It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Should the Government Give Away Free Money ?

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 4 2014 @ 09:30 AM
a reply to: AlienView

Money that is only backed by the good faith and credit of the US, is nothing but a IOU. Real money is backed by something tangible. So, why not! The government can give out free IOUs to whomever it wants to.

posted on Oct, 4 2014 @ 11:33 AM

originally posted by: eletheia
a reply to: ForteanOrg
You missed my point entirely

Now, that would be stupid of me. Let's see.

I assume that the next quote is another way to say what you tried to say before, correct?

In life there will always be those that strive and make the most of things, and then there are those who sit back with the "woe is me" attitude and expect someone else to pick up the tab.

If so: that is not what you said the first time nor is it the same thing said in a different way. It's a totally different statement. One that I don't fully underwrite either, but closer to reality from where I stand.

I'll recap what I understood, so you can determine for yourself if I understood you correctlly.

You gave an example, using three people: one that spent all his money as soon as he got it, one who spent it wisely in such a way he would be able to buy what he needed when he needed it and the third guy used part of his money to buy stuff now so he could resell it later with a profit. And then you suggested that the last guy was "the cream".

So, I believe I totally understood what you said. Please help me out: what exactly did I NOT uderstand?

Granted some of the 'haves' were born to it .... but then there are also many of the haves that worked dammed hard for it ...

All by themselves? Really? Sweaty brows and all?

So, let's see, a guy like say Bill Gates (you know: "charity Gates") who was listed to be in control of 82 BILLION (82,000,000,000!) dollars last year earned all of that money just by doing "work"? Did you know that he has earned roughly 45 dolllars PER SECOND - during his entire life! There are American citizens that have to do a day of REAL work to earn that. This man has had an hourly salary of roughly 160.000 dollars. EACH HOUR OF HIS LIFE. Are you totally whacko or do you really believe that his "labour" is worth the same amount each hour that a GP gets (and a very, very well paid GP!) each YEAR!?

To add injury to insult: with exactly WHAT tremendous product or service did he earn all that money? Well, with his lame excuse for an operating system and the non-existing service he offered. An operating system that came pre-installed on your PC or laptop (with or without your consent) on almost all brands. Had we done what Gates wanted us to do, we would not have had the Internet. We would have had "MSN". And apart from fees to your ISP you would have been forced to "voluntarily" buy a service from M$: access to MSN. Say 50 bucks each month - that's reasonable for access to all that data (that he never created, but who cares). Man, have you been on some other planet for the last 30 years, or are you ignorant? "The cream" - indeed. Sour cream, most likely

ENVY is a nasty destructive trait that it seems many people are afflicted with!

Indeed. But what has that to do with our conversation?
edit on 4-10-2014 by ForteanOrg because: he temperamentfully forgot a slash.

posted on Oct, 4 2014 @ 01:37 PM
As we might expect this is turning into a left vs. right debate. But my intention was to introduce a concept that might appeal to the more moderate people on both sides of the fence. Of course inequality of income has now become so ingrained
in our system that it can not be undone - Remember George McGovern? - lost by a landslide - Americans will not buy socialism. But the battle today between the right and left has become ridiculous as if two political factions are living in two different worlds. So the solution I'm offering will of course maintain government giveaways BUT would streamline the whole process and cut down on government waste - a concept the right should like. In the long run far less money might be spent and spent with a more favorable outcome - And we all come out ahead.

posted on Oct, 4 2014 @ 02:13 PM
a reply to: AlienView

Left or right debate? I hadn't noticed

But however, the basic income concept is supported by people from both sides (at least in my country). The leftist bunch love the idea as it helps to close the gap between the poor and the (moderately) rich. The rightist bunch love the idea too as it implicates less civil servants, less regulation and lower salaries.

posted on Oct, 4 2014 @ 03:02 PM

originally posted by: AlienView
Of course inequality of income has now become so ingrained in our system that it can not be undone

It can be undone, it should be undone and it will be undone.

Americans will not buy socialism.

"buy"? It's just an expression, I know. But look at what you wrote: "Buy" socialism. What better example of how deeply the evil of capitalism has been ingrained in your system: you seem to think things must be "bought" to have value. Well, I don't buy that!

The American constitution reads like a socialist manifest. WE, THE PEOPLE. Not "I, the proud American individual" or "We, rich folks" or "we, poor saps". Your American constitution - which ironically is held in very high regard by especially right wing Americans - is PEOPLE centered, like the socialist system is. The founding fathers were socialists and meant for America to be a socialist state. Can you dig that..

Socialism is about ALL people. Socialism considers all to be of equal value. Socialism ensures they all have the same rights and same obligations. Socialism is a system that treats all with respect and dignity - in short: the system suggested by the American constitution - that's socialism.

I am fully aware that true socialism has not been implemented (fully). Sweden came close. My own country came close. But alas: many states that start off with socialist proclamations end up as dictatorships. America is a good example: a dictatorship run by the elite, the rich, whom are able to buy themselves a President, start and win court cases and buy as many people they want - all with money they stole from the People to begin with.

You know, the five pointed star is the official symbol of socialism. it is also the main component of the symbol on the wings of American airplanes - the ones that are dropping bombs in Irak and Syria right now. Such irony the symbol of hope, the morning star - on a machine that only serves to destroy. The five pointed stars are also abundantly present on the American flag. If only America were worthiy of that symbol, if it only held up to its own constitution. What a terrific country it would be - ran by WE, THE PEOPLE.

Socialism can't be bought by Americans. They can have it - for free. Or shoud I say "for freedom"?

posted on Oct, 4 2014 @ 03:31 PM
Ah yes the left v right debates.

More like the same side v the same side.

And like socialist v capitalist. All sides unable to smell what they're kneeling in.

posted on Oct, 4 2014 @ 03:35 PM
a reply to: AlienView
What is rarely stated is how disenchanted the employed are with their jobs. They are working for a check is a bare majority and 70+% are unfulfilled and less than 20% actually enjoy their work enough to work overtime.

This info comes from 'The Street'.

The corpserate (sic) mentality has demeaned the American workforce (perhaps globally) to the point that they mostly would rather not be in the workplace.

Yet we get these commentors who keep defending this, 'Work Or DIe' ethic.

If this is the best solution, most people working hating a fourth or more of their lives, in order to justify a gentler form of slavery, these defenders of the status quo, need to declare themselves morally deficient. Not that someone who is would not outright lie, manipulate facts, use religion, the police state, the Military Industrial Complex, Trickle Down Economics NWO, etc. , with other falsehoods added as needed, to absolutely force this down our collective throats.

For these folks it is defensible to guarantee the rich being able to bequeath. It is not OK for the society to do so.

These people are simply unethical chucklheads and if you agree with them you are willingly wearing your choke collars as they take you down the walk of Fantasy Lane. They will hire your children to clean up the mess.

The solution the OP offers would require a revolt, one that I favor. We can get this by voting OUR interests.

If you number amongst the privileged, I understand defending this current wholly corrupt means of control. If you are not WTF are you doing about it? Support the needed changes as this 'system' is crashing THE SYSTEM. The underlying true economy is the environment. Capitalism does not consider this and yes they will kill you for next quarter's numbers.

A minimum guarantee of survival, as part of your heritage, would allow workers to inform employers and their masters, that they don't want to eat more of the garbage that falls off their tables.

Stars and flags. You go get 'em.

posted on Oct, 4 2014 @ 05:18 PM
a reply to: ForteanOrg

Every one has different strengths, some work with their hands and

others with their brains.

It is said that the computer revolution would not have happened with

out Bill Gates, and more than 90% of computers world wide are run on

Microsoft Windows. If he made his money simply sitting on his backside

and its SO easy ..... What's stopping you and the other envious

whingers from doing the same??

He, along with some other billionaires are leaving their money to charity

and not their children, (and no I'm not shedding any tears over that

I'm sure they will still be very comfortable.) Although I do have my doubts

about charities, they are more often than not, uncharitably run in that

the C.E.O.'s receive very large salaries.

I'm gone from the thread I'm finding the stench of envy quite palpable

and depressing.

posted on Oct, 4 2014 @ 07:29 PM

originally posted by: eletheia
a reply to: ForteanOrg
It is said that the computer revolution would not have happened without Bill Gates, and more than 90% of computers world wide are run on Microsoft Windows.

A lot of stupid things are being said. The computer revolution already HAD happened, with the Altair and other "micro computers" (that's what they were called then). I was a poor kid and lived in a poor region - but even I already owned a microcomputer in 1978 (a TRS-80 model 1, I still have it).

The PC wasn't very special either. IBM introduced their "personal computer", a single-user, single-processor and single-process system in 1980 - it was expensive and not very well designed. But IBM made a mistake: they did not patent their design properly. That was actually the main reason the concept worked so well as others were able to copy the design - without having to invest in research and development. IBM desperately tried to correct the "error" - PS2, anybody... - but too late.

MS added a kludge of an operating system, which they did not even manufacture themselves: they bought it from Seattle systems in as far as I recall. Had IBM and Microsoft not reared the ugly heads we could have had multi-taskingk, multi-user systems on each desktop as early as 1980. We got segmented memory and MSDOS instead...

If he made his money simply sitting on his backside and its SO easy ..... What's stopping you and the other envious whingers from doing the same??

Why do you think I am "envious"? I don't WANT that much money - what on earth would I do with it..

And I don't want to do what Gates did either. Earning 80 billion with a piece of sheite like bug-ridden virus-plagued Window of his would make me feel very ashamed. I would not be able to sleep anymore.

I'm gone from the thread I'm finding the stench of envy quite palpable and depressing.

You should have your nose checked - it does not work properly.
edit on 4-10-2014 by ForteanOrg because: he made mistakes..

posted on Oct, 4 2014 @ 07:35 PM
double post, ignore.
edit on 4-10-2014 by ForteanOrg because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 5 2014 @ 03:39 AM
a reply to: jjkenobi

How can one learn to manage money when you get #ty education and are trapped in debt bondage. Have you ever experienced working up from the bottom? Have you ever been broke or nearly broke?

The system is designed to keep poor people poor. Are you aware that you can be charged for not having enough money in your account by the bank. They add new rules all the time. I have to play another game with my accounts in the next few days lest they take my hard earned money, because I don't have enough money in their bank. This new rule requires me to set up automatic transfers from checking to savings. I think they're going I slip up so I can be overdrawn.

I'm not even true poor by any stretch either. I became poor through my own mistakes but thankfully being white and having opened an account with my parents as a child I can avoid the worst financial systems which this in poverty are forced to use, like check cashing businesses, wire transfers, and payday loans (this ones sorta new and brutally effective, see link below). Ever driven through a poor neighborhood? These are everywhere in ghettos. I've even seen places where they are literally the only businesses at all besides gas stations and food places and you see dozens of them within a single field of vision. Truly poor people can't open bank accounts at all.

Your logic of "its just mismanagement" by dumb poor people is a ridiculous claim at best, intentional propaganda at worst. Managing money without access to a bank account, loans, or credit is like telling a paraplegic he can't walk because he's lazy and weak.

posted on Oct, 5 2014 @ 03:54 AM

Sorry everyone for starting this post - I should have known better!


Think I exaggerate? Then let me go one step further - The 'New World Order' is owned lock, stock and barrel by religious people whose one religion is the worship of money - Not a penny is ever given out without strings attached - This is very deliberate - So if I Accomplished nothing else by starting this thread, I at least did one thing, I gave you an understanding of the deeply religious money worshipers who control the world -
And once again - Welcome to the 'NEW WORLD ORDER' , 'prepare to be assimilated, resistance is futile'.

Also be aware of the following; Under new anti-terrorism laws you are all in a sense under arrest and everything you say or do can and will be held against you. And for those of you stupid enough to want economic equality you already have it - there are billionaires in Communist China - how more equal do you want the world to be ?

Again, welcome to the 'New World Order', prepare to be assimilated, resistance is futile!
edit on 5-10-2014 by AlienView because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-10-2014 by AlienView because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 5 2014 @ 06:41 AM
I think you have the right idea you just need Government spending increased enough so that this can be done.

And I think this is just how it can be done.

Taxing Automation

posted on Oct, 5 2014 @ 04:34 PM
More so than what you described, it can cause more problems than that. Simply Google, "Zimbabwe Economy".

posted on Oct, 5 2014 @ 05:59 PM
But you see I start to wonder if the words or concept 'Free Money' is an oxymoron [self contradictory]. That is why I become skeptical of my original concept in starting this thread. I was going to accuse one of the better posters on this subject who was basically coming from the left of being naive when that post disappeared [see my post above; thought I was being censored [not necessarily by ATS] but system glitches may have been the culprit], but at any rate maybe I too was being naive in using the words 'free money' - Isn't that a contradiction? Isn't money by its very nature always based upon some type of cost - If it cost nothing it is not really money. But I still say government could spend less and we could all end up with more if only government made wiser attempt at how they spend and collect money. So maybe I am still showing a certain naivety but those Tea Partiers who think we could just get money out of government and the economy are more than naive - they are nuts!

posted on Oct, 5 2014 @ 06:06 PM
Gee, I dunno if the government should give away free money, but I do know that before the church and state and royalty and other entities which somehow believed themselves to be in a position to declare this or that...

Well anyway, things used to just fall from the sky, and they still do. All one had to do is get off their butt and go get it.

The Common has been sold out from under us.

They hang the man and flog the woman for taking the goose off the common, but the greater thief is left loose to steal the common from under the goose.

Ah, nevermind, I don't know anything anyway.

posted on Oct, 5 2014 @ 06:31 PM
i love it!!! with many heads on this to help each and everyone it would be great! ty! a reply to: AlienView

posted on Oct, 5 2014 @ 06:54 PM
Another problem - The government can not give out free money because the government does not own the money - its not the governments to give. An international cartel of bankers owns all US dollars [and probably the rest of the world] - the world is owned by these bankers and believe it or not they are not in the giving business.

The post I should have started [and maybe still will] would ask should the US take back control of its money as prescribed by the Constitution?

OK I did it here is the new post:
Should the US take back control of its money as prescribed by the Constitution?
edit on 5-10-2014 by AlienView because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-10-2014 by AlienView because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 11:09 PM
a reply to: AlienView

You're expecting a bloated, corrupt and inept government to implement a new program that is intended to reduce the size of government? No very likely to ever be implemented with the intended effect.

edit on 6-10-2014 by VVV88 because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3   >>

log in