Originally posted by mrpotatohead
Who do you think should pay for all these benefits, and this help for the homeless.
Hi potato,
Well i would say that 'we' ( in our respective nations) should pay and the better the reward you gain in the capitalist system the more you should pay given how it can often be argued that they couldn't rob the rest of us as effectively without your help. Basically if a system is set up to concentrate wealth into ever fewer and fewer hands ( as the corporate capitalist system works) those who gain the largest incomes are probably getting it because they are serving the system so well. Admittedly taxing them is not fixing the system but it seems to be the best we can manage these days.
There is a limit to the publics responsibility to these people. I think the state has done all they are able too. There isn't any more money people.
How can there be a limit to our responsibility towards one another? Aren't you just presuming that those with more money are 'better' because they happen to still have money? Why should our mutual responsibilities end as long as there are a dire lack of educational opportunities as well as a dire lack of jobs? Do you plan to only start demanding to be treated fairly when you too are out of a job?
As for the 'money' being up how can that possibly be the case if the pentagon budget is increasing ( costing somewhere between 35-45% of the federal tax income) and hundreds of billions of dollars worth of loan guarantees or credit is given to major financial institutions? Why do that when 1 in 5 Americans is , or soon will be, out of a job?
Do you want police protection, and fire service, or would you rather adopt a hobo, and have him live in your back yard.
The budgets for security and and the criminal justice system are increasing as , after all, the rich will need protection from the people they are robbing blind.
the state's entitlement program has spent them into bankruptcy.
The word 'entitlement' is quite unfair as there are practically no person in the US that have not worked a few years or at least paid all the other taxes people are subjected to. The chances of the poor getting money that was not at some point taken from them in other ways is very remote; another admission you will not often hear about.
I feel sorry for the people, thru no fault of their own , are homeless, but that still doesn't change the fact--California is broke.
California still has money for plenty of things ( to for instance prosecute and lock up drug users or peddlers, etc) so it can't possibly be broke. If you inspected the budget you will quickly find money that you would be able to allocate to make the state a much nicer and fairer place for everyone to live in. Capitalism isn't a fantastic system but when it says that there isn't money to 'help' out the very people it needs as consumers you can always be sure that it's lying and that a few rich folk just didn't see the point of giving you back some of the money they already got out of you. Where they plan on finding ever more consumers when they have sucked dry, starved, the nearest one's are beyond me but perhaps they do know about aliens , on other planets, and plan to move their corporations there?
Again , who should pay for these people?? It just shows you, unless you run the FED, there's no free lunch.
Unless , as you say, your part of the class of people in the US the fed will print money for. It's brutal naked capitalism for the poor and middle classes and financial socialism for the rich who , when they steal too much too fast or cook the books beyond any credulity we can spare, are handed more of (our) money, or access to it, than they know what to do with.
Why can't we have socialism ( we can clearly afford it for the richest people in the land) for the struggling masses and naked capitalism for the rich folk who pretend to be so much smarter and hard working than the rest of us? I mean if they are so brilliant i'm sure they too can handle the challenges we face every day?
Stellar
