The Welfare State For The Rich

sgtdmski · 11-17-2007, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by waitingtables

Any one here ever read anything by Thomas Paine? He has some insights into the poor and the rich. Here is a snippet from an article he titled Agrarian Justice:

Separate an individual from society, and give him an island or a continent to possess, and he cannot acquire personal property. He cannot be rich. So inseparably are the means connected with the end, in all cases, that where the former do not exist the latter cannot be obtained. All accumulation, therefore, of personal property, beyond what a man's own hands produce, is derived to him by living in society; and he owes on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilization, a part of that accumulation back again to society from whence the whole came.
This is putting the matter on a general principle, and perhaps it is best to do so; for if we examine the case minutely it will be found that the accumulation of personal property is, in many instances, the effect of paying too little for the labor that produced it; the consequence of which is that the working hand perishes in old age, and the employer abounds in affluence.
It is, perhaps, impossible to proportion exactly the price of labor to the profits it produces; and it will also be said, as an apology for the injustice, that were a workman to receive an increase of wages daily he would not save it against old age, nor be much better for it in the interim. Make, then, society the treasurer to guard it for him in a common fund; for it is no reason that, because he might not make a good use of it for himself, another should take it.
The state of civilization that has prevailed throughout Europe, is as unjust in its principle, as it is horrid in its effects; and it is the consciousness of this, and the apprehension that such a state cannot continue when once investigation begins in any country, that makes the possessors of property dread every idea of a revolution. It is the hazard and not the principle of revolutions that retards their progress. This being the case, it is necessary as well for the protection of property as for the sake of justice and humanity, to form a system that, while it preserves one part of society from wretchedness, shall secure the other from depreciation.
The superstitious awe, the enslaving reverence, that formerly Surrounded affluence, is passing away in all countries, and leaving the possessor of property to the convulsion of accidents. When wealth and splendor, instead of fascinating the multitude, excite emotions of disgust; n, instead of drawing forth admiration, it is beheld as an insult on wretchedness; when the ostentatious appearance it makes serves call the right of it in question, the case of property becomes critical, and it is only in a system of justice that the possessor can contemplate security.
To remove the danger, it is necessary to remove the antipathies, and this can only be done by making property productive of a national bless, extending to every individual. When the riches of one man above other shall increase the national fund in the same proportion; when it shall be seen that the prosperity of that fund depends on the prosperity of individuals; when the more riches a man acquires, the better it shall for the general mass; it is then that antipathies will cease, and property be placed on the permanent basis of national interest and protection.

So first Paine admits that without private property there can be no wealth. I agree wholeheartedly. So as long as the government protects private property we as citizens have an obligation to give a portion of our profits to government for services rendered. Again, no problem.

Now Paine says because we as individuals are irresponsible and cannot manage our money properly, government should step in and do it for us. WHoa!!!Big Problem. Once you give government money, they have a nasty habit of spending it. Now I understand that some people have a bad habit of spending their money and not putting it away for a rainy day. So because of this, we must all pay into a system that serves to only make us all poor in the end.

Finally Paine reverts to the old and true socialist plea of us all working for the good of society. But why should I work for someone who does not work for themselves??? Why should I pay my bills and give them an allowance to live as well. It doesn't work because in the end it breeds resentment. Resentment first from those who work and pay towards those who receive the benefits, and then resentment from those who receive the benefits against those who are successful. Class warfare brings everybody down.

Tell me, why is it that the government controls the education system, that they never teach people how money works? I mean, why are there no classes on how you can make your money work for you. Why are there no classes that discuss investment, or teach our children the value of saving a buck???

I tell you why, because if the majority of people finally learned how to succeed, there would be no need for government to continually need to take care of people. As long as the government can continue to keep a segment of the population in misery, they will have a job.

All socialism brings is instead of a few people living in misery, we all will be.

dmk

DanteBoston · 12-06-2007, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgtdmski

So first Paine admits that without private property there can be no wealth. I agree wholeheartedly. So as long as the government protects private property we as citizens have an obligation to give a portion of our profits to government for services rendered. Again, no problem.

Now Paine says because we as individuals are irresponsible and cannot manage our money properly, government should step in and do it for us. WHoa!!!Big Problem. Once you give government money, they have a nasty habit of spending it. Now I understand that some people have a bad habit of spending their money and not putting it away for a rainy day. So because of this, we must all pay into a system that serves to only make us all poor in the end.

BIGGER WHOA!

The system we have now has not made us all poor. What are you talkin' bout?

Quote:

Finally Paine reverts to the old and true socialist plea of us all working for the good of society. But why should I work for someone who does not work for themselves??? Why should I pay my bills and give them an allowance to live as well.

You redefine as the good for society to a point I would be hard pressed to find anyone I know who would agree to your definition. Who are these people you are talking about who say they support these things?
I do not deny some of that happens, but it is hardly rampant.

Quote:

It doesn't work because in the end it breeds resentment. Resentment first from those who work and pay towards those who receive the benefits, and then resentment from those who receive the benefits against those who are successful. Class warfare brings everybody down.

the resentment seems to have set in close to home, eh?

Quote:

Tell me, why is it that the government controls the education system, that they never teach people how money works? I mean, why are there no classes on how you can make your money work for you. Why are there no classes that discuss investment, or teach our children the value of saving a buck???

We thought families did that. Silly us. But you have a good point. Maybe we should demand schools teach this.

Quote:

I tell you why, because if the majority of people finally learned how to succeed, there would be no need for government to continually need to take care of people. As long as the government can continue to keep a segment of the population in misery, they will have a job.

The grassy knoll? Did you see anyone on the grassy knoll?

Quote:

All socialism brings is instead of a few people living in misery, we all will be.

dmk

Really? Socialism does this? Hmmm.

You sound like the Reaganites "Government is the problem" when reality shows it is not. Bad government is the problem and Reagan ran a bad government.

Socialism is not so bad. How one uses it is. It's like guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people.

sgtdmski · 12-09-2007, 04:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanteBoston

BIGGER WHOA!

The system we have now has not made us all poor. What are you talkin' bout?

Really???? We have a middle class that is struggling to exist. Fighting off income taxes, property taxes, payroll taxes, all the while government is trying to find more ways to take more money. Offering to take care of people from the cradle to the grave, providing day care, health care, and social security. All government has accomplished is to find new ways to make the elite rich, while the working Americans have to turn more and more to government to meet their basic needs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanteBoston

You redefine as the good for society to a point I would be hard pressed to find anyone I know who would agree to your definition. Who are these people you are talking about who say they support these things?

Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, Obama, Rudy G, and the list can go on and on. We need help with healthcare in this country because people cannot obtain it themselves, well one of the reasons they can't is because of the ridiculous regulations place on companies by government. People cannot be trusted to invest money into private retirement accounts, therefore government must continue to do so poorly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanteBoston

the resentment seems to have set in close to home, eh?

You are damn right. I know a few people who are on the government dole. They sit on their asses at home, drinking, popping their pills, and having a good time. The government is helping them to get a home, one in which they will pay only $300 a month for, out of money that is paid to them by the government. They have a brand new car, whose payment is $350 a month, paid for by you guessed it, the government. Here I sit, working 40-plus hours in a week, I rent a place at $500 a month and my car was made in 1984. Your damn right I have resentment. I look at these folks when they are drinking and partying and never have to work. What a fracking crock. Hell members of their own family are ashamed of them and the crap they pull, so I know I am not alone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanteBoston

We thought families did that. Silly us. But you have a good point. Maybe we should demand schools teach this.

Why not, government schools have taken over teaching everything else that parents once taught, i.e. home economics, sex education. Why should we not expect our government to at least teach something that is useful.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanteBoston

Really? Socialism does this? Hmmm.

Yep it sure does. You wind up with a few elite and everyone else is poor, without ever having a chance to become a part of the elite themselves.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanteBoston

You sound like the Reaganites "Government is the problem" when reality shows it is not. Bad government is the problem and Reagan ran a bad government.

Government is the problem. No one size fits all solution exists to the problems that people are faced with on a day to day basis, yet government continues to function as though they can one day find it. Their only solution has been to spend more money rather than find out why what they are doing is not working.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanteBoston

Socialism is not so bad. How one uses it is. It's like guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people.

Any system based on the philosophy that states from each according to their ability, to each according to their need is wrought with peril. When you take from those of ability and give to those with need you are setting yourself up for failure. When hard work does not pay, but instead need, you wind up with everyone needing and no one having ability. Socialism regardless of how its used all ends up the same, an elite that governs over the needy, the only thing social about the system is that everyone suffers equally.

dmk

hkbajwa · 12-10-2007, 02:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgtdmski

Really???? We have a middle class that is struggling to exist. Fighting off income taxes, property taxes, payroll taxes, all the while government is trying to find more ways to take more money. Offering to take care of people from the cradle to the grave, providing day care, health care, and social security. All government has accomplished is to find new ways to make the elite rich, while the working Americans have to turn more and more to government to meet their basic needs.

Well i don't think that socialism is meant to tax the middle class. Rather it is the richest segments of society that gets taxed the heaviest.. That, among other things, means that they super rich will NOT be getting the tax breaks offered by conservative pro-business governments.

Socialism is a venture to re-distribute that wealth which is concentrated in the hands of the rich. I have no idea why you take socialism to mean anything else.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgtdmski

Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, Obama, Rudy G, and the list can go on and on. We need help with healthcare in this country because people cannot obtain it themselves, well one of the reasons they can't is because of the ridiculous regulations place on companies by government. People cannot be trusted to invest money into private retirement accounts, therefore government must continue to do so poorly.

Are you telling me that insurance companies are "trustworthy"?? The regulations put in place seem to be for the protection of the population. Insurance companies are worried about their BOTTOM LINES. That means SOMEBODY gotta lose.. unfortunately in such a system it is the sick that lose.

I think that giving the companies a free hand will cause more havoc and misery. They are after all much more intersted in how much money they make than they are about the health and wellbeing of those they insure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgtdmski

You are damn right. I know a few people who are on the government dole. They sit on their asses at home, drinking, popping their pills, and having a good time. The government is helping them to get a home, one in which they will pay only $300 a month for, out of money that is paid to them by the government. They have a brand new car, whose payment is $350 a month, paid for by you guessed it, the government. Here I sit, working 40-plus hours in a week, I rent a place at $500 a month and my car was made in 1984. Your damn right I have resentment. I look at these folks when they are drinking and partying and never have to work. What a fracking crock. Hell members of their own family are ashamed of them and the crap they pull, so I know I am not alone.

Well some people abuse the system. The point you seem to miss however is that in a socialist setup, such people cannot proudly walk around with their benefits. The reason for this is that the VAST MAJORITY will be honest workers that contribute to the system. This creates a certain level of civic consciousness that makes each and every taxpayer concerned about how the money is being used. There will be a civil movement to prevent freeloaders.

This is how it is in denmark. I myself engaged in a level of subterfuge at a point. I gave the government a different address from my real one whcih gave me a marginally higher stipend for when i was studying. I told a class fellow about this and she had a fit. Suffice it to say that i couldn;t carry on the way i did. When the whol,e of society has a vested iterest in the money being spent properly and not on freeloading, then it becomes REAL HARD to be a freeloader. In ANY CASE the nightmare scenario that you present, that the population will start being dominated by freeloaders is paranoid. IN PRACTICE it has been PROVEN that such is not the way things go.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgtdmski

Yep it sure does. You wind up with a few elite and everyone else is poor, without ever having a chance to become a part of the elite themselves.

I think that you are describing your current system. Because every single american DOESN"T have access to basic rights like food, shelter, healthcare and education, it is quite clear that you SOME kids have better chances than the others. THe kid born in a rich home with a trustfund has a better chance of being LITERATE than one born in a slum. However if education was free, then this difference in life chances would not occur. Same thing with healthcare. If healthcare were free, than the slum dweller would have the same life chances as a rich kid.

It is PRECISLY this type of inequality that prevents the non-elite from tbecoming the elite. Circumstances are HEAVILY weighted against the ghetto dweller. The very thing you say socialism will cause is ALREADY THERE as a result of your current system.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgtdmski

Government is the problem. No one size fits all solution exists to the problems that people are faced with on a day to day basis, yet government continues to function as though they can one day find it. Their only solution has been to spend more money rather than find out why what they are doing is not working.

I think you confuse a lot of things here. Nobody is talking about the government deciding what clothes you wear, and what car you drive. It doesn't even mean the government will instruct you on how you lead your life.

THE ONLY THING we are talking about is free healthcare and free education. Both of these things are not things FORCED upon a population, but rather MADE AVAILABLE to a population that needs it. SO it will mean charging more taxes. Well you already pay taxes to fund insane wars.. why not try spending those taxes on making your country TRULY EGALITARIAN.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgtdmski

Any system based on the philosophy that states from each according to their ability, to each according to their need is wrought with peril. When you take from those of ability and give to those with need you are setting yourself up for failure. When hard work does not pay, but instead need, you wind up with everyone needing and no one having ability. Socialism regardless of how its used all ends up the same, an elite that governs over the needy, the only thing social about the system is that everyone suffers equally.

YOur statements about socialism are just plain incorrect. Sure the scandinavian countries are smaller and thus easier to manage, but what you say is just not true.

The fact is also that the NEED for education and healthcare is EQUAL FOR ALL HUMANS. there is no complex method of deducing the "need" of the people. All the NEED is EQUAL ACCESS to to healeth and education.

The fact remains that only hard work pays EVEN IN THIS SCENARIO. Having the option to be cured when you are sick does NOT give you incentive to sit at home. It cannot. YOu cannot survive on free healthcare. Likewise education REQUIRES EFFORT> If you don't pass then you squander your chance, and nobody is responsible for that.

You are makjng it sound like socialism will have beggars coming out of the woodwork like zombies and turning eveyrbody else into needy zombies. That's just not true.

nuttyjoe · 12-10-2007, 02:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgtdmski

I grew up in DC, and have hung out on more than one street corner in my life. Hell, I used to spend all weekend running ball at Anacostia Park from sun-up to sun down. I seen my fair share of drug deals, shootings, stabbings, and down brawls. Hell I took part in a few of those my self. I did not change until I fell in love and got married. That was when reality sunk in and I figured out that I could not support a family running the streets, hustling and bustling trying to make a buck. Yeah I had my job at K-Mart, but hell, who could make it off of $5.50 an hour, so I did what I could to make ends meet. Luckily I was able to join the military, first in the infantry and later as a lab technician. That experience has led me to where I am today.

Sometimes no matter how hard you try you cannot change the friends around you, let alone the community around you. The first thing you have to do is change yourself. After that, if you cannot change your friends, CHANGE YOUR FRIENDS.

When I was young I loved the hustle and bustle of DC, always somewhere to go, and something to do, not matter what time. Sure the Clubs all closed at 3 in the morning, but we had drive thru liquor stores that stayed upon until 5 AM and we could always find a party. Today.....well Ketchikan in the winter pretty much shuts down at 9 PM. And nothing happens anywhere in the morning to well after 10 AM. Believe it or not I actually enjoy the slow down. Quite a far cry from what I grew up with.

dmk

Now that was a perfect statement, Sarge. Yes, there are places that are just horrible. I visited D.C. with some friends a few years ago; and I will never even think about going through southeast D.C. ever again. As teenagers, many of us will always think of "fun" first; and true responsibility in life second. But at some time in life, we must be able to draw the distinctions between good and bad; and proceed from there. Even more so, if we are parents.

DanteBoston · 12-11-2007, 08:37 PM

me:

Quote:

BIGGER WHOA!
The system we have now has not made us all poor. What are you talkin' bout?

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgtdmski

Really???? We have a middle class that is struggling to exist. Fighting off income taxes, property taxes, payroll taxes, all the while government is trying to find more ways to take more money.

Government is trying? Nope. People demand services. Services cost money. Look at what people from Massachusetts (mostly) have done to New Hampshire.

me:

Quote:

Offering to take care of people from the cradle to the grave, providing day care, health care, and social security. All government has accomplished is to find new ways to make the elite rich, while the working Americans have to turn more and more to government to meet their basic needs.

Wow! Health care and day care are cradle to grave programs? In a society as rich as we are we could afford to pay child care, health care and education ...as investments in the future. Think of it as R&D. Imagine what a healthy and educated work force could do.

and: Why do you hate Social Security? It works.

you:

Quote:

Finally Paine reverts to the old and true socialist plea of us all working for the good of society. But why should I work for someone who does not work for themselves??? Why should I pay my bills and give them an allowance to live as well.

Quote:

You redefine as the good for society to a point I would be hard pressed to find anyone I know who would agree to your definition. Who are these people you are talking about who say they support these things?
I do not deny some of that happens, but it is hardly rampant.

Quote:

Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, Obama, Rudy G, and the list can go on and on. We need help with healthcare in this country because people cannot obtain it themselves, well one of the reasons they can't is because of the ridiculous regulations place on companies by government. People cannot be trusted to invest money into private retirement accounts, therefore government must continue to do so poorly.

If you can find me ONE quote from any of the people you listed saying they support you working to support those who do not and will not so that after paying your bills they get an allowance, I'll pen a poem and eat my hat.

Quote:

You are damn right. I know a few people who are on the government dole. They sit on their asses at home, drinking, popping their pills, and having a good time. The government is helping them to get a home, one in which they will pay only $300 a month for, out of money that is paid to them by the government. They have a brand new car, whose payment is $350 a month, paid for by you guessed it, the government. Here I sit, working 40-plus hours in a week, I rent a place at $500 a month and my car was made in 1984. Your damn right I have resentment. I look at these folks when they are drinking and partying and never have to work. What a fracking crock. Hell members of their own family are ashamed of them and the crap they pull, so I know I am not alone.

do you remember Gladys Kravitz, from bewitched? And you are angry? get a better job or further you education. Start with spending less time here complaining. I say this because I fear for your mental health.

Quote:

Why not, government schools have taken over teaching everything else that parents once taught, i.e. home economics, sex education. Why should we not expect our government to at least teach something that is useful.

Yep it sure does. You wind up with a few elite and everyone else is poor, without ever having a chance to become a part of the elite themselves.

Government is the problem. No one size fits all solution exists to the problems that people are faced with on a day to day basis, yet government continues to function as though they can one day find it. Their only solution has been to spend more money rather than find out why what they are doing is not working.

Quote:

Any system based on the philosophy that states from each according to their ability, to each according to their need is wrought with peril. When you take from those of ability and give to those with need you are setting yourself up for failure. When hard work does not pay, but instead need, you wind up with everyone needing and no one having ability. Socialism regardless of how its used all ends up the same, an elite that governs over the needy, the only thing social about the system is that everyone suffers equally.

dmk

now your just spouting things based on unwarranted stereotypes and delusion.

sgtdmski · 12-16-2007, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanteBoston

Government is trying? Nope. People demand services. Services cost money. Look at what people from Massachusetts (mostly) have done to New Hampshire.

And people are demanding service because government has created the culture of relying on them for your needs rather than taking care of them yourself. People want everything easy, well news flash: Life is not easy, nor should it be.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanteBoston

Wow! Health care and day care are cradle to grave programs? In a society as rich as we are we could afford to pay child care, health care and education ...as investments in the future. Think of it as R&D. Imagine what a healthy and educated work force could do.

You forgot welfare and social security, cradle to grave. It is not government's responsibility to do everything for people in a perfect world all would be taken care of, but this is not a perfect world, nor will it ever be. Choices people make dictate the lives they lead. Government pays for child care for some people, I have no problem with that, if it helps them to get off the government dole and earn money themselves I am all for it. Government pays for education, yet the public schools are failing our children, the only people winning are the teachers. People ask for choice in where they can send their children to school so they can succeed, and government denies them that to protect the teachers and their paychecks. So if it is R&D well, not much development is resulting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanteBoston

and: Why do you hate Social Security? It works.

Are you that blind?????? Social Security is returning a rate of just over 1% on the money you invest. When the system began for every 1 person receiving benefits there were 17 people working, today for every 1 there are only 3, in 20 years there will be 2 people working for every person receiving benefits. At some point the system will not have enough money to pay for itself, then what. After years of working and putting money in, the government will have none to give you. You earn the money, you pay into the system and if die, unless your children are still in school or your spouse is not receiving social security, the benefits stop, the government keeps your money. If a private company did this it would be criminal. It does not work, it is a failure and racist at that, especially when you consider blacks have a shorter life-span than other races. Again, for a private company this would be CRIMINAL.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanteBoston

do you remember Gladys Kravitz, from bewitched? And you are angry? get a better job or further you education. Start with spending less time here complaining. I say this because I fear for your mental health.

Yes I remember Gladys Kravitz, and I am not noisy, I know these things about these people because they are acquaintences of mine. Don't worry about my mental health, it is fine, nor my job, it pays well. However, I am sick of working hard while others sit on their asses and live off of the tax monies taken from my paycheck. This culture created by the government of trying to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves has created the culture of resentment from those of us who do work. Time and again, when left to the people, they have voted down tax increases over and over again. All we want is more of our own money to spend on those things that we want. We can pay for our own health insurance, we can fund our own retirement accounts, so why not let us. I tell you why, because government fears people having more control of their own money, for if more people find out that they can do a better job that government, many of today's programs will die off.

dmk

now your just spouting things based on unwarranted stereotypes and delusion.[/quote]

Observer · 01-02-2008, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ClassWarrior

[/size][/b]

Because we don't have a choice. If we don't subsidize the corporations, we go to jail. The corporations here in America own american politicans. American politicans in Congress and at the White House are bought and paid for by big business. The US is essientially a dictatorship by the rich, wealthy few and like all dictatorships, if we refuse to cooperate we go to prison or worse.

If Ron Paul is elected, he will put an end to this madness! That's why the media continues to stage a "black-out" on him!

sgtdmski · 01-06-2008, 03:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Observer

If Ron Paul is elected, he will put an end to this madness! That's why the media continues to stage a "black-out" on him!

HOW???? Any change in the system requires not only a President who is willing, but a Congress that will pass the legislation. He might try to put end to it, but, unless Congress is willing, he will not be able to stop it.

dmk

indago · 01-06-2008, 04:55 AM

sgtdmski wrote:

Quote:

HOW???? Any change in the system requires not only a President who is willing, but a Congress that will pass the legislation. He might try to put end to it, but, unless Congress is willing, he will not be able to stop it.

The President has executive powers to initiate action on legislation already on the books. Charters of incorporation can be pulled for deviations from the chartered policy.