cut their wages down more if they don't work, but then they might starve their kids...
But if there is no way to enforce the actual working of these people, they will just show up in the morning, sit around at work all day and accomplish nothing, and then you'll have to pay them, and a supervisor too... So it'll end up costing more in the end. (if they even bother to show up at all)
Another problem might be, how are you going to get these people to work? In the towns you can get them to walk I guess, but what about during the winter, and what about the people that live outside of town? Schoolbus service?
Another problem that I can foresee, is how do you keep people busy that have, for example, bad backs? You can't force them to shovel snow and plant flowers all day.
So I guess my point is...
a) what type of discipline would you recommend to keep these people doing their job?
b) how do you assign the jobs? How do you supervise these people? Are you going to hire 'normal' working people to keep an eye on these welfare people?
Tabs: The money for paying them a living wage, though has to some from somewhere.
Assuming they're employed by the state, that would mean a tas rise before a tax fall, and really, do you honestly think the government would, when the money comes in, seriously lower taxes? i doubt it.
The larger overall problem is that even putting "busywork" in, you'd still need the private sector on board. Plus, you'd have to frame it as a choice: Work in the busywork, or starve. I personally have no problems with it--some would.
Willem makes some other good points.
Goodbye Callisto & Skađi, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
[quote=Keeper Of The Light™ (Strazca)]Tabs: The money for paying them a living wage, though has to some from somewhere.
Assuming they're employed by the state, that would mean a tas rise before a tax fall, and really, do you honestly think the government would, when the money comes in, seriously lower taxes? i doubt it.
The money is already going to them. We're just saying they should be doing something for it, if they are able.
This would save money, as I suggested before, by allowing the government to cut back in the OT of the guys already on the payroll.
And as far as framing it as a choice, there are already requirements to being on unemployment and welfare, so what is the big difference if they add one of the requirements that they have to put in community service hours?
^^ not quite. with all of the benefits that go into hiring a person--like pension/retirement, insurance, up to a certain point, it actually costs less to have current employees work overtime than hiring on someone else. Don't get me wrong, i like your idea, but unfortunately, greed will squash it.
And i don't think you get what I'm saying. The elected officials wouldn't lower taxes because they could just vote a payrise for themselves. Remember, greed is what's motivating them. Given the choice between a tax cut and laundering the money so they can filtch off the excess, the tax cut loses.
Goodbye Callisto & Skađi, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
