More appropriately, the poor should be asked if they want to survive. I think most people are willing to give another a hand up, and when government assumes responsibility it more often becomes a hand out. I began life very poor, actually penniless, and survived. I have a friend who lost his job at NASA and became homeless. He lived several years in an Oregon forest without any assistance government or otherwise, and is now once again working. I think that anyone who desires to survive can do so, if they really wish to. Of course death comes to all, even the wealthiest, so that needs to be accepted as a fact of life. There are a small number of persons who are totally incapable of self reliance, and those persons should be the only ones who receive what could be considered a hand out. Rational decisions are difficult to make unless one can control their emotions.
and that's pretty much what's happening, it's not that easy to get on welfare apart from the handouts to corporations, of course
Depends on who you know. Politicians depend on large contributions, and while voters are being bought so are the politicians we elect who give their greatest attention to those who fund their campaigns. Just call it a return on their investment. Most often we end up with the politicians we deserve.
^^^ so, hundreds a month for a poor person is bad millions or billions a month for a corporation is okay i understand
I don't think you really understand much at all. And to make matters worse, you provide nothing at all to promote a rational discussion. If you would put aside your anger toward those who produce products, services, and jobs you might recognize the fact that government is the larger problem, and it costs everyone rich and poor. As a side note: The dollar has diminished by 25% against several currencies that I use over the past 18 months, and it would have been much greater if the governments weren't trying to prop up the dollar. I prefer the Yuan at the moment, or gold bullion as I suspect the dollar to continue on a downward trend. I'd be careful purchasing gold now, thats something that should have been done already, but it would appear that it should be valued at around $3200 an ounce by my calculations. Can it be brought back down in price is questionable at the moment.
if you would put aside your anger toward the government, you might recognize the fact that those who produce products, services, and jobs are the larger problem, and it costs everyone rich and poor [had it up to here with products, services, and yes, jobs]
why would anyone buy gold? what good is it? can one eat it? build houses with it? heat those houses? no? worthless shit, i say, filthy with its bloody history your thinking is so bizarre wash your hands, wash your mouth, wash your heart, wash your mind then you'll be fit to be called a human being
I can't wait till the gold bubble comes crashing down. You'd think people would learn from the housing market.
The theory, as I understand it, is that gold will hold it's value when the economy completely crashes; with it you can purchase food and other necessities of life. But, when thought through, why would I trade my food for your gold? If the economy ever does take a dump and money becomes valueless, the wealthy man will be the one holding the farm equipment, fuel and seeds. A man with a cow will be revered, and you will trade your most valued possessions to the man with a chicken house, because eggs will be worth more than their weight in gold. If you really think the economy is going South, buy land, seeds, farm tools, chickens, goats, a cow or two, and anything that will produce food. Shit will be worth far more than gold. .
dumbshit the corporations are providing shitty products, shitty services, and making their profits by raising prices and cutting jobs you live in a fairy land if you think they're the good guys http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/04/corporate-profits_n_748889.html
The poor individual farmer produces food that is far superior to that produced by the corporate farms. A hand-made suit, by the poor Tailor on 91st St. is far superior to any sold at a corporate chain. The purpose of a corporation is to produce money for it's investors, not quality products and services, ask any over paid CEO. How about those tax cuts for the rich? In reality, they have produced many jobs, in India, China, Malaysia, etc; but none in America. All we've gotten out of these tax cuts is the shaft, and no Vaseline. .
This is the free market system at work. It allows the rich to steal from the poor. It was just announced today that Verizon wireless got caught charging their customers for calls they didn't make and fees they weren't supposed to pay, I seem to remember a figure of $90m. Stealing from the poor has become standard practice in this "free market" system you like so much. It's actually not free, they steal billions of $ a year from American consumers. It's not worth the problems it has caused. .
That's a generalization, some may and others may not, but in a "free market" system they could compete more fairly. You're partially correct, and appear to understand the term "investor", but have you actually asked any CEO if it is their intent to produce poor quality products and/or services? When a product or service is found to be inferior the consumers respond, not to mention lawyers, and the competition reaps rewards. That is, unless the government steps in like in the case of GM, Chrysler, and Financial sector. Too big to fail to put aside too costly to save. The cost of doing business is a major consideration as it has a great effect on the price of the product or service offered. Taxes, wages, material costs, government regulations, are among many other things which determine where to locate. In a move towards one world "governance" the ones who truly pull the strings of government (and they are not conservatives by any means) see sharing the wealth world wide as a means of producing many more consumers. You really need to look at what is happening across the world to understand the goals and see the side effects. The easiest way to produce an emotional response of asking government to provide more for the poor and needy is to increase the number of poor and needy.
Look up the definition of a "free" market system. And while you're at it perhaps you should also look up the definition of "steal". Are you referring to the story at: http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-20018528-266.html $50 million, or even the $90 million you claim seems like a pittance compared to the billions upon billions or perhaps even more that government steals from taxpayers each year. And just because it is called a tax doesn't reduce the fact that much of it can be called theft. At least Verizon appears to be taking responsibility and refunding the overcharges, while government will likely spend more than the $50-90 million looking into the event to see how it can profit from it.
I make no excuses for bad behavior, simply try to examine all the facts. I don't necessarily see the Verizon story as being behavioral, unless you have some proof of intent. Humans are prone to mistakes, and when lacking of intent the best remedy is simple restitution. Imposing penalties and fines, while they may produce the use of greater caution, can come at a great cost when frivolously applied. The health care sector combined with tort law is a fine example. Cap and trade is another example just waiting to be implemented. Even government cannot employ two wrongs to make something right. Do you deny the fact that creating productive citizens is more beneficial to a society than is taxing productive citizens more to support those who are unproductive?
