Government has a monopoly on many of those things so saying people "have benefited from public charity" is a bit misleading. There is no other choice...
I also dont see people "not caring" about issues that directly affect them as a reason for other to decide for them. Letting people choose where their tax dollars are spent(obviously if they leave it blank it will be decided for them) seems best.
and again we come full circle to the social contract of a civilized society.
So what do you do when $10 bucks is spent on education? DO we just not have an education system? How about military? What happens when people decide to stop spending money on the military?
and again we come full circle to the social contract of a civilized society.
So what do you do when $10 bucks is spent on education? DO we just not have an education system? How about military? What happens when people decide to stop spending money on the military?
I'm not sure I understand the question, are you insinuating that these things will not get done if government doesnt do them using tax payer money?
The old "who will pick the cotton if the slaves are freed" line of thinking?... obviously the cotton still got picked. We would still have schools(which more than enough tax payers would support anyway), and the military would still be too big, Americans love to fight, make no mistake about it, and what ever society voluntarily decided to leave by the wayside... society decided.
You are basically telling me straight up, Americans dont know whats best themselves and they need liberals to decide for them...
and Americans dont care enough about the things you(and like minded individuals) consider important so your going to take what you need away from them to support your vision...
I couldnt disagree more with this philosophy. Its as anti liberty as you can get(save chattel slavery).
OH i would pay for my kids education because I have the money, but why would i not take my money and just shove them into a private school? What recourse would the poor have? Right now the gov spends what let's low ball at 6k a year per kid. A single mother with 3 kids would have to spend what? 18k? Let's say she works at walmart on minimum. that's over 50% of her money. how does she pay for schooling for her kids?
The old "who will pick the cotton if the slaves are freed" line of thinking?... obviously the cotton still got picked.
It sure did, it also created indentured servitude for years and years culminating in the JIm Crow era. Now it's picked by illegal mexicans
We would still have schools(which more than enough tax payers would support anyway), and the military would still be too big, Americans love to fight, make no mistake about it, and what ever society voluntarily decided to leave by the wayside... society decided.
Really? Americans love to fight? You think Americans are going to spend 20+ cents of every dollar on the military? You think it'll still have the funds to be as big as it is now?
You are basically telling me straight up, Americans dont know whats best themselves and they need liberals to decide for them...
remember we're talking about people who WILLINGING become obese
Percent of adults age 20 years and over who are obese: 35.9% (2009-2010)
Percent of adults age 20 years and over who are overweight, including obesity: 69.2% (2009-2010)
There are A LOT of smart people in america, there are a significant amount more dumb mutha fukas. FFS 30% of republicans believe Obama is a fukin muslim still. FOrgive me for sounding a little self righteous but I'd rather someone with a college degree and SOME understanding of how to allocate money actually do that vs. cooter, bubba, tyrone, and Barrio Mario deciding how that get's spent.
and Americans dont care enough about the things you(and like minded individuals) consider important so your going to take what you need away from them to support your vision...
Considering most families are living paycheck to paycheck fuk yeah some people don't know how to allocate money. At least right now I know education is there
I couldnt disagree more with this philosophy. Its as anti liberty as you can get(save chattel slavery).
To think we were once a nation that revered the creed "give me liberty or give me death". Now sacrificing liberty is cool and just part of being American.
We will just have to agree to disagree. I respect your position(except for that people need surrogate decision makers nonsense) I just disagree. i think the cost too society of lifting the poor is too high. Plain and simple.
to answer you, The military will be much smaller than it is now, but will still be much larger than it needs to be, and people should be free to make every decision in their life even if it kills them. Its called living. IMHO
I assure you behavior would change in order to increase ones chance to survive. its just how humans(animals period) work.
We've been fighting the war on poverty for 50 years. Since 1965 the government has taken 15 trillion of our tax dollars to combat "poverty" in America. What do we have to show for it?
The poverty rate in 1965: 15%
The poverty rate in 2013: 15%
There's no common sense in wasting so much money and getting no results.
In a country with a high amount of ethnic diversity, members of the majority ethnic group are more likely to resent the idea of socialized healthcare because they feel it will benefit minorities and take money from them.
In countries that are more racially homogenous (such as, say, Japan) this is less of an issue and thus the population is less opposed to socializing services such as healthcare.
Yeah, truth be told, a lot of the animosity toward welfare/food stamp users and "leeches" is really just thinly veiled resentment towards minorities...It's been observed that racially homogenous countries are more likely to have universal healthcare and a robust "welfare state" than more diverse countries - I doubt this is a coincidence.
Japan has been going through a phase called "The Lost Decade", actually, 2 lost decades. Japan, like the US, decided it was a good idea to subsidize people's living, and to bail out failing corporations. Hasn't turned out so well for them. Speaking of which, look who just decided to adopt austerity after 2 lost decades...
Some of those "robust welfare states" are turning away from socialism. Norway just had elections where conservatives won the entire ticket. Sweden went conservative in its last 2 elections. Canada's conservative party won the majority in its latest elections in 2011. Even these 'racially homogenous' societies are starting to see welfare not as a long term solution but as a long term problem.
Even CUBA has begun to adopt pro-capitalist reforms to stimulate growth since 2011.
The only reason people need foodstamps is because the goverment is standing in the way of the food in the first place.
I have to pay them if I want to hunt or fish. I have to pay them if I want to grow food to feed my comunity. The farms, stores, ect have to pay them in order to stay in business. So the price of food goes way up and people can't afford it.
Food stamps are simply gov fukkery subsidies. If they are gonna cut foodstamps, they need to get out of the way of people feeding themselves.
Well that is way more complicated than you are making it out to be. Basic shyt like housing and food have gone up in cost while middle class income has stagnated. A lot of that is the fault of goofy Democratic "feel good" policy but a lot of it is fueled by Republican enabled corporatism. And learning a trade/skill would be fine if it weren't such a huge financial gamble- there are kids who graduated with Ivy League MBAs in the recession who had a hard time finding work. To me the obvious solution is to recalibrate the public education system to the new world and either put a cap on how much students can borrow for loans (and thus put an indirect cap on tuitions) or to expand, standardize and strip down the public higher education system. There is no reason a college degree should cost $120K for anybody from any school, it's absurd.
Obama bailed out GM.
Democrats supported the bank bail out
Obama made the VP of Monsanto his new Deputy for Food at the FDA
Obama has continued the excessive military spending that keeps the defense industry afloat
Obama just forced every American to buy private healthcare thanks to a bill written by the VP of WellPoint
Guess where Liz Fowler went after she wrote Obamacare?
Bruce Heyman, an executive for Goldman Sachs made a contribution of $340,000 to Obama's 2012 campaign.
Obama made him ambassador to Canada 3 days ago. Guess what kind of impact that's going to have on the upcoming Keystone XL pipeline decision?
No big deal though, MSNBC told you that only republicans do the banks' bidding. Obama is a saint, he could never sell his soul to Goldman Sachs.... right?
Man we used food stamps last year. Never had to use them before but times are getting hard. Republicans don't give a fukk about anyone but the middle class and the upper class societies. We're doing better now but there is still a chance we might have to depend on them to satisfy our needs. fukk republicans.
Breh... I support food stamps/food subsidies as a short term strategy. Your situation is the only time we should have food stamps. A life long dependency on government subsidies is counter productive and terrible for our long term economic health.
Right now our debt to GDP ratio is over 100%. It's projected to shoot up to 140% by 2050. By this time next year, it will be higher than it was during the Great Depression.
Democrats give subsidies to big business too. What do you think Obamacare is going to do? It was written by the VP of one of the biggest HMO's (Liz Fowler, WellPoint). Liz Fowler has now moved on to the pharmaceutical industry -- AKA don't expect marijuana to be legalized anytime soon. Most of Obama's food policies are dictated by the former VP of Monsanto, a corporate farming giant. Oh, and Obama made a former Goldman Sachs executive the new Ambassador to Canada just as he's about to make "his" decision on the Keystone XL pipeline.
So please stop with this "only republicans are corporatists" angle because big pharma (war on drugs) and the defense industry are off Obama.
And poverty is level, but the cost of every basic thing is up WRT even middle class pay. One emergency can bankrupt a middle class family, that wasn't the case in 1965. You need a mortgage to go to college. Avg American family can't afford the avg American home. And I said this was due to Democratic policy earlier in the thread. But GOP doesn't care about that. They are too busy pushing an agenda that is relevant to nobody and failing at it, as they have been doing since Eisenhower left office.
And @ donations. Look at the top donors to Obama's campaign in 2008 vs 2012. Yea banks really love this nikka
You are right about some things but again, fukk anybody who doesnt tell the whole story. GOP is fukking up and has been fukking up for damn near 60 years. Dems are not much better but in this foodstamp shyt at least their hearts are in the right place. Cutting welfare in the midst of a lower and middle class recession with no plan for reviving the economy or getting these people working again is fukking asinine... I don't care how much you hate Obama or the Democrats
And heres the part where I remind nikkas again that I voted for Gary Johnson... I am no Obama stan I hate that nikka
We've been fighting the war on poverty for 50 years. Since 1965 the government has taken 15 trillion of our tax dollars to combat "poverty" in America. What do we have to show for it?
The poverty rate in 1965: 15%
The poverty rate in 2013: 15%
There's no common sense in wasting so much money and getting no results.
What we have to show can't be shown by stats. Where I'm from this is the only way some kids eat.... It's not their fault they are born into a fukked up situation, but luckily we have social welfare.
What do you want the results to be. Not at 50% or 30% is good. Especially when many of those 15% aren't even living like they are in poverty. Trillions do go to the poor over time, but trillions also go to banks, war, military, gov employee benefits, public transportation, public health, preservation of wildlife, and 10 other things over time.
The poor are the easiest to attack because they have the smallest voice. Combating poverty and developing early childhood education is actually the only way any city, state, or nation is succeful in the long run ------- And that's why they more I make, the more I don't care that goes to social welfare. We all benefit in some way.
You are right about some things but again, fukk anybody who doesnt tell the whole story. GOP is fukking up and has been fukking up for damn near 60 years. Dems are not much better but in this foodstamp shyt at least their hearts are in the right place. Cutting welfare in the midst of a lower and middle class recession with no plan for reviving the economy or getting these people working again is fukking asinine... I don't care how much you hate Obama or the Democrats
And heres the part where I remind nikkas again that I voted for Gary Johnson... I am no Obama stan I hate that nikka
I can get behind this.
Dems are fuking up
GOP is fuking up
country is fuked up.
Follow the money as they say. THe common thread in both parties is that they are bought and paid for by corporations and their agendas, ultimately their involvement in the political process will be the end of this country
Measure the pain a hungry child has to sleep with.
Report back when you figure that out.
It's cold hearted thinking like this that leads to brutal shyt. The poor are OUR problem...granted we've not handled that in the best ways possible sometimes but considering that the problem hasn't gotten any worse (see the 15% statistic from above) i'd say the war on poverty has at least stopped it from getting worse no?
Measure the pain a hungry child has to sleep with.
Report back when you figure that out.
It's cold hearted thinking like this that leads to brutal shyt. The poor are OUR problem...granted we've not handled that in the best ways possible sometimes but considering that the problem hasn't gotten any worse (see the 15% statistic from above) i'd say the war on poverty has at least stopped it from getting worse no?
Appeals to emotion are effective, no denying that...
But we must remember, it is the evil market economy that has lifted more people out of poverty than any social program ever, and that social justice at any cost isnt justice at all.
Keep in mind no one has any problem with you and the rest of the liberals giving every dime you earn to the "poor", you are free to do as you wish with what you earn.
Keep in mind no one has any problem with you and the rest of the liberals giving every dime you earn to the "poor", you are free to do as you wish with what you earn.
If you reject the notion that you shouldn't forcibly take an arbitrary amount of $$$ from one person to give to another because you feel its ethical. Than I'm talking to you.
I didnt think anyone but liberals felt that way in this country... which is pretty naive of me, some conservatives can be for excessive welfare. Though I'd personally question it...
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
You think it'll still have the funds to be as big as it is now? 
off Obama.
@ donations. Look at the top donors to Obama's campaign in 2008 vs 2012. Yea banks really love this nikka
Keep in mind no one has any problem with you and the rest of the liberals giving every dime you earn to the "poor", you are free to do as you wish with what you earn.
Though I'd personally question it...
