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.

 

You owe me and you are going to pay!

page: 7
24
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2010 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Someone has already stated the obvious earlier in this thread. Why? Why are you entitled to health-care, food, housing, and other things? By the very implication of entitlement you are saying someone should work so that I don't have to. Someone needs to work so that I can receive free health-care, free food, and free housing. These entitlements are being payed for by Taxes. Taxes are taken from people by threat of law.

Grow up people. In order to live in a free society you must let people fail. We can't continue subsidizing failure because it breaks your heart to see someone go without. The simple fact is that we all have opportunity to make something of ourselves. To get an education, invent something, or provide some service with which people need. This is what makes a good society. Not pandering to the whims of laziness.

I know it's sad to see homeless people, begging for food. If it breaks your heart. DO SOMETHING. You, personally, go out and help them. If you can't do this with your money or time then what right do you have to ask that I do it?

I understand that there are situations that warrant a second look. Disabled, elderly, children, etc. And anyone with a brain knows that we must help those who are unable to help themselves. But if you can work and are unwilling then you have no sympathy from me.

On another point. Who cares if someone is a lawyer, or a business owner, or a convenient store clerk. They all contribute to society through taxation whether you think the merits of their professions are valid or not.

I think most of the problem stems from that fact that people don't understand the fundamental nature of government. Government is FORCE. A necessary evil at best and a ruling tyrant at worst. Entitlements force me to give the money that I worked for to someone who does not work and that is WRONG.




posted on May, 6 2010 @ 02:46 PM
link   
Finalized;

In the primaries I voted for McCain. I just
hated Romney's arrogance. Once McCain
selected Palin I could not take the chance
of her being that close to the Big Chair.

Way to scary.



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by chiponbothshoulders
 


heh I think that was a polite way of saying "now I'm going to P*** down your back & tell you it's raining". O_o Wait. It actually WASN'T very polite was it? Quite a RUDE awakening, in fact.



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by prionace glauca
 


That second video made me a bit racist I have to admit...

The stupidity that exists I swear.



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by DogsDogsDogs
 


I agree with pretty much your entire post. Very well put.



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ExistenceUnknown
 


Why do conservatives feel the need to emphasize the lazy bums when discussing welfare? Further what percentage of the welfare recipients are lazy bums versus invalids? A lot of people need state/federal assistance and it would be a shame denying them.....

As for cutting out wasteful spending within social programs that is a no-brainer but as I said earlier I am quite certain government WANTS all social programs to fail so they can privatise them.

For example, a lot of city hospitals used to be public and now they are private hmo. Healthcare costs keep going up in the name of *free enterprise* yet a large portion of the population cannot afford to get proper treatment. They can't deny you treatment but you'll end up having your pay garnished for years...much like child allimony!


[edit on 6-5-2010 by EarthCitizen07]



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
True, but if you happen to issue money then you control everything, including the government. This is true with the FED because it IS private.


The government isn't actually supposed to control anything. They are supposed to be our employees, not a free-standing entity that does as it pleases.


Last time I checked, corporations and individuals are not the same.

Further it is important to distinguish wealth caps from anti-trust laws. They are quite different concepts. One implies you can't make more than X dollars while the other suggests unfair/unethical business practice.


That was my point.




Originally posted by Jenna
the physical representation of that wealth belongs to the government.


Why?


Why does the physical representation belong to the government? Because they print it and our dollars are only legal tender in this country, though other countries will exchange them for their legal tender. If we were using some other form of physical representation like rocks, seashells or chunks of gold, it wouldn't belong to the government because they'd have nothing to do with it's creation.


That is communism!


Actually, it's socialism. Close enough for me though.


People are not entitled to anything for free, unless they can't work and need welfare payments. Too often people compare invalids with lazy bums and that is unfortunate.


Agreed. There is a difference between someone who can work but sponges off the system, and someone who can't work and is forced to rely on it. A large difference. The former actually are lazy bums. The latter are not.



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by ExistenceUnknown
 


Why do conservatives feel the need to emphasize the lazy bums when discussing welfare? Further what percentage of the welfare recipients are lazy bums versus invalids? A lot of people need state/federal assistance and it would be a shame denying them, especially if they need it....


Just because people "Need" something doesn't mean we as taxpaying citizens are supposed to provide it to them. We are all adults, responsible for our own well-being. I am a human, built with the same limitations as every other human. Why am I able to provide for myself without assistance and they are not? What makes me so much more different?

We emphasize the bums because that it was we are complaining about.... We aren't saying that children without providers should fend for themselves... Or people who can't work due to some disability need to be dropped off in the woods somewhere.


Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
As for cutting out wasteful spending within social programs that is a no-brainer but as I said earlier I am quite certain government WANTS all social programs to fail so they can privatise them.

For example, a lot of city hospitals used to be public and now they are private hmo. Healthcare costs keep going up in the name of *free enterprise* yet a large portion of the population cannot afford to get proper treatment. They can't deny you treatment but you'll end up having your pay garnished for years...much like child allimony!


These problems are a result of a government too large to manage and a corporate America with its hand in the cookie jar. Do away with one of these and the other problem disappears.


[edit on 6-5-2010 by ExistenceUnknown]



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Exactly it should all be FREE! Why would you have to pay to live on a Planet you were incarnated on? Step out of the Matrix.



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
True, but if you happen to issue money then you control everything, including the government. This is true with the FED because it IS private.


The government isn't actually supposed to control anything. They are supposed to be our employees, not a free-standing entity that does as it pleases.


If the government has no control then we have anarchy.

If there are people above the government, that CONTROL the government, then we have a covert dictatorship. The Federal Reserve Bank of America is the covert dictator and our ELECTED government officials are THEIR stooges.


Originally posted by Jenna
Why does the physical representation belong to the government? Because they print it and our dollars are only legal tender in this country, though other countries will exchange them for their legal tender. If we were using some other form of physical representation like rocks, seashells or chunks of gold, it wouldn't belong to the government because they'd have nothing to do with it's creation.


I got you big time here...

The money belongs to the FED shareholders, that allow the treasury department TO PRINT money FOR THE FED, not for the government/people/commercial banks.

The FED then LOANS money to commercial banks at any given prime rate, which commercial banks then loan out to everyone else. The government at this stage HAS ZERO FUNDS until it taxes people/corporations and/or sells treasury bonds.

We have a private central bank, not a state/national bank! Please research and learn.



Originally posted by Jenna

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
That is communism!


Actually, it's socialism. Close enough for me though.


If you don't understand the difference between facism, capitalism, socialism and communism it will take me a long time to explain and I doubt you even care.

Nazis(ultra right-wingers) called themselves "socialists" and Communists(ultra left-wingers) called themselves "socialists". Canadians and western europeans STILL call themselves "socialists".

Do you see the picture? The conspiracy of PSEUDO-socialism is as real as it gets, because the PTB hate real socialism. Real socialism would imply *a government by the people, for the people* and is what our fore-fathers had in mind when they wrote the constituition.

I have explained myself at least a hundred times within the past year(s), but I don't mind explaining it 200 times more because people NEED TO WAKE THE HELL UP!

[edit on 6-5-2010 by EarthCitizen07]



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ExistenceUnknown
These problems are a result of a government to large to manage and a corporate America with it's hand in the cookie jar. Do away with one of these and the other problem disappears.

[edit on 6-5-2010 by ExistenceUnknown]


In theory,

(a)the bigger a government is, the HARDER it becomes for special interest groups to control. The downside is that its more expensive to maintain and co-ordinate functions.

(b)the smaller a government is, the EASIER it becomes for special interest groups to control. The upside is that its cheaper!

As for corporate america taking over that is OLD NEWS pal. We have corporate fascism headed by the FED since 1913 and the american government itself being a corporation since the *act of 1871*.

[edit on 6-5-2010 by EarthCitizen07]



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 04:10 PM
link   
It's sad but true. But I do feel we Americans deserve more vacation time than we receive compared to other countries. Even those that know how bad it is here compared to years ago may feel they are unable to change.

Maybe they don't have the willpower. They have been conditioned, programmed. It's not really their fault. They were born and raised in this environment and are victims of this corruption.

They need to be loved and motivated, maybe given a little push to work and be responsible. People need to be loved, they should be able to have people around that believe in them that they can be successful. That people will be there to help them through hard times.

[edit on 6-5-2010 by TruthSeeker8300]



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
If the government has no control then we have anarchy.

If there are people above the government, that CONTROL the government, then we have a covert dictatorship. The Federal Reserve Bank of America is the covert dictator and our ELECTED government officials are THEIR stooges.


The government of the US was intended to be ran by the people, not by the few who get elected and think they can do whatever they want. It was intended to safeguard our rights, not abuse them. That is not a dictatorship, that's a government "by the people, for the people".


I got you big time here...


Oh, are we playing a game? Here I thought we were having a discussion.


We have a private central bank, not a state/national bank! Please research and learn.


That changes that our government owns those little pieces of paper we use as physical representations of our wealth how?


If you don't understand the difference between facism, capitalism, socialism and communism it will take me a long time to explain and I doubt you even care.


Socialism is an economic thing, not a political philosophy.


Real socialism would imply *a government by the people, for the people* and is what our fore-fathers had in mind when they wrote the constituition.


Absolutely positively incorrect. The forefathers intended to give us a Republic. Not a socialist state. Take your own advise and do some research and learn.



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Loken68
 



I just found out about the gov't giving cellphones to the poor. One of my co-workers (ya, he works 40 hours, no quite your typical lazy bum sitting on his butt at home, huh?) well, he was filling out the paperwork for one at work yesterday. I have a husband, so I don't qualify for all those neat little givaways, which for the most part is fine by me...

but, it does say something about our current economic system...
people, working 40 or more hours a week, can't earn enough for support themselves....no, they aren't getting full welfare benefits, but a little help with the rent, a little help with the food bill, ect. and, I'd almost be willing to bet, these people are eating up just as much taxdollars as the disabled and possibly the elderly. since there are so many of them!
I think it's something like 25% of the people living in west virginia is recieving food stamps.

some are sick and tires of supporting the poor...well....I am sick and tires of subsidizing the payroll of business!! a person is worth at least the amount of money it would take to keep this person alive!! since, well, dead bodies don't do much work...that means food, shelter, medical care when needed, transportation to and from work, electricity, heat, ect.....

businesses aren't fullfiiling their duty, some because they can't but some seem to prefer to just give higher wages to a select few, and just let the gov't take care of the rest.



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna
The government of the US was intended to be ran by the people, not by the few who get elected and think they can do whatever they want. It was intended to safeguard our rights, not abuse them. That is not a dictatorship, that's a government "by the people, for the people".


It seems your confused. Pretty much everything you wrote the past 2-3 posts was riddled with misconceptions and contradictions.

A republic differs from a democracy in that it safe-guards the majority from impossing their will on the minority. I am NOT arguing if we have a democracy or republic because WE HAVE NEITHER! We have the FED shareholders DICTATING their will on "our" elected officials.


I got you big time here...




Originally posted by Jenna
That changes that our government owns those little pieces of paper we use as physical representations of our wealth how?


Because the FED, as well as many other companies, PAY for "our" elected officials from the money THEY CREATE! The FED prints all the money it needs to bribe anyone it wants. Get it? Its really simple.



Originally posted by Jenna
Socialism is an economic thing, not a political philosophy.


Correct!


Originally posted by Jenna
Absolutely positively incorrect. The forefathers intended to give us a Republic. Not a socialist state. Take your own advise and do some research and learn.


A republic is a political system as is a democracy, monarchy or dictatorship.

You can have a socialist republic, communist republic or a capitalist republic. You can have a socialist democracy, communist democracy or a capitalist democracy. Etc!



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 04:50 PM
link   
i have to respectfully disagree. i dont owe anybody anything, my debts are paid up.



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
It seems your confused. Pretty much everything you wrote the past 2-3 posts was riddled with misconceptions and contradictions.

A republic differs from a democracy in that it safe-guards the majority from impossing their will on the minority. I am NOT arguing if we have a democracy or republic because WE HAVE NEITHER! We have the FED shareholders DICTATING their will on "our" elected officials.


One of us is confused alright. You said, and I quote:


Real socialism would imply *a government by the people, for the people* and is what our fore-fathers had in mind when they wrote the constituition.


We were intended to be a Republic, which is what I said in my last post. Here you claimed we were intended to be a socialistic country when that is simply not the case.



Because the FED, as well as many other companies, PAY for "our" elected officials from the money THEY CREATE! The FED prints all the money it needs to bribe anyone it wants. Get it? Its really simple.


I'm not even sure what you're arguing anymore, to be honest with you. You asked why the government owns the physical representation of our wealth, I answered that they own it because they print it and it is only legal tender on US soil, and I don't get how this response disproves what I said.

[quote

]Originally posted by Jenna
Socialism is an economic thing, not a political philosophy.


Correct!

I know it is. Doesn't explain why you tried to tell me I didn't know what I was talking about when I said wealth belonging to everyone is socialism and not communism though...


A republic is a political system as is a democracy, monarchy or dictatorship.

You can have a socialist republic, communist republic or a capitalist republic. You can have a socialist democracy, communist democracy or a capitalist democracy. Etc!


How does this disprove what I said?



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Real socialism would imply *a government by the people, for the people* and is what our fore-fathers had in mind when they wrote the constituition.


We were intended to be a Republic, which is what I said in my last post. Here you claimed we were intended to be a socialistic country when that is simply not the case.


I am quite certain our fore-fathers wanted the usa to be a socialist republic. The socialist aspect is in regard to our economy and the republic aspect is in regard to politics.



Originally posted by Jenna

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Because the FED, as well as many other companies, PAY for "our" elected officials from the money THEY CREATE! The FED prints all the money it needs to bribe anyone it wants. Get it? Its really simple.


I'm not even sure what you're arguing anymore, to be honest with you. You asked why the government owns the physical representation of our wealth, I answered that they own it because they print it and it is only legal tender on US soil, and I don't get how this response disproves what I said.


The only funds government collects is through taxation and selling treasury bonds. Government DOES NOT OWN MONEY when the treasury department prints it. The money INITIALLY belongs to the FED!

The FED is NOT a government agency, it is a PRIVATE central bank.


Originally posted by Jenna
Socialism is an economic thing, not a political philosophy

I know it is. Doesn't explain why you tried to tell me I didn't know what I was talking about when I said wealth belonging to everyone is socialism and not communism though....


Because you are implying socialism and communism are the same thing, or almost the same thing. Guess what...your wrong! They are different systems.

Socialism is the middle road between capitalism and communism.


Originally posted by Jenna

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
A republic is a political system as is a democracy, monarchy or dictatorship.

You can have a socialist republic, communist republic or a capitalist republic. You can have a socialist democracy, communist democracy or a capitalist democracy. Etc!


How does this disprove what I said?


Mind games or what? If you don't know what a socialist republic is then look it up. You could say they wanted a capitalist republic but I will remain inclined to not believe that.



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
I am quite certain our fore-fathers wanted the usa to be a socialist republic. The socialist aspect is in regard to our economy and the republic aspect is in regard to politics.


I'm quite certain they did not. Their own words prove that idea to be nothing more than a baseless assumption.

"The Utopian schemes of leveling, and a community of goods, are as visionary and impracticable, as those which vest all property in the Crown, are arbitrary, despotic, and in our government, unconstitutional. Now, what property can colonists be conceived to have, if their money may be granted away to others, without their consent?" - Samuel Adams

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” - Benjamin Franklin

“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” - Thomas Jefferson

“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” - Thomas Jefferson

“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.” - John Adams


The FED is NOT a government agency, it is a PRIVATE central bank.


Not exactly.


FederalReserve.gov
The Federal Reserve System is not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution. Instead, it is an independent entity within the government, having both public purposes and private aspects.

As the nation's central bank, the Federal Reserve derives its authority from the U.S. Congress. It is considered an independent central bank because its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branch of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms. However, the Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by Congress, which periodically reviews its activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute. Also, the Federal Reserve must work within the framework of the overall objectives of economic and financial policy established by the government. Therefore, the Federal Reserve can be more accurately described as "independent within the government."



Because you are implying socialism and communism are the same thing, or almost the same thing. Guess what...your wrong! They are different systems.


Oh for heavens sake, I've said they are different twice now. Stop accusing me of saying things I have not said.


Mind games or what? If you don't know what a socialist republic is then look it up. You could say they wanted a capitalist republic but I will remain inclined to not believe that.


Apparently. You make statements that have little or nothing to do with the parts of my posts you're quoting and then act all huffy when I don't have a clue what you're getting at. What else am I supposed to do besides get confused?



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 06:47 AM
link   
I think the real issue here, where people get a sense of entitlement (yes, there are those welfare-freeloaders out there but I think you're grossly misrepresenting a large class of individuals known as "the working poor" as being welfare-hoarding freeloaders) is the fact that the average person nowadays either must sell out to corporate greed, get lucky, or work themselves literally to death to have any sort of prosperity in their lives. Gone are the days of a full-time job being a guarantee of self-reliance (let alone being able to support a family).


A free Birth. [Uh, are you proposing a birth-tax or fee? "Welcome to the world, that'll be $3000"]

A free elementary school education with lunches. [Sorry, our society has deemed a basic education a HUMAN RIGHT, not a luxury that must be paid out of pocket]

A free high school education with lunches. [See above]

A free College education [See above]

A free Medical system. [The right to life - an inalienable right. Why should for-profit companies determine whether or not you can get help if you're sick/injured, when its in their best interests NOT to cover you? Isn't it time to take the health and welfare of the nation out of the hands of greedy, for-profit companies?]

A free pay check for no work. [How about a paycheck for work done that actually pays the bills and allows one to save for rainy days? Why has the minimum wage lagged behind while the cost of living skyrockets?]

A free food stamp package. [If you work yet after your bills are paid you have no money left to FEED YOURSELF then theres really not much point is there?]

A free home.
A free car.
A free cell phone
And a free death and burial. [Who exactly is clamoring for the above items to be free again?]

Don't get me wrong, I see where you're coming from and you make a valid point - people who live solely off the government benefit programs who could otherwise CONTRIBUTE something to society and support themselves shouldn't be able to milk the system and live without having to work. On the other hand, the mindset of "every man for himself," that narcissistic idea of "i am prosperous, but i work for a living and I don't owe anyone else anything, whats mine is mine" doesn't work either. Whatever happened to that great American sense of "we're all in this together?" Together we stand, divided we fall? What if the lines of division are financial? What about the fact that despite the millions of hardworking Americans out there, 90% of the nation's wealth has been aggregated by the top 5% of the population? Isn't that unfair? Aren't they the ones making it necessary for taxpayers to subsidize the living costs of those who do work, but can't afford to live?

Food for thought.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join