It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Why Can't American Socialists Come up with a Plan to End Poverty

page: 5
27
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 10:07 PM
link   
a reply to: mamabeth

Yeah, because constantly cutting social programs, slashing education funding, and privatizing public services (while jacking up their prices) somehow decreases poverty, right? Oh yeah, and let's not forget shifting the tax burden away from wealthy corporations and wealthy individuals, instead replacing those taxes with flat income taxes or sales taxes which disproportionately affect the poor and working class.

Actual socialist policies are the opposite of those policies and would reduce the poverty that's increased by those policies.




posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 10:36 PM
link   
a reply to: mamabeth

*rolls eyes*

Yes they guys pushing for higher wages, higher education and cheaper medical are the ones keeping everyone in poverty.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 10:38 PM
link   
As another poster has already stated this dream of an idea doesn't hold very much water.

It's not really hard to do the math these days now that we all have calculators on our phones!

25,000 dollars a year to 300 million people works out to 7 and a half trillion a year. Just about half of the total output of our economy. About seven times the current total tax revenue on income now.




edit on 1 15 2016 by caterpillage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 10:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: mamabeth

*rolls eyes*

Yes they guys pushing for higher wages, higher education and cheaper medical are the ones keeping everyone in poverty.


If you are happy with these more power to you.I for one refuse to drink their kool-aid.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 10:40 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

I am thinking about how people actually act too.

They would flip when you told them all their regular sugar was being taken away for this new thing. And when they learned they would have to pay normal prices for all their rent and utilities and stuff, they would absolutely flip. They're losing all their "free" stuff, see? Even if they would ultimately get more cash in hand, they'd still flip for getting the freebies.

Oh, they'd want the cash, but they'd also want to keep every single program they already have too.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 10:42 PM
link   
There is a fatal flaw in your plan...


*children under 18:
*get savings bonds (every 2 weeks) until 18, then a check.
*bonds held in Treasury safekeeping account.
*available at 18.


At that rate, every 18 year old in the country would have at least $450k in the bank. Good luck getting anyone to dig a ditch or flip a burger.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 10:46 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I think you're generalizing a bit, not everyone on welfare wants to be where they are. I'd be willing to bet a good portion of them WANT to pay their own way instead of being dependent on someone or something else.

But since we're all crapping on socialism, let's get rid of the lottery. Did you buy a ticket? If so, you participated in socialism and gave someone free money, gave them everything they could ever want without ever having to do anything more than spend $2 and get lucky. Not only did you comply in giving someone everything for nothing, you were hoping you were the one to get it!
edit on 1/15/2016 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 11:09 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen
The real reason we can't end poverty is because we in an intrinsically flawed financial system and our culture is inheritly self centric.

It's a two part problem.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 11:35 PM
link   
a reply to: mamabeth

What is wrong with those?

Politics aside, shoot even the higher wage aside because there is more to that I agree, what is so bad about trying to get more people higher education and cheaper health care?

Sounds like that is taking care of our own first, not sure what is so bad about that.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 11:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

There is nothing wrong in wanting people to have higher wages and cheaper healthcare.
The problem is there are too many strings attached and loopholes for slimeballs to squeeze
through.



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 01:43 AM
link   
I'm pleasantly surprised about your thread Xuenchen!
I like the idea of basic income a lot and you bring good points and good numbers that seem to work on paper. I guess with a couple adjustments I'm sure it could work.

I really believe in basic income as it limits the homeless, people that have to resort to crime to survive and gives a chance for people to work towards a better life instead of being FORCED in an almost inescapable routine. More people would work in what they like and what they are good at...eventually, productivity would be higher and more stable. It's not good news for power hungry psychopaths but it's a good step towards happiness of the majority.



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 01:45 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

I am going to say this, yet again, in the hopes that people understand it.

There is not an American walking the world, who understands what socialism is, what it looks like, or what it feels like to live under. What is more, none of the politicians there are event remotely socialist, certainly not as socialist as they ought to be. By the standards that matter (European ones of course) the best you have in the States, is centrists, and the only other options are various shades of hideous hyper capitalist and science deniers.

America would cough up its spleen if it ever encountered a real socialist, and trust me, as much as people complain about Obama, and are concerned about Sanders, they do not fit the bill.



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 01:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

Why is it that the American Socialists running for President can't come up with a plan to end poverty?


1. Eliminate all Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, VA medical, and most (or all) welfare.



1. Eliminate all Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, VA medical, and most (or all) welfare.

Welfare for who individuals or corporations?

These days we all know banks create money (credit) out of thin air so if they can do it, so can govt by using the exact same method the banks use. This means they can create all the money required provide:

an income for everyone.
a home for everyone
health care for everyone
education for everyone

In the 1970's when I was young they used to have programs on TV where talked about the future need to provide an income for everyone because of ever increasing automation and its effects on employment.

Of course this was opposed on the basis that automation would create more jobs than than it eliminated but also of course, this claim was never proven; or even had any hard evidence submitted to suggest that the claim was true.

While automation is not the sole cause of high unemployment rates of today as job exporting though transporting manufacturing to the 3rd world countries has exacerbated the situation, it is never the less apparent that as robots take on more and more human capability, its ever more likely that robots will put most of us out work in the not to distant future.

However this is not important, what is, is that govt can create money (credit) just like banks do and provide all the things the economy needs if they had the balls to do it.

Most govts don't want to do this anyway because their owners will not let them. Others want to just eliminate welfare for individuals and move it the corporate sector.



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 03:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Bone75

It's a perpetual motion machine.



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 03:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: ketsuko

I believe the intention here is the 25k would more commonly be a supplement income. But 25k is reasonable to live on with roommates I suspect.

This system would also negate to some degree...abuse of Medicare and SS...

I kinda like the direction of this proposal. My family would be far better off when I retire with my wife and I in charge of investing and saving the giant chunk of my income our crooked government extracts every 2 weeks.


How would this plan/system negate/reduce the incidence of moral hazard in Medicare?



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 03:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: xuenchen

I am going to say this, yet again, in the hopes that people understand it.

There is not an American walking the world, who understands what socialism is, what it looks like, or what it feels like to live under. What is more, none of the politicians there are event remotely socialist, certainly not as socialist as they ought to be. By the standards that matter (European ones of course) the best you have in the States, is centrists, and the only other options are various shades of hideous hyper capitalist and science deniers.

America would cough up its spleen if it ever encountered a real socialist, and trust me, as much as people complain about Obama, and are concerned about Sanders, they do not fit the bill.


I commented on an earlier post (different thread) of yours, I am going to say this again, well said. The 'War on Poverty' is the closest policy doctorine born of the USA to resemble socialism. For all the 'sky-is-falling' rhetoric concerning Obamacare as socialism, it's quite amusing to know its a capitalistic mechanism the entire legislation hinges upon.

And you're correct: Americans have nary an encounter with a true-blue socialist at the highest orders of civic service.



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 04:17 AM
link   
Why did the richest in society need to be bailed out by the tax payer in the bailouts of 2008, seeing the biggest redistribution of wealth in human history, from tax payer to financial institutions, from bottom to top. Surely a failure of capitalism to control itself and the greed that controls the flow of capital



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 04:29 AM
link   
Erm isnt this just the end result of Cloward-Piven? You know the thing most of you sit up at night dreading?



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 04:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
Why did the richest in society need to be bailed out by the tax payer in the bailouts of 2008, seeing the biggest redistribution of wealth in human history, from tax payer to financial institutions, from bottom to top. Surely a failure of capitalism to control itself and the greed that controls the flow of capital


Capitlism wasnt left to control itself.

Bankers knew they would get there politicans freinds to bail them out.

If they had been left to fail (which under free market they should of )then the next set of bankers would have been a lot more carefull on what they did with there money and people a lot smarter were they invested as they would know there was no secound chance.
edit on 16-1-2016 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 04:38 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen


Socialism will never end because the banks make big interest from social programs. Look out our mad borrowing......and not much of the total is military as the socialists say. Well the ignorant ones.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join