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.

 

The very poorest should be no more than three times worse off than the very richest

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by pieman

a total lack of welfare just allows exploitation just as to much welfare allows spongers.

there is a balance between overall good and overall bad, the trick is to strike it.




Iv been trying to say that for the past few posts.. just couldn't find the words. Thats some waste of a load of typing when I could have been sponging some welfare.




posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife
 


exploitation?

i'm talking about real welfare in civilised countries.

the 1st world over, there are about 2% of the people that just won't work and about 2% of the people, at any given time, that can't get work. that's just the way it is. every country, welfare or no welfare, has an unemployment rate of about 4% when the economy is good.

the 2% that are wasters, they won't do an honest days work no matter what, so it's in the societies interest to pay them so they won't mug people to get by, or at least, they'll mug fewer people.

the other 2% could be any one of us who gets laid off next week, welfare should just stop you starving or losing the roof over your head while you seek gainful employment. it's a safety net and it's good to have a safety net, so long as you don't include a mattress and duvet, most people will get up off the safety net and move along quickly enough.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   
I read somewhere that like 30% of people under 30 support socialism...so it will probably come one day in America.

For those that say, if you can't work, you get no money. What if you had a parent, or someone else you loved, that needed hugely expensive long term treatment for an illness, and couldn't work. Would you want them to get treatment, even though they don't "deserve" it or would you want them to die? Of course, you'd get them treatment so that's where you're argument is weak. If it's someone else that's poor, you say "work", if its someone you love that's poor or sick, you want them to get all the treatment they can even though YOU can't pay for it.

I had an uncle who had epilepsy very bad for about 10 years, he got medical bills that were around 2 million dollars that gov paid for. He couldn't work, so what should be done. According to your arguement, he doesn't deserve any help. But like I said, if it was your family member, even if you couldn't afford it, you'd want him to get government help.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 03:14 PM
link   
[edit on 3-6-2009 by ghaleon12]



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ghaleon12
What if you had a parent, or someone else you loved, that needed hugely expensive long term treatment for an illness, and couldn't work. Would you want them to get treatment, even though they don't "deserve" it or would you want them to die?

The logical extension of the anti-welfare, capitalist arguments is that we should follow Hitler's example and "euthanise" those who are disabled.

This was rubbed in when a brother of mine with those sort of ideas tried to explain that I had to duty to kill my sweet-natured intellectually disabled teenage son, who I love dearly. I was told it was people like me, having handicapped children, who were ruining the country.

Some people care about nothing but their own comfort and would kill their own grandmothers rather than support them.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by pieman

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Cant stop there.
-----------------------------
It's never as easy as "build a school."


no, it's as easy as "build schools, build some more schools and then build some schools"

you educate, you provide employment and you raise the level of the society.
there is nothing, by a huge margin, that will lift a country out of poverty like universal education, if you provide that one thing, the country fixes itself.


You are absolutely correct.

And, as a side effect, it will lead to population reduction.

The one factor guaranteed to always lower the birth rate and reduce the population is educating the women.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kailassa

Originally posted by ghaleon12
What if you had a parent, or someone else you loved, that needed hugely expensive long term treatment for an illness, and couldn't work. Would you want them to get treatment, even though they don't "deserve" it or would you want them to die?

The logical extension of the anti-welfare, capitalist arguments is that we should follow Hitler's example and "euthanise" those who are disabled.

This was rubbed in when a brother of mine with those sort of ideas tried to explain that I had to duty to kill my sweet-natured intellectually disabled teenage son, who I love dearly. I was told it was people like me, having handicapped children, who were ruining the country.

Some people care about nothing but their own comfort and would kill their own grandmothers rather than support them.


Okay normally I would let that go by, but that was such an off the wall statement I have to respond.

There is a difference between being anti-welfare and anti-disability. All the people I know are anti-welfare but have no problems with disability. After all people with disabilities have a legitimate excuse not to work.

Then again people with disabilities still manage to find jobs and work part-time, the ones that are mentally stable enough and are physically able enough to anyway.

Also since you support welfare how come when welfare reform was passed during the Clinton years it actually made things better, less people collected welfare when in order to get the benefits they had to get a job. Then they realized they got paid more if they just worked the job and got off the welfare.

edit - grammar.

[edit on 3-6-2009 by Hastobemoretolife]



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 07:16 PM
link   
So no one should aspire to be anything other than three times the lowest common denominator?

The poor in America generally have money for cigarettes, they manage to get cable television (perhaps illegally), obtain healthcare at public expense and are generally far from gaunt with starvation. People who are not at least at that material level usually have serious drug or mental conditions.

I spent a couple years, up until recently, at an income level that would count as poor. During those times I considered myself broke, but not poor, and now I am back on my feet. In America we still have opportunity to advance on the merits of talent and hard work.

Wealth is not a finite resource that has to be taken from those that have and given to those that do not. Those that lack materially need opportunity to do for themselves, not a subsistence handed to them. Hand outs breed resentment and a culture of failure as we see in our blighted urban areas today.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ghaleon12
 


Traditionally families took care of there own. A disabled person would be cared from by those closest to them. In our culture today it is so ingrained that the government (in the guise of society at large) needs to provide for everyone that family members don't even feel that they have an obligation to look out for each other.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
I thought the level of prosperity was indirectly proportional to your golf score.



I wish it was proportional, as I am a scratch golfer and broke as all hell.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by smokingmonkey
reply to post by ghaleon12
 


Traditionally families took care of there own. A disabled person would be cared from by those closest to them. In our culture today it is so ingrained that the government (in the guise of society at large) needs to provide for everyone that family members don't even feel that they have an obligation to look out for each other.


This quite ignores the plight of people who have no-one to care for them.

For example, it's not uncommon for an elderly woman to be still looking after her handicapped child after both her husband and her parents have died or become disabled. Then she gets ill and who is left to look after her and her child?

I assure you it's terribly humiliating to have to approach strangers, cap in hand, to get money to feed your child. Should people be put in that miserable position in a civilised society? I'm against making people starve or beg for charity or possibly both.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 09:14 PM
link   
Most people are poor because they want. Look how big are they TVs.

Now go to a rich's house and take a look at his library.

History is made by man of ideas, attitude and value. It's Gustav Eiffel that did the Eiffel Tower and not the construction slaves. The same goes for just about every leader that existed.

The engineer works smart, the slave works hard and the first one is the only one recognized.

[edit on 3-6-2009 by infobrazil]



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 09:22 PM
link   
I have to ask the OP, into which one of the following three economic groups do you fall? (A) Poor, who will be on the receiving end of such a program (B) Median, which will be unaffected by the program (C) Rich, who will have something taken away from him/her and his/her family

Additionally, the idea is unrealistic on a wide scale. I strongly believe there are a certain number of people that will not be 'helped'. They only want to be supported. I think the only way is to help on an individual basis.

There have been several mentions of poor African countries and the large scale starvation. These situations are deeply disturbing, but, what are the inhabitants doing to improve their lives? Please do not mistake my question for a cold heart. For example, if you are unable to financially support yourselves, why perpetuate the problem by having an explosive birth rate?

Source: en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 09:39 PM
link   
You people have no idea what the poster is trying to say. Because you are only thinking with your political slants. How is it fair that a guy who sits on his A** and doesn't really do any physical work at all, get paid 100s of thousands of dollars a year when they don't do anything worth a P*** in A PAN? If they did have to do any physical work, if it was required just to survive, I can tell you one thing they would be dead LOOOOOOOOONG before ME!!! You think they have the right to control our money? WHY? Just because they know how to manipulate society? What happens when we all get fed up and DON'T consume anymore just simply stop buying the BS they're feeding us? Well they will lose their money and their power over us! Someone who designs a car, and follows "BUYER" trends should never ever get paid three times as much as the p[eople busting their A** ON THE ASSEMBLY line making their peice of crap that the builders probably won't even be able to own themselves!!!!That's just an example...but to the dummies who wanna remain sheep...BAAAAAAAAAA BAAAAAAAA BAH HUMBUG!



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 09:43 PM
link   
I think everyone should have a healty diet, a safe place to live, and adequate health care. Everyone should also make a contribution, according to their abililty, towards the society that gives them a handout.

I have expensive cars, large houses, and whatever because I work my rear off to make as much money as I can. I do not think anyone has a right to luxury items on a welfare budget. Their lifestyle should match their wallet. People on welfare should only be able to expect to have the three things I mentioned in the first paragraph. If they want a shiny new bimmer and a McMansion or two, they should get a job.

Start taking even more money from me in taxes and I will start working less and holding my hand out instead.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by tamusan
I think everyone should have a healty diet, a safe place to live, and adequate health care. Everyone should also make a contribution, according to their abililty, towards the society that gives them a handout.

I have expensive cars, large houses, and whatever because I work my rear off to make as much money as I can. I do not think anyone has a right to luxury items on a welfare budget. Their lifestyle should match their wallet. People on welfare should only be able to expect to have the three things I mentioned in the first paragraph. If they want a shiny new bimmer and a McMansion or two, they should get a job.

Start taking even more money from me in taxes and I will start working less and holding my hand out instead.

Do you really bust your butt, or are you one of these people sitting in a corporate office in your cushy little chair with a great view and yelling out, we need more production, slaves!!! HUH? Because I know I know that my boyfriend (a better example than me) builds houses for a living for jerks like that every FRIGGIN day His work is quality and better than most of the yokels who actually had to attend a college to build a house (LOL) and we still can't afford to live in one of those houses!!!!! In fact we ARE at poverty level, why? Because some idiot doesn't want to pay him what HE'S WORTH!



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ldyserenity
 

I don't know. I will let you judge. I will give you a brief idea of where some of my income comes from.

1. I retired from the military. I do get a check for doing nothing now, and I could choose not to work.

2. My wife owns a small chain of English cram schools in Japan. I do the accounting and hire/evaluate the teachers. I fire those who do not produce English speakers. I do not tell anyone what to do. I leave their teaching method up to them, but I let it known I expect results. Mostly, this business runs itself. My wife is the owner because she is not a U.S. citizen. Since it is in Japan, I would have to pay taxes to Japan and the U.S. on any income I would make there. However, I am simply a volunteer.

3. My third source of income is an exotic animal business. I breed reptiles and amphibians. Sometimes, I import them to the U.S. I work very hard at this business. I clean each animal enclosure, provide fresh water, and food on a daily basis. I usually work for 10 hours a day with this business. I work everyday and I usually do not have any employees. I only pay people to take care of the animals when I have to be in Japan. People actually ask me if they can volunteer to take care of my animals. I am more than happy to teach people about animal husbandry.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by smokingmonkey
reply to post by ghaleon12
 


Traditionally families took care of there own. A disabled person would be cared from by those closest to them. In our culture today it is so ingrained that the government (in the guise of society at large) needs to provide for everyone that family members don't even feel that they have an obligation to look out for each other.


To take care of a family member financially that is constantly going to the hospital and seeing Drs. is impossible, that's the thing. $2 million dollars in my uncles case. I think families in general do all they can to provide for their loved one, but with costs like that, you really can't do anything other than say kind words.


It is interesting to think about those that have basically fallen into money. Famous parents = rich kid, professional singers, models, ect. All of them are rich with really not a lot of effort on their own, those traits were really given to them. Or someone who is already famous and give speeches for several thousand dollars a pop. If their is an inherent, equal, spiritual quality within all people, than why do we only seem to recognize the qualities of this "shell" we lug around? The qualities, characteristics, and opportunities seemingly are random for each person, some smarter, more beautiful ect. but are we defined by those qualities of our shell, or our soul? More emphasis is placed on our shell than our soul it appears.

Going back on that family example. Lets just say that people will do anything for the sake of a family member or husband/wife, and in most cases its true. How come that doesn't extend beyond that small group, doesn't that seem strange? I mean, being "God's Children" and all, you'd think that people would recognize the spiritual interconnectiveness that everyone shares. Dieing family member, and you'd spend and do whatever to save em. Dieing neighbor, F em, and vandalize their house while you're at it. Shouldn't people recognize that our born nature is stupid and something we should change?

"Sorry neighbor Billy, I know you're really hungry there and haven't eaten in 2 weeks, but frankly, you didn't come out of my wife's vagina so I don't really care. But you'll be in my family's thoughts as we go out to the Old Country Buffet."

If someone were to take "love your neighbor as yourself" all the way, to the fullest extent, what would that mean or what would it look like? Hardly any seem to care "More pie and a shovel along with it please".

Or lets say in some strange world, everyone had your exact genetics so they were all your identical twins, how would that change your outlook towards others? Most would probably have an increased attention towards others, if they were suffering you'd probably care more than some strange right now, but how nearsighted is that?

[edit on 3-6-2009 by ghaleon12]



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by tamusan
 


Okay so you do work. I was just curious, cause I know that my Hubby's boss does absolutely nothing, but get the customers and he is a BIG JERK. Never pays him right and my hubby busts his rearend working sometimes 36 hours and longer straight and we hardly have Jack S****. And HE HAS LOTS OF MONEY. Basically he is IMO as bad or worse than welfare kings/queens...because he gets rich off my Hubby's sweat off the back! And a lot of these business owners do the same, mostly to mexican illegals. I am talking construction. It's vile. Before the mexicans though we were doing very well. Now anything we have that's worth anything came from luck in the lottery. Thank God we play!



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
I guess this is a philosophical point. It would have to be worked out on a global scale, so no country could offer higher wages. Surely an improvement to how things are now.


And the liberal/socialist/fascist/communist/marxist dream is to prop up the poor man....but through taxation, regulation, intervention, etc. We only succeed in bringing down the rich man, until we are all equally poor.

Tax the rich and give to the poor, until there are no rich no more



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join