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.

 

Governor plans to completely eliminate welfare for families

page: 13
56
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2009 @ 10:07 AM
link   

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




posted on May, 31 2009 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by blueorder
 


Hey, politicians promise lots of things, but that is not what they deliver.

Once again, post some links to back this up. Hitler called himself a socialist, but he was working for U.S. industrialists, and the first people Hitler took out were the union leaders. Not very socialistic.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 03:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
Hey, politicians promise lots of things, but that is not what they deliver.

Once again, post some links to back this up. Hitler called himself a socialist, but he was working for U.S. industrialists, and the first people Hitler took out were the union leaders. Not very socialistic.



I have given you superb evidence (so far!) which you just refuse to accept

The actual manifesto of the national SOCIALIST party!?


Everything in power is watered down, EVERYTHNG.


In a totalitarian regime, whether it is left wing fascist or communist- you will find repression, hence, anyone not viewed as being part of the state (in fascism the belief is the state/party is the expression of the people and hence anyone going against the party is going against the state and the people and therefore must be "adjusted")

Don't get me wrong, the NAZIS never brought in some sort of socialist "utopia"- because in the real world such utopias do not exist.

The Nazis were more like American progressives and "liberals"- both were / are fascist with socialist leanings

One thing they are NOT is right wing, as right wing is for minimal state involvement, control/regulation of business etc

I can get you links tomorrow, but you've had obvious socialist aspects of the Nazis pointed out to you which you just blatantly are ignoring so I wonder why I should go home, dig out my books, and provide links to someone who is blind to the fact that socialism can be adopted by people who he may consider "bad"



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by blueorder
 


I think you have been brain washed into believing things without ever bothering to look up the facts for yourself, and just because you can't provide any links on which to base your unwavering beliefs, you still cling to them like they are the gospel.

I REPEAT

Hitler was bankrolled by U.S. Industrialist, GW's great, great uncle or something like that was a key player. CONSERVATIVES put Hitler into power. The first people Hitler took out were Labor Union leaders. Hitler was no liberal. Musilini was definitely not a liberal either.

Extreme right and extreme left are the same thing. Both lead to totalitarian states where the elites control everything.

Do you know who developed the Market system? The answer is Guilds and Unions, the very organizations that conservatives hate.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by blueorder
I have given you superb evidence (so far!) which you just refuse to accept
The actual manifesto of the national SOCIALIST party!?
Everything in power is watered down, EVERYTHNG.


Hi Blueorder,

But the Nazi party wasn't really a socialist party even thought it pretended to be one. Average wages declined about 25-30% from those of the Wiemar republic ( which was said to be totally dysfunctional) so how can something that impoverishes the people be called socialism? Why were the German industrialist the major funders of the Nazi party if not because it was a typical corporately owned state?


In a totalitarian regime, whether it is left wing fascist or communist- you will find repression, hence, anyone not viewed as being part of the state (in fascism the belief is the state/party is the expression of the people and hence anyone going against the party is going against the state and the people and therefore must be "adjusted")


Left wing dictatorships? Do you not understand that 'left' ( From those seated on the left in the British parliament) means progressive/liberalism and individual rights hence the negative connotation? That repression can't be the logical outcome of truly leftist movement in a country? Perhaps you know that there are plenty of tyrants who say that what they are doing is in the best interest of the people and thus steal power under a leftist banner?


Don't get me wrong, the NAZIS never brought in some sort of socialist "utopia"- because in the real world such utopias do not exist.


Yes, because the corporate capitalist already control the world making such a eventually quite unlikely; it would set a really subversive example to the poor masses of the world who never asked for our current brand of capitalist.


The Nazis were more like American progressives and "liberals"- both were / are fascist with socialist leanings


Sources please. If that is, and i agree somewhere, what American 'leftist' are doing then they aren't leftist! Logic in action.....


One thing they are NOT is right wing, as right wing is for minimal state involvement, control/regulation of business etc


But the 'right wingers', they arn't really, in the US are not reducing the size of government or protecting the individual liberties of anyone but the very rich! Justice and liberty for those who can afford it , so to speak.


I can get you links tomorrow, but you've had obvious socialist aspects of the Nazis pointed out to you which you just blatantly are ignoring so I wonder why I should go home, dig out my books, and provide links to someone who is blind to the fact that socialism can be adopted by people who he may consider "bad"


Yes, just like many other tyrannical regimes in our times, and those past, you still have to keep control of the people after you have stolen power ( The Nazi party stole part, Germans didn't want Hitler in power) and thus you resort to bribing people with a sense of security and financial stability while locking up everyone that wonders out loud where individual liberties had gone. Saddam Hussein did this quite brilliantly and that's why despite his brutal treatment of those who opposed him Iraq had the third largest private gun ownership per capita numbers in the world. Saddam wasn't afraid of the masses because his state were efficiently providing in the economic needs of his people. Even during the war with Iran living standards remained high but things got a lot harder when the US tricked SH into his fool hardy invasion of Kuwait; it is after all hard to provide services one the USAF starts bombing the infrastructure a modern society requires.

But that's pretty far off topic. In conclusion it's very far from socialism if the people do not gain at least some measure of control over the means of production trough nationalization which also happens to be easiest but most dangerous way to go about socialism. This basically means that we have very few, if any ( can't think of any) socialist states in the world today and that Nazi Germany didn't come close.

Well that's my views&facts. :0

Stellar



new topics

top topics
 
56
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join