Home > Issues, observations > Open thread: best way to “help The Poor”

Open thread: best way to “help The Poor”

July 18, 2006

The comments on the previous thread, “Line in the sand have veered off onto a tangent that I believe deserves its own thread.  The question is: “Supposing you do want to help the poor, HOW?”  What is the best way to go about it?  You can even knock Bush, defend Bush, remember Johnson, promote libertarianism – whatever you think contributes to the topic.  Don’t hold back!

I’ll check in on this thread in a few days to contribute a thought or two.

Categories: Issues, observations
  1. July 18, 2006 at 12:25 | #1

    This is in response to webs05 comment (#18) on the “Line in the Sand” post.  Your reference to “precious government” is totally off-base … if there’s one thing that libertarians agree on, it’s that less government is better than more government.  I want the government out of my business (and my pocket), not deeper in it. 

    Yes, an educated society is better than an uneducated one.  Duh.  But where in the constitution is the federal government granted the right to fund, monitor, regulate, or have anything whatsoever to do with education?  Or healthcare? Or anything at all, other than interstate commerce and defense?

    The constitution CLEARLY says that any right not granted to the federal government is RESERVED FOR THE STATES.  The Feds need to get their paws out of my pocket, and their noses out of welfare, social security, medicare/caid, education, etc.  Other than building roads or raising armies, they have no right to be involved. (an overgeneralization, but I believe you get the point).

  2. July 18, 2006 at 12:27 | #2

    There is truly no one best way to help the poor, but doing nothing is ridiculous.  Not everyone that is poor asked to be.  I didn’t have the option to grow up in a low, middle, or upper class.  I was born into middle class.  So who am I to say F*** the poor.

  3. July 18, 2006 at 12:58 | #3

    The first thing that should be done is define what is meant by poor. In the USA it has come to mean tose on the bottom iend of the income spectrum. But I have a hard time understanding how people who live in free or subsidized housing, feed on free or subsidized food, and have free health care..yeah folks, it is called medicade, can be considered poor. And then there is this thing about the working poor who if they are a head of househld qualify for earned income..sometimes as much as $2500. They not only do not pay taxes, they get the subsidies plus the earned income. I have a tough time seeing these people as poor.

    We have been brainwashed by the left wing to believe that we should penalize those who have earned more through sacrifices and hard work and redistribute that penalty to the poor. Why? It is the agenda of socialism to receive by need and contribute by ability. And those who have the ability and are gullible enough to do it wind up supporting those who do have the ability but are not so gullibe.

    Many years ago there was a comedian and philosopher named Brother Dave Gardener who made a comment about how to help the poor: “When you see a poor man down, KICK HIM! Give him an incentive to get up.” There is more truth to that than most people will admit. But the fact that we have millions on the dole and millions more illegal aliens taking the jobs that those on the dole refuse seems to verify the statement to me. I reckon if it came to working or starving we would not have a whole lot of hungry people..maybe not happy about the fact that they had to get a job but damn sure not hungry.

  4. July 18, 2006 at 13:59 | #4

    The only reason why I don’t care if the federal government is regulating education, is because local communities cannot afford to do so themselves.  And if they had to, they would actually have to raise taxes to get enough revenue to do so.  So while I think leaving education up to the states or local communities is a good idea, you will never see a politician arguing for such a measure.  So to say that increasing the Federal budget for education is a bad thing, I would beg to differ.  I made the statement that an educated society is better off, because of the fact that K-12 education spending is $34 billion and the Pentagon budget is $401 billion.  While defense is important, part of that $401 billion is still being used for Cold War weapons and other projects that are no longer needed.  The US and our allies are spending a total of $664 billion on defense, while Russia, China, and the “Axis of Evil” are spending $107 billion.  And the defense budget numbers do not include the cost of war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

    While there may be some people on the left that want to penalize the successful, the majority want to instead help the poor.  If you still want tax breaks to the rich that is fine, but 2.5 trillion over the course of 10 years is absurd.  I feel this amount should be brought down, and the money should go to advancing social programs that help to keep this country afloat.  Some things you could do, are to implement a nation-wide free health care program, a free education program (where those students that get accepted into Land Grant Universities get free education, and those that do not get accepted have to pay for education, this way there is an incentive to do good in school), an emissions credit program and/or coal tax could be implemented to off-set global warming and the destruction of the planet, you could also implement tax incentives to companies and people that use alternative energy sources, and rebuild many decrepit schools and pay teachers a reasonable wage.  Just a short list ;-) .

  5. July 18, 2006 at 14:13 | #5

    Just moving a few comments over here from the other thread.  Have to do it in two chunks due to 5,000-character limit:

    <hr>
    20 – GUYK:
    A projected 9.2 trillion dollar national debt is outrageous and if you have read my blog you know that I have been writing against every since I started the site about this time last year. I understand how a surplus could disappear with a minor recession and a couple of wars and a congress that will spend whatever they have to get elected. And then couple all of that with a president who refuses to veto any pork laden bill and we get a tremendous national debt. But the aswer is not to raise taxes on those who are producing nopr on companies.

    First of all you only kid yourself if you think you can tax a company. Being an ex CEO of a corporation..my own..I can assure you that taxes are a part of doing business and are passed on to the consummer. When the taxes get to the point that a business cannot compete the business either closes down or moves to a place where it can be competitive.

    As for stripping away at the programs, I am not going to take the time to google it but seems that I read in my VA magazine that there was an increase in the VA bugjet this year..just not as much as was requested and no doubt not as much that is needed. As for health I don’t know. I have mixed emotions on it. When I had my company I offered health benifits on a 60/40 share basis..me paying sixty percent. It was going to cost employees about $200 per month..they turned it down because they could not afford it and the payments on the new SUVs hey were driving both. I get the idea from past experience that many of the uninsured are uninsured out of chocie..just a matter of priorities.

    Education is another thing altogether. I am a product of the schools of the 1950s..an era where local communities ran the schools. If we failed we failed and that meant taking the year over again. There were no social promotions and a kid that misbehaved got his butt swatted with a paddle. But the ones that graduated from high school were not only literate..they were prepared to enter the work force or go to college. Now we have the Feds trying to run education and it is getting progressively worse. The left wing has decided that it is more important to enhace the kids self esteem than to teach them how to read and write and basic math. We have those who graduate from high school who are for all practical purposes iliterate but they are proud of themselves. And yet the left wing tells me that we need to throw more money into education? The best thing that we as a society can do is return the control of local schools to the people who are paying the bill..the local community. Stop the busing nonsense, stop the Teachers unions who are more interested in pushing the left wing agenda than teaching a student how to read and write. Pay the teachers a wage commensurate with their skills..it is a sad state of affairs when a teacher is paid less per year than a long distance truck driver.

    Many have tried to classify me as a conservative..actually I am a liberal in the classic sense of liberalism. That means I am a die hard capitalist and a social progressive. I believe that every person was born with equal rights. But that doesn’t mean that I believe that all persons are equal. Some will always be poor because of the decisions they make in their life. Others who make the right..or the lucky..decisions may accumulate wealth and accumulated wealth generally will multiply. As a true liberal I believe that each person sholu have equal opportunity..but no way should each person be guaranteed success. Those who earn it will be successful and those who don’t usually will not although some such as the Jessie Jacksons of the world have managed pretty well by either sponging and blackmailing those who do manage to produce.
    Posted by GUYK on 07/18/06 at 11:48 AM

  6. July 18, 2006 at 14:14 | #6

    Second chunk:
    21 – Webs05:
    I understand where you are coming from with your idea to turn education back to the communities, but the reason that would never work is that the communities cannot afford it.  The current administration has taken every chance possible to slash into education, and because of it education has taken a dive.  If local communities were running the schools, taxes would be a lot higher than they are now, which is all fine with me, I actually like the idea.  But I do not think any politician would attempt such a thing.

    As far as the SUV versus health care, that is an observation you have extrapolated and applied to a whole group.  I do agree with you that many make poor financial decisions and as a result are screwed, but one look here should give you insight into another world.  Health care

    The VA is getting hurt more in the medical area than any other, that was what I was referring to.  And Bush has actually cut back on funding for injured vets, and has taken money away from families of wounded or deceased vets.  This I think is a terrible thing to do.  I don’t have the balls to pick up a gun and fight for my country, but others do, and the fact that they put their life on the line should be reason enough to give them all the help and medical attention their families need.
    Posted by webs05 on 07/18/06 at 12:06 PM

    22 – Morning Glory:
    “I understand where you are coming from with your idea to turn education back to the communities, but the reason that would never work is that the communities cannot afford it. “

    The reason they can’t afford it is that the money they should be getting is going through the Feds, when it should be going directly to the locals.  As it stands, they are getting back only 80 cents on the dollar.  They’d have 20% more to work with if it didn’t have to filter through the Federal Gov’t first.  When did education become the responsibility of the federal government?
    Posted by MorningGlory on 07/18/06 at 12:53 PM

    23 – GUYK:
    I think you will find that Federal funding for local schools is less than 10 percent of the schools total buget..and does not come close to paying for the Fereral and Judicial mandates such as educating the illegal aliens, mainlining those who should be in nursing homes or are mentally unable to keep up with the class, requiring teachers that can teach in the language of the immmigrant children/legal or otherwise, and other such programs that detract from the education of the majority. I have often wondered if maybe the best thing for the states and school districts to do is tell the Feds to take the money and their programs and stick them where the sun don’t shine..what are the Feds gonna do..cut off the funding?

    I am concerned with the funding for veterans. I am a retired member of the USAF as well as a service connected diabaled vet. We are going to need more funding for veterans hospitals and VA programs. I fully support these programs..they are different from other type social programs ..the vets have earned every dinme they get.

    As I stated earlier I am a product of the 1950’s..an era where the Federal government was not involved in heath care. I am the first to say that health care is much better today than before..but I think it is in spite of the Federal government and not because of anything the Feds have done. Health care is expensive..I know just how expensive because my wife is recovering from some back surgery that cost well onto a quarter of a million dollars. I have good insurance that covered most of it but it is not free.

    I see some solutions to the cost of medical care..but none the left wing will accept. The first is to get the tort lawyers out of it. In Florida it is becoming difficult to find care even with a primary care doctor..the ones who are staying in the state are already overwhelmed with patients. The high cost of liability insurance is causing doctors to leave the state in droves. The next thing would be to cut off all government paid medical care except for life threatening emergencies to illegal aliens. Hospital emergency rooms are packed with illegal aliens who get a free medical ride at the expense of those who have insurance or those paying cash for treatment.
    Continued next chunk…

  7. July 18, 2006 at 14:15 | #7

    GUYK, continued:
    And, when we get right down to it show me in the constitution of this country where it says that anyone has a right to medical care. When those who make the wrong life decisions and thus are unable to purchase insurance what right d they have to want me..a taxpayer to fund it for them. Yeah, I am cold hearted but I am also realistic enough to understand that the greedy ones are not the ones who are accumulating the wealth..it is the ones who don’t have it and want it. I have none of the middle class guilt that makes me want to take care of the poor. I figure that in the USA the vast majority are poor because of the choices they have made. That is not my problem nor the problem of society and may be Darwin’s theory in action. If society takes care of them they just tend to breed more spongers..the projects of the inner cities are full of them.
    Posted by GUYK on 07/18/06 at 12:58 PM

  8. jaded&cynical
    July 18, 2006 at 14:24 | #8

    Morning Glory, not all of poor people deserve it. How about those who do work for a living but have no health insurance because the place they work for has none. And even if they do have health insurance, a lot of times that doesn’t help when it comes to things like cancer or any other disease that takes a lot of hospital bills.
    My friend had to declare bankruptcy even though she and her husband worked full time because of the hospital bills for her baby daughter’s heart condition. She’s lucky she was able to do that, thanks to people like you, that option isn’t available anymore. Also, how about those who lose their jobs, should they sell their kids to rich people who can afford to raise them? Or single mothers because of divorce or death of their spouse? Perhaps they should sell their kids to rich folks too. After all, they don’t deserve to have them because they can’t afford to feed them.

    Oh and GUYK, working poor are not all the tax cheats you imply they are. In fact, it tends to be the rich who dodge paying taxes. But I forgot, rich people deserve to be on the earth and poor people can just curl up and die.

  9. bookjunky
    July 19, 2006 at 19:57 | #9

    Most poor people are poor either because they are not as smart or educated as the middle class, or because of temporary circumstances. They have few resources with which to pull themselves out of poverty. They don’t have a social network that can help them through rough times. And even those who try to get out of the poverty trap have a tough time of it. A high percentage of those living in poverty are unmarried women with children, which means that in order to get a better education or a better job, she has to find affordable childcare. If you have children, you know how expensive that is.

    Sure poor people often make bad choices. That is partially a function of their lower intelligence and education. Isn’t society better off when we do our best to help these people better themselves, to the extent possible, by providing eduction, healthcare, childcare and so on? I don’t advocate a continual state of welfare, but there are times when everyone needs a helping hand. For some who are less gifted, they may need more help than others.

    If it were not for temporary public assistance, I might not have been able to return to college after my divorce. I think I contribute more to society (and pay considerably more taxes) than I would have otherwise.

    My opinion on the best way to help the poor: EDUCATION, EDUCATION, EDUCATION.

    And I agree about modern education. It sucks big time. Ask me about the MBA from USC I hired who could not write a coherent memo to save her life.

  10. July 19, 2006 at 20:05 | #10

    Education is certainly key.  What more communities need to do is create programs for the underprivileged so the can get a cheap education at the community colleges.  That would help a ton.

  11. July 19, 2006 at 20:21 | #11

    People think about this..if every one in this country had a PHD then there would be PHDs digging ditches. Contrary to socialist thought all people are not equal..some are not only more intelliegent but there are some with average intelligence that know how to make the best of what they have.

    I was born to a lower economic class working family. I suppose we were poor although we seldom were hungry and lived in a home that was warm enough inthe winter and we opened the windows in the summer. But we were too proud to accept a handout and we worked..damn right we worked at whatever jobs we could find. And after we kids were grown we kept on working and sacrificing the idle hours for the second jobs that we needed to live the life style we wanted to live. We went to college..and worked our way through it although it took several years to complete it.

    Being poor in the USA is a matter of choice for the majority of people considered poor. Many start off in a lower income bracket and with hard work and sacrifice land up in the middle class or mayne even in the top brackets. But others make the choices to have children..without a legal father..drop out of school, abuse alcohol and drugs, use tobacco, and generally screw up their lives and then want the government to bail them out with the dollars of those who did make the right choices.

    A helping hand up is one thing and there are more than enough programs to give that helping hand. There is absolutly no excuse for anyone in the USA not getting an education including college and/or technical training. However, education alone will not help one out of the lower income bracket. It is the self discipline to go to work on time, and perform after they get there. Those who do not will always find themselves at the bottom of the scale.

    If each person in this country did their very best to take care of themselves and the ones for which they are responsible then there would be very few left for society to care for. There will always be those who are physically or menttaly deficient and unable to care for themselves. As a civilized society I do believe that we have an obligation to provide the support of these people. But I draw the line at social welfare for those who have made the life’s choices to be poor. I will give food to a hungry person but I expect that person to work for it in return. I will help a family down on their luck find housing..but I also expect them to find a job and repay me the rent that I advanced to them. There is no free lunch..someone has to pay for it. And in this country it is the ones who have made the right choices that are being penalized for making these choices.

  12. July 19, 2006 at 20:51 | #12

    <QUOTE>People think about this..if every one in this country had a PHD then there would be PHDs digging ditches.</QUOTE>
    That is the most ridiculous argument I have heard on this issue EVER!  No one is saying our taxes should pay to get the poor to a graduate level education, we are merely saying they deserve to have at least a high school education.  I propose they have an associate level education.  That is certainly not too much to ask for.

    <QUOTE>Being poor in the USA is a matter of choice for the majority of people considered poor. Many start off in a lower income bracket and with hard work and sacrifice land up in the middle class or mayne even in the top brackets. But others make the choices to have children..without a legal father..drop out of school, abuse alcohol and drugs, use tobacco, and generally screw up their lives and then want the government to bail them out with the dollars of those who did make the right choices.</QUOTE>
    Sorry but to say that you are gonna need some stats, otherwise it’s just supposition which doesn’t count for anything.

    <QUOTE>A helping hand up is one thing and there are more than enough programs to give that helping hand. There is absolutly no excuse for anyone in the USA not getting an education including college and/or technical training.</QUOTE>
    Actually your wrong across the board here.  First of all if we had enough programs, then we wouldn’t have one of the highest poverty rates for being one of the richest nations.  Also, I hate to tell ya, but there is an excuse, it’s called “Not being able to afford it because there is no such thing as free education in America.”  And every time you turn your back the Fed’s are raising the interest rates of student loans.  I already gave you a reasonable solution to fix this problem, but I guess having poverty is ok since we are only the richest nation in the world.

    <QUOTE>But I draw the line at social welfare for those who have made the life’s choices to be poor.</QUOTE>
    I couldn’t agree more, but I have yet to hear of any Socialist that proposes this.  I do believe there are some that exist, but we merely strive to give those a chance, that do not have one.

    <QUOTE>And in this country it is the ones who have made the right choices that are being penalized for making these choices.</QUOTE>
    Considering Bush’s tax cuts are giving the richest 1%, that already have an average salary of 1.5million, over 52% of the 2.5 trillion in tax cuts, I highly doubt they are being penalized in any way, shape, or form.

    Even though they don’t work correctly I left the quotes in so you can see what it what.

  13. July 19, 2006 at 21:37 | #13

    “First of all if we had enough programs, then we wouldn’t have one of the highest poverty rates for being one of the richest nations.” 

    This is a some distorted socialist logic and I think that you know it. The so called poverty in the USA is based on being in the lower percentage of income..not the actual living conditions. You will have a hard time convincing me that someone living in subsidized housing, feeding on free food, and with money to buy tobacco, drugs, and alcohol to use while watching their wide screen TV and bitching about the price of gasoline for their ride is living in poverty.

    I have lived in places where there was poverty..I know what poverty means just as I know what it means to be poor.

    Your ideas of taking from those who have earned it and giving it to the ones who have niot just don’t wash with me nor most of the country. We recognize a thief when we see one..even if the tief is trying to rob us by using the law instead of a gun.

  14. July 19, 2006 at 21:53 | #14

    You will have a hard time convincing me that someone living in subsidized housing, feeding on free food, and with money to buy tobacco, drugs, and alcohol to use while watching their wide screen TV and bitching about the price of gasoline for their ride is living in poverty.

    Again not only is this supposition, but it is your opinion and based off of your experiences.  I do not truly believe that all people in subsidized housing are feeding of the USA tit, but many of them are yes.  And I also find it hard to believe that every one of them are also doing drugs, however I myself have witnessed some of this as a delivery driver.  I also tend to not presume everyone is evil until proved otherwise.  But I will go with you on this ride for a minute.  Lets presume that the in Country XYZ, there is a program set up for subsidized living and reimbursement as well.  Let us also presume for this case, that all 100% of these people are abusing the program.  Would it not be up to the government to improve upon the program and make sure no one is taking advantage of it.  If this happens I blame the government for not having adequate measures to ensure our tax dollars are being spent wisely.  All it would take is a simple follow up and check addition to the program to catch the majority of the tit-suckers.

    I have lived in places where there was poverty..I know what poverty means just as I know what it means to be poor.

    So have you ever been back to those places to see what has changed.  Are the poor any better off with Bush and his tax cuts?

    Your ideas of taking from those who have earned it and giving it to the ones who have niot just don’t wash with me nor most of the country. We recognize a thief when we see one..even if the tief is trying to rob us by using the law instead of a gun.

    So the way that Bush is taxing you and giving more money to the richer folk don’t bother you?  I am not talking about someone that makes $10,000 more dollars a year than you do here.  I am talking about those making $1,000,000 more a year than you.  Your fine with giving them enough money to buy Maybach’s latest vehicle, in only one year of the tax break program?

  15. July 20, 2006 at 06:54 | #15

    The places I lived that were poverty stricken were in other countries and Bush’s tax cuts nor the socialist democrats tax hikes would not have made any difference. These people were in poverty primarily because of their governments..socialist of course. I have also seen what is happening in countries such as France who have a 10 plus percent unemployment rate because their socialist policies not only deter companies from hiring but make it hard to attract venture capital for expansion.

    And no, it doesn’t bother me that some one who makea a million dollars more than me gets a tax break. What does bother me is government programs that subsidize business..as much as government programs that subsidize those unwilling to work.

    The difference is how we look at capital. I see it as earned..it belongs to the individual who earns it whether it was earned through investment or through sweat..it was still earned. Socialists see capital as belonging to everyone and think that it should be shared equally regardless of who earned it.

    Thinking individuals understand the need for taxes. Government cannot operate with out funds and we the people are in fact the government. Our bitch is not about taxes but how they are imposed. Graduated income tax systems are legalized extortion..simply taking from those who have it for the primary purpose of giving it to those who do not..and then requiring no accountability by those who receive it. Those who have earned and accumulated the wealth..orinherited the wealth..are heavily taxed for the same reason a thief goes to a bank with a gun..that is where the money is.

    There is a movement gaining speed for a flat tax. I support this tax although it will cost me because much of my income is from tax free investments and a flat tax will do away with such exemptions. But I support it because I think it is in the best interest of the economy.

    Every time in the past when taxes on the producers of this country have been lowered the result was a bet gain in tax receipts..this last time included. A flat tax..or the system I am pushing, a consummer tax, will tax every one at the same percentage. Fair? To a socialist of course not. But to the people who own the capital being tax sure it is fair. Fairness is an abstract concept at best.

    Socialism cannot possibly succeed with out a willingness of the producers to produce. Socialists know this and like to leave just enough incentive to keep the producers producing. Kind of like the carrot on the stick in front of the mule to keep the mule walking. However, when it is no longer worthwhile to produce and the producer quits or leaves the country the socialist scream that it is unfair. What it comes down to is who will you loot when there is no one left willing to let you loot them?

    The greed is not of those who are accumulating wealth. It is of those who not only want it but have convinced themselves that they have a right to it just because they happen to me a member of the human race. This greed is as old as mankind and the cause of most wars.. And, one of the laws of Moses from maybe 3500 years ago was “THOU SHALT NOT COVET”

    The biggest problem though that I see with socialism is that although everyone will be equal, everyone will be equally broke and hungry.

  16. July 20, 2006 at 11:41 | #16

    Guyk, I think much of your hatred of Socialism stems from a lack of understanding what Socialism is.  First let me start off by saying, SOCIALISM IS NOT COMMUNISM, SOCIALISM IS NOT COMMUNISM!!

    Socialists see capital as belonging to everyone and think that it should be shared equally regardless of who earned it.

    Not only is this a rash generalization, but couldn’t be farther from the truth.  Since you probably wouldn’t believe me if I told you what it was, here is some of what Wikipedia thinks:

    Contemporary socialism

    In the 1960s and 1970s new social forces began to change the political landscape in the Western world. The long postwar boom, rising living standards for the industrial working class, and the rise of a mass university-educated white collar workforce began to break down the mass electoral base of European socialist parties. This new “post-industrial” white-collar workforce was less interested in traditional socialist policies such as state ownership and more interested expanded personal freedom and liberal social policies.

    Over the past twenty-five years, efforts to adapt socialism to new historical circumstances have led to a range of new left ideas and theories, some of them contained within existing socialist movements and parties, others achieving mobilization and support in the arenas of “new social movements.” Some socialist parties reacted more flexibly and successfully to these changes than others, but eventually all were forced to do so. With the rise of environmentalism, Green and Red ideas have become linked in many movements and parties that campaign for environmental and social justice. Eco-socialism, a fusion of socialism, Marxism, ecology and environmentalism, has developed. Many Green Parties harbour ex-socialists and eco-socialists.

    In the developing world, some elected noncommunist socialist parties and communist parties remain prominent, particularly in India. In China, the Chinese Communist Party has led a transition from the command economy of the Mao period under the banner of “market socialism.” Under Deng Xiaoping, the leadership of China embarked upon a program of market-based reform that was more sweeping than had been Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev’s perestroika program of the late 1980s. In Latin America, socialism has reemerged in recent years with a nationalist and populist tinge, with Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez leading the trend.

    Libertarian socialists support decentralized economic planning and, in some cases, mutualism and gift economics.

    I also think they way you originally talked about poverty:

    I have lived in places where there was poverty..I know what poverty means just as I know what it means to be poor.

    Was pretty shaddy.  Why bring it up like you know what American poverty is like, when you have only seen it abroad.  The fact that you witnessed what things are like in other countries is great, but they have no bearing on this topic.

    However, when it is no longer worthwhile to produce and the producer quits or leaves the country the socialist scream that it is unfair.

    Not really, in fact in a well run socialist economy there would be no incentive for business to leave, because there would be tax incentives and other things that would keep them wanting to stay in the US instead of building a plant in Mexico, which is what many companies have done under Bush.

    I have also seen what is happening in countries such as France who have a 10 plus percent unemployment rate because their socialist policies not only deter companies from hiring but make it hard to attract venture capital for expansion.

    Actually France has a high unemployment rate because France voted in a conservative leader that has attempted to roll back every socialist policy put in place.  And has succeeded with many.  This is what is hurting France.

    The biggest problem though that I see with socialism is that although everyone will be equal, everyone will be equally broke and hungry.

    Again, here you are confusing communism with socialism.  Socialist do not see equality for all, they see help for those that have no other means and opportunity for those that want to really thrive.

    And if you want to effectively argue this issue, you might take a stab at trying to diffuse my statements, which you have yet to do.  Or you could try asking me what I think would work best on certain issues to see if there is a commonality on any of them, which there likely would be (just look at the VA issue).  The fact that you assume I am here to “rob all Americans of their wealth” or that I am here to put everyone on a “common playing field” does nothing to end this conversation.  It just shows unwillingness to listen or understand what I am proposing.

  17. LuckyJohn19
    July 20, 2006 at 12:30 | #17

    Wow.
    What a thread.
    I may be a simple person but …
    If you don’t look after the health and well-being of your less-privileged (call ‘em what you want – any label will do) they will cost you, in some way or other.
    Crime is a common denominator.
    If I haven’t got enough to eat, I will steal.
    If your child is dying you’re gonna do whatever it takes to help her and if it involves bending the law you will do it. Don’t lie. You WILL!
    What’s the matter with you people.
    Labels. Liberals. Socialists. This. That. And the other thing. Sheesh.
    “But I draw the line at social welfare for those who have made the life’s choices to be poor.”
    Who in his right mind would CHOOSE this one willingly?
    Get real.
    Do you really believe in the meritocracy in that everyone is where they are because they deserve it? Instant Karma stuff?
    Ha. The ugly American is alive and well amongst you.
    Am I a Lefty? Yep.
    Am I a capitalist? Bloody oath.
    Do I care about my brother? Damn right I do.
    America – the land of the free – You fat fucks are the world’s joke.

  18. July 20, 2006 at 14:12 | #18

    web05: surely you must think I am a fool. You have not yet refuted what I said about poverty..and what is considered poverty in the USA. There is damn little of it although there are now and alwways will be some who have much less material wealth than the middle and top income tiers. But as I said before, I was raised poor..but not impoverished although now adays my family would have been considered in poverty simply because of the income bracket.

    You can dress up socialism all you want to dess it up but until you tell me that you refute income redistribution simply because some have more than others you can take your socialism back to old Europe and their crumbling economies.

    Personal freedom and socialism are not compatable. The basic tenet of socialism is and always has been to receive according to need and contribute according to ability. And your argument that the reason socialism is failing in France is because of a conservative government just doesn’t wash. Only a few months ago the government had to pull back on a law that would allow business to fire non productive employees who were under twenty five years old and had less than two years on the job. The restrictions on business in much of old Europe has there economies collapsing around them and the left wing ideas of social diverity has seem a multitude of car burnings and riot in the streets. Yeah, socialism at its best.

    Your arguments remind me of the arguments for socialism..which by the way is a form of communism no matter how you try to hide it..the reason that it has not worked is because the capitalists and conservatives have fought it. Yeah, we like our freedom and we will continue to fight it at every turn.

    There is a revolution brewing in the USA today..a culural revolution that may well turn bloody before it is over with. I am afraid that we who love our freedom will have to take up arms to keep it. we did in the past and we will do so again. See, I am part of socialists worst nightmare. Not only can I see through the rhectoric, I have guns and know how to use them. And I am just one of millions that feel the same way.

    We are tired of having our hard earned money go to the bums who refuse to work. we saw the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina when the crime rates in the cities where the project evacuees went increase by twenty plus percent. We see our children struggle in schools because the socialists have decided that even blooming idiots have a right to be “mainstreamed” and teachers spend mor time wiping butts than they do teaching. We have seen our children grow fat because the socialists have decided that if a kid gets hurt at recess someone is at fault and they sue..so no more playgrounds and recesses and no more exercise for the kids.

    I can write a book about the problems that Johnson’s great socialist society have caused. And because of those problems I will fight and continue to fight. Or, if worst comes to worst I will do as John galt..who will you loot when there is no one left to loot?

  19. July 20, 2006 at 14:46 | #19

    web05: surely you must think I am a fool. You have not yet refuted what I said about poverty..and what is considered poverty in the USA. There is damn little of it although there are now and alwways will be some who have much less material wealth than the middle and top income tiers. But as I said before, I was raised poor..but not impoverished although now adays my family would have been considered in poverty simply because of the income bracket.

    No I actually do not think you are a fool.  I think because of some experience you have had, you have brought it upon yourself to give nothing to the poor and help out no one.  Maybe you were robbed, maybe when you ran your company, you had some encounter with an employee, I don’t know.  But I do know that your take on the poor, that they are all evil and are there because they want to be, and they steal money from the government, are all shallow and misguided beliefs.  And to say there is no such thing as poverty in the US is absurd.  Yes there are certainly more poor than impoverished, everyone knows that.

    I actually do not want to redistribute income.  What I propose is to knock back how much the wealthy get and bump up what the poor get.  Why is this not redistribution, simply because the rich are getting so much as it is, that even knocking down how much they get by 10% would never be noticed.  Do you really believe that the country will fall apart if someone making 1.5 million a year doesn’t get $340,000 back in taxes, that is absurd.

    And your argument that the reason socialism is failing in France is because of a conservative government just doesn’t wash. Only a few months ago the government had to pull back on a law that would allow business to fire non productive employees who were under twenty five years old and had less than two years on the job.

    Actually your take on France doesn’t wash because it is wrong and misguided.  They pulled back on the little issue you mention, because over 1.5 million people protested it.  I don’t suppose you remember that on TV awhile back do ya.  Besides that issue, their current president has tried to pull back on ever social issue possible.

    Personal freedom and socialism are not compatable.

    This couldn’t be more wrong.  The two actually go hand in hand with modern day socialism.  The fact that you don’t understand this is your problem not mine.

    Your arguments remind me of the arguments for socialism..which by the way is a form of communism no matter how you try to hide it..

    I don’t presume to hide that fact at all.  I was merely pointing out that you do not understand what socialism is.  And you still don’t.

  20. July 20, 2006 at 14:46 | #20

    the reason that it has not worked is because the capitalists and conservatives have fought it.

    Actually what you don’t understand is that socialism has worked in areas where it has been applied.  Prisoner re-introduction programs have worked wonders in areas where they have been applied.  Every program there is for the vets are a form of social programs, and many of them work well by giving help to vets.  This is something you actually agreed with me on, but failed to realize it was a social program.

    There is a revolution brewing in the USA today..a culural revolution that may well turn bloody before it is over with. I am afraid that we who love our freedom will have to take up arms to keep it. we did in the past and we will do so again. See, I am part of socialists worst nightmare. Not only can I see through the rhectoric, I have guns and know how to use them. And I am just one of millions that feel the same way.

    Actually you are not one of millions, you are one of a few that see this.  Again your are taking supposition that you extrapolated from a group and are applying it to the whole.  Take a look at the polls and statistics and what people are saying in blogs outside of your inner-circle.  People are getting tired of how this country is currently being ran.  People are getting tired of spending billions on a war that was based of false pretenses.  I have found little evidence that even 10,000 people would be on your side.  If you want to make a claim as such, you need more than your opinion.  As far as your guns go.  Whoopty friggin do.  Your guns do not mean S*** in an argument such as this, and do little to scare me or anyone else from speaking their mind, which is exactly what you are trying to do.

    We have seen our children grow fat because the socialists have decided that if a kid gets hurt at recess someone is at fault and they sue..so no more playgrounds and recesses and no more exercise for the kids.

    This isn’t because of socialists.  More of this action comes from whimpy religious nuts than any socialist.  If a kid hurts themselves on a playground I will be the last person you would hear complain about the playground.  Children are getting fat because conservatives, such as the ones in Illinois are blocking measures by democrats to take vending machines out of Elementary and Junior High Schools.  And because parents would rather a TV teach their kid how to grow up, then their lazy selfs.  Don’t blame this on socialists because you are a misguided individual.

  21. July 20, 2006 at 16:46 | #21

    “I actually do not want to redistribute income.  What I propose is to knock back how much the wealthy get and bump up what the poor get.  Why is this not redistribution, simply because the rich are getting so much as it is, that even knocking down how much they get by 10% would never be noticed.  Do you really believe that the country will fall apart if someone making 1.5 million a year doesn’t get $340,000 back in taxes, that is absurd. “

    I love socialist logic. Taking it way from those who have earned it and giving to those who have not is according to you “not income redistribution” because those who have earned it will not miss it. That is the same logic as robbing a bank but only taking 10 percent of what they have because they have so much they will not miss it. The fact remains that the wealth does not belong to society..it belongs to those who have earned it.

    You miss something about veterans programs..veterans have earned it..they have worked for it and in many cases give blood for it. And you will find the majority of verterans feel about socialists the same way that I do…thives.

    And if you think there are not millions that feel as I do you must have missed on who won the past two elections and who controls congress..it is not the socialistsalthough I am beginning to believe that there are many republicans who are republican in name only and are closer to the left than they are the right.

    Yeah, there are millions of us and I can guanantee you that there are a lot more of us than there are socialists. The last true socialist that ran for president, George MacGovern, lost every state. Later after he left politics and went into business he wrote that he didn’t realize how the prohrams he advocated restricted business..he later went out of business because of it and dropped out of sight..a whipped man because he had bought into the theft ideas of socialism.

    No,you will not convince me that socialism is right. But you do insult me when you state that “I hate the poor” and assume that I would not give a dime for aid. This is the assumption of socialists although the American people are not socialist and give more to private charities than any country in the world. The key is we give because we want to..not with a gun at our head as the socialists want. Yes, socialists are thieves..they want what they have not earned and figure that they have a right to it. I figure that I have earned it and have a right to protect it..with my gun if neccessary.

  22. July 20, 2006 at 17:14 | #22

    Guyk: That is the same logic as robbing a bank

    Actually it isn’t because no one is breaking the law.  That is actually a bad example.  And I am not also suggesting that the government physically send out agents to the rich and steal their money.  What I am proposing is that we give the rich less in tax breaks, that is all.

    Guyk: You miss something about veterans programs..veterans have earned it..they have worked for it and in many cases give blood for it. And you will find the majority of verterans feel about socialists the same way that I do…thives.

    Actually you missed something here, because first of all I am for the benefits vets get and so are every other socialist.  Why?  IT IS A F***ING SOCIALIST PROGRAM.  That was the point I was trying to make, but you obviously didn’t read what I typed.  You seem to think that giving money to vets isn’t socialism, but it is.  Any time the government spends money to help out the people, that is a social program.

    Also your points are getting harder to understand do to grammar, but one example of one man that thought socialism was a great thing is not reason to assume that socialism is a bad thing.  All it simply means is that the one person had a bad experience with socialism.  You have demonstrated a logical fallacy of assumption.

    Guyk: Yes, socialists are thieves..they want what they have not earned and figure that they have a right to it.

    Again you are assuming that communism is socialism.  There is a stark difference between the two.

    Guyk: “I hate the poor” and assume that I would not give a dime for aid.

    Actually this is not true.  Here is what I stated as to what I think you think about the poor:

    Webs: But I do know that your take on the poor, that they are all evil and are there because they want to be, and they steal money from the government, are all shallow and misguided beliefs.

    What you do with your money is your business not mine.  And if you do give money to charities to help the poor, and those living in poverty, than I applaud you Sir.  But giving money to a charity to help the poor is not the same as setting up a government program to get people out of living in a poor conditions.  Didn’t someone famous once say, “Give a man a fish and he eats for a day.  Teach him how to fish and he eats for a lifetime”…  This is what I propose.  If Americans want to give money to charities good, the more the better, but why not actually get these people out of being poor, and re-introduce them into society.  Educate them, give them a chance.  We are currently doing none of this.

    Instead of arguing with me because I am a socialist why don’t you offer a solution other than F*** em.  Because you (Actually having seen poverty and been poor) should know as well as I do, that will not work.

  23. July 20, 2006 at 17:32 | #23

    I think I have discovered a limitless source of energy… you put a socialist on one side of a wheel, and a libertarian on the other, and connect it to a generator.  Who needs coal, nukes, wind power, hydro? 

    Carry on…

  24. July 20, 2006 at 17:34 | #24

    Yea but I think there is a residual cost of health care due to cramping fingers and carpal tunnel. ;-)

    Hey that reminds me.  You never told us all your thoughts on the poor, what would your solution be if you were president.  And yes I would vote for you. :lol:

  25. July 20, 2006 at 17:36 | #25

    I said I’d come back in a couple days and add some thoughts.  Hasn’t been a couple days yet.

    Don’t be too sure you’d vote for me.  Wait and see first.  :coolsmirk:

  26. July 20, 2006 at 20:21 | #26

    Morning Glory:  Note that the congress has the right/power to provide for the “general welfare of the United States”; the type of states rights reservation of powers you envision is utter nonsense.

    Section 8 – Powers of Congress

    The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
    ————————————————————
    GUYK: “Being poor in the USA is a matter of choice for the majority of people considered poor.”

    As Sherman Potter would say, “Horse hockey!”  The huge numbers of babies born into poor families don’t CHOOSE to be poor, and due to their circumstances are behind a huge 8-ball.  Your view of socio-economic strata is pretty restricted. 

    You use “socialism/socialist” as an epithet, the venom fairly dripping.  Social programs and social safety nets do NOT mean a society or government that provides them is a “socialist” government.  Chill, dude.
    =============================================
    Haven’t had time to read all the comments yet.

  27. July 20, 2006 at 20:36 | #27

    Good luck, there are only a couple :lol:

  28. July 27, 2006 at 21:14 | #28

    Wow, where to begin – a lot to respond to here.  Here’s what I liked about this thread: we had commenters from a wide range of experience slugging it out over tough questions.

    Being a glutton for punishment, i read through all the comments, took notes, and wrote four entirely new posts to attend to the four topics I saw in what everyone said.  I hope the discussions can continue in each of those specific threads, and maybe some new commenters will feel free to join in! :-)

    <ol><li>Capitalism vs Socialism
    <li>Education
    <li>Health care
    <li>Social programs</ol>

Comments are closed.