What happens when you scrap the welfare state

Well, I know for a fact that they don't accept people going to school, because they refused it to me in NY; Of course, I'm sure every state is different, but still, I've paid soo much money into the system. I've been working on the books since I was legally allowed. But when I was a college student in NY, they refused me, and accepted my brother who had no job or school.

Like I said, I'm sure every state is different. But my point is that this was all supposed to be taken care of under government, and it has virtually caused more hardships than anything. If you were getting paid 1.25 an hour, in fine silver, that's valued at well over 30$ today. We put faith in the government to establish minimum wage, and in many cases, it isn't enough to live. I think we need a conscious consumer, who don't support corrupt practices, and, this would cause these businesses to sputter out. Also, people need to work for what they know to be fair. If Americans are not getting enough for food, they can go to charities/churches any day and get some. If you're not getting paid enough- leave that job.

I could believe also that the government has some kind of deal with walmart to take on their employees, cause typically people with jobs aren't entitled. Do they still get the 150$ a week taxes taken out? It seems to me, they'd be better off also, if they kept the money they earned. I hate working 50 hour weeks for $10 an hour, and after taxes making $350. It's a total rip off. I could barely afford food myself, but the government takes MY money, to give it to someone else.

If they had legitimate healthcare, humanitarian efforts, environmental protections etc.- why would they have to FORCE us to pay for it?

 

Now all the food stamps and deductions for social programs will be transferred into risk free pure Risk in the essence of accidents, venereal disease, and bronchitis from smoking too much. Money will be no object as the money will all be in the commonwealth of innocence and justice minded sin ecology. :biker:

 

I'm not trying to build a "Natural" society, I'm trying to build a voluntary society, in which, government doesn't use force against peaceful non-violent people.

What? I don't understand what you're trying to say.

Are you saying that with Obama, the government is better and more caring for the average Joe?

Marx created communism and socialism, and both have been adopted by oligarchs, who wish to expand their means of power. When government controls the wealth, you can bet government is going to distribute it in their favor, (In America's case, their Lobbyists) But Obama works for the sane elites Bush did, and that's common knowledge.

Even on ObamaCare, he was working with the huge insurance industries, to rob the little guy. Government-forced insurance is too much for everyone to pay for, and it's bound to make prices go up.

I believe that a majority of people just want to live their life and get along day-by-day; What I'd like to see happen immediately, is the States taking over foodstamps, welfare, social security etc.

However, I believe people are still good and charitable. People give Veterans/ Homeless people money. I know, because I was homeless for a little while in NY, and people gave me money, rides and, even older individuals asked if I was okay, and if they could do anything for me. (or buy me food.)

People in America, tend to help others, and with all our charities, churches and, people to help, my hope is, eventually, we wont need to use force to live peacefully and see our moral obligation to take care of each other.

What? Again, I don't see where you're getting at. Are you a Communist? A welfare state always means total government control; Whereas, I believe in the Freedoms America was founded on.

Again, we have a moral obligation to help people, but, I believe force against non-violent, peaceful and, civilized people, will be the downfall of this country. Obama has continued that force, 10 fold.

 

I've got to give you credit for attempting to craft a response to that. I never have any idea what the fuck he/she is talking about.

 

Thanks for the pep talk beyond mere theory. I can't understand why John Lennon's, "Imagine" was sung at the New Years celebration on Time Square.:sunny:

 

What Recovery? US Rich get Richer

http://rt.com/usa/us-financial-crisis-wealth-occupy-wall-street-307/


900 wealthiest Americans, exempt from paying Social Security!


http://rt.com/usa/900-super-rich-no-taxes-158/

 

Its a corporate recovery.

 

25

The problem with your links is that they show just how bad things will go when free market ideas come to dominate thinking, as I’ve explained to you a number of times.

Again try reading - Free market = plutocratic tyranny
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=353336&f=36

And that’s the problem with much of the right wing guff that’s been pumped out in this thread they are full of wining and bitching about how bad things are put their only solutions would make an already bad situation worse by handing even more power and influence to wealth. A charge I’ve often presented but one that none of them has been able to refute in any rational or reasonable way.

 

A limited Welfare State is an affordable reality for The United States.

However, when this morphs into a vote-purchasing programe to support incumbency, the problems begin.

We can have a government bubble, just like we had a housing bubble.

A collapse of the government bubble will be the worst for those in need.

 

Piney

What do you mean ‘welfare state’?

As to affordable there are counties with more generous welfare systems that are doing as well or better than the US and ones with less generous systems that are doing worse.

And a lot of public assistance in the US goes to low paid workers, which is basically the government subsidising employers

What are you basing this on?

 

for some reason i instantly discredit the posts of anyone who says "the left" or "the right"
how about what is best for the mass majority of people.

 

Pen

But what is best for the majority of people – those with ‘left wing views’ will probably have a differing outlook on the subject from someone with ‘right wing views’

And it has to be realised that there are many different shades of left and right.

However the thing is that in my experience it is usually those with ‘right wing’ views that want to claim they are not right wing, I think everyone I’ve meet with left wing views seems proud to be left wing.

 

So what specific actions are best for the mass majority of people?

 

its not about the actions, its only the words. if you think abortion is right then fine speak out about it. tell everyone why its better than the alternative. but dont say "THE RIGHT" will have you believe yada yada yada. its just a way to divide us.

 

Aaah.... sort of like when people go on and on about liberals.

 

6 of 1

 

Well, the thing is left and right are terms used to divide and conquer. They really have no meaning, except people willingly choose to align and identify themselves with those labels, and therefore allow those labels to control their opinions. The true meaning of "right wing," if it ever existed, means small, decentralized government that works to protect individual freedoms. I am not really sure what the true definition of left is, but what it has come to mean is a centralized, authoritarian government which tramples people's rights and eviscerates personal freedoms. If there is a reason why people don't like to associate themselves with the right, it's because Republicanism, which is anything but right wing in the truest sense of the word, has been used to demonize all concepts for traditional conservatism (and liberalism for that matter). Most people hear "right wing," and they automatically think of Dick Cheney and George Bush, who are merely authoritarian fascists who have far more in common with today's left since they favor a large, all-encompassing government designed to control the masses. This is why there is not a fucking dime's worth of difference between the Democrat and Republican parties. Nothing changed when Obama took office, other than that he was given a free pass by so-called liberals to do the exact same things Bush did, but now even worse.

 

Point of information and distinction.

Obama tried to close Guantanamo Bay, and the Senate and House are blocking him.

Don't say it with the tone that there wasn't an attempt to change key aspects of policy.

Also radical shifts don't happen in politics, anybody who expected as much was naive.

 

lol

There was no real attempt by Obama to change ANYTHING. Obama represents the establishment, so he does what he was put in office to do, which is tow the line.

Obama could have closed GITMO when he first took office, like he said he would (one of his many lies), but he didn't. Blaming the other side is always a convenient excuse for people when they want to defend Obama, but it doesn't hold water.

It's just like Obama is going to "reform" the NSA, which is a JOKE! Anyone who believes that lie doesn't have too much gray matter between their ears.

Sorry, but I just have no tolerance for people who call me a conspiracy theorist, but defend Obama while mindlessly repeating what they heard on CNN the day before. I don't like sheep, and I don't hold back from putting them in their place.

 

First off I didn't get that information from watching CNN or any other mainstream media source.

I got that from watching C-Span, and checking factual political websites which I've mentioned before in other posts, like factcheck.org, politifact, and a few other sites I frequent for information.

---

Implying I'm a sheep implies I don't understand your perspective and it also implies that because I no longer share your POV that you feel it is okay to call someone who disagrees with you or is unconvinced stupid.

If you can dance toe to toe on each of the counter points that fraggle-rock pointed out, which I happen to also believe has merit, regarding the facts of someone you cited in high regard supporting your beliefs about global warming not being caused by man, having ties herself to the oil industry.

You completely ignored that very valid point that fraggle made...you just brushed it off and made a rebuttal to me and said well global warming is just about control over the masses.

Each general statement you make requires that you back it up with specific information and hard proof to convince the other person is wrong, you began to do this, and then just abruptly stopped when the specific information was countered yet again by fraggle.

You are a conspiracy theorist if the ideas you are preaching lack hard evidence or impartial or false evidence. That is not an insult, but an observation that should humble you to honestly spend more effort in argumentation and debate with us.

To suddenly get defensive about being called a conspiracy theorist implies we hit a nerve.

----

What green energy technologies are you referring to that are being sat on because it would "free" humanity?

Orgone, and zero-point energy? The lost Tesla diaries?

I've heard it all and I've looked into it myself when I was like you believing this stuff and in my talks with many electricians, physicists and brainy friends, there are many reasons why these sound great in science fiction movies, the terms, but they aren't working in real life.

If you can make and prove how to make virtually unlimited free electricity, go do it yourself and make a YouTube video out of it and test for how much power output and how long you can get it to work alongside price comparisons in the materials you needed to get to run the experiment versus the cost of the electricity generated.


I'm open to being persuaded back to your line of argument but you've gotta work harder to convince me and not get all offended and defensive when we challenge you. Nobody said it was gonna be easy to convince people what you say is true.