Since The U.S. Might Become Greece Soon It's Time To End "Free" Healthcare & Govt. Programs ASAP

reply to post by proximo

We spend $687,105,000,000+ every year on the military. The drug war costs over $50 billion a year. Legalizing and taxing marijuana would inject over $70 billion into the US economy. Properly taxing corporations, big pharma, and big oil would also increase revenue exponentially.

Lets just cut all of the social programs, and throw people in the street, and allow them to die. This will help solve the unemployment problem, as all of the rich people will have to hire poor people to protect them from the other poor people. With all of the killing going on this will reduce the drains on SS, Medicare, and Medicaid, and by the fact of less people the unemployment rate will be less. Now unfortunately, since the middle class will not be able to afford to hire folks to protect them, they will most likely be targeted first. Again, a nice population reduction. See the OP was right, this will solve all of our problems.

I have gotten info that HUD isn't certain about Congress's continual support of rent assistance for low income (elderly and disabled etc) because they are needing to suck all the safety nets dry and every other source of revenue dry, FROM YOU, in order to push through World War Three. Obama and the Globalists ARE HELL BENT on implementing World War Three. If it's the last god forsaken damned thing they ever do, by Satan.

Today on Alex Jones', I was listening to various military personnel call in and spill. One described what certain troops were doing in advance of more to come (in Tripoli or Yemen, can't remember exactly just now) and another said the US is under (undeclared unanounced) Martial Law. Which I could see already. The military callers expressed knowing they were being used for the (Bohemian Grovers).

Yeah, GOD FORBID a low income mother get food stamps. We need that revenue to help cause what the late Father Malachi Martin described, "imagine the worst of the worst, and it's worse than that."

reply to post by Chadwickus

Yes, big evil capitalism, goes hand in hand with big evil socialism, ironically the two need each other.

Get it right and you have Sweden, get it wrong you get USA, Australia etc etc.

But you know this.

It is imprudent to assume that I "know" your erroneous assertions to be true. Indoctrination is not the pursuit of knowledge.

Capitalism and socialism do not go hand in hand. They are two distinct economic systems, and any hybrid of the two does not make some special form of capitalism, it instead erases capitalism in favor of the hybrid form.

Capitalism requires a free and unregulated marketplace, massive competition, and a currency backed by wealth. Not one of these fundamental tenets are in place in the economic system of the U.S.A. Thus, the United States does not use capitalism as its economic system. If you want to cling to your ignorance and proudly declare your indoctrination knowledge this is your choice...imprudent as it may be.

I doubt the USA will improve any time soon, and it certainly won't be by cutting funding to what minimal socialist aspects they already have.

I doubt the U.S.A. will improve any time soon as well, and it certainly has nothing to do with the capitalism you so smugly used as a pejorative in your initial post. The U.S.A will likely not improve anytime soon largely because too many of its residents are as ignorant about economy as you are.

Australia suffers the same problem, more-so with unemployment and aboriginal welfare, there just is no incentive to find a job or make an effort when the government will pay you for doing nothing.

All of which has nothing at all to do with "big evil capitalism". You seem to inherently understand the problem, and my guess is you inherently understand the solution. You know more than your indoctrination has allowed you to exercise. Remember what you know and use your critical thinking skills. I know you have them.

All closed systems tend towards entropy. This principle was stated in the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and the math is in regards to heat systems, but it is demonstrably so that the principle applies to systems outside of heat. Economic systems is one of those systems. The more closed the system, the more it will tend towards entropy. The more open that system the less likely it will tend towards entropy.

Well it's important to note that government employess occupy a smaller percentage of the workforce than they did 20 years ago.

So in a way you could call that smaller government. There are of course more government workers but the actual percentage has been dropping.

Or maybe the problem is really coming from another direction:

Why the economy is trash

Originally posted by kro32
Well it's important to note that government employess occupy a smaller percentage of the workforce than they did 20 years ago.

So in a way you could call that smaller government. There are of course more government workers but the actual percentage has been dropping.

Largest - ever federal payroll to hit 2.5 million

The era of big government has returned with a vengeance, in the form of the largest federal work force in modern history.

The Obama administration says the government will grow to 2.15 million employees this year, topping 2 million for the first time since President Clinton declared that “the era of big government is over” and joined forces with a Republican-led Congress in the 1990s to pare back the federal work force.

Your assertions lack any substantial data to back them up, and fly in the face of actual data being reported.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by kro32
Well it's important to note that government employess occupy a smaller percentage of the workforce than they did 20 years ago.

So in a way you could call that smaller government. There are of course more government workers but the actual percentage has been dropping.

Largest - ever federal payroll to hit 2.5 million

The era of big government has returned with a vengeance, in the form of the largest federal work force in modern history.

The Obama administration says the government will grow to 2.15 million employees this year, topping 2 million for the first time since President Clinton declared that “the era of big government is over” and joined forces with a Republican-led Congress in the 1990s to pare back the federal work force.

Your assertions lack any substantial data to back them up, and fly in the face of actual data being reported.

Read I wrote before you critisize.

I am giving you facts to adjust your theory but whether you choose to ignore them or not to fit your hypothesis is up to you.

reply to post by kro32

Read I wrote before you critisize.

I am giving you facts to adjust your theory but whether you choose to ignore them or not to fit your hypothesis is up to you.

I read what you wrote. The criticism is this: your assertion is not a "fact" it is a claim you have made without any data to support this claim.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by kro32

 

Read I wrote before you critisize.

I am giving you facts to adjust your theory but whether you choose to ignore them or not to fit your hypothesis is up to you.

I read what you wrote. The criticism is this: your assertion is not a "fact" it is a claim you have made without any data to support this claim.

Fine since i'm too lazy to search the government website for the data i'll let you win but if you truly wanted to post on this topic with accuracy you could find this easily I imagine. I wrote a paper for my political science class where I researched this very topic of bigger government and this is one of the facts I used.

The percentage of government employees compared to private employees spiked during world war 2 and shortly after. Since that time the percentage has been dropping. Believe it or not but as it doesn't fit your argument i'm sure you will choose to ignore it.

Originally posted by jtma508
Or maybe the problem is really coming from another direction:

Why the economy is trash

Great video. Everyone should watch this. It basically echoes the article I linked to on the first page while covering some other things and it's only 2 minutes long.

Wages remain stagnant while the top 1% continue to get more and more of the wealth. It's a fact. That's a huge problem. But the politicians will continue to ignore this because they basically work for the rich now (hell, most are rich anyways).

Well TPTB think we can just print money. And people are stupid.

People have grown too fond of entitlements. Free health care for life. I wanna retire when I'm 50. I want 2 months of vacation every year. I want my full salary after I retire at 50 until I die.

Now, I have nothing against those ideas, but there are too many people that don't realize that this # costs money. A LOT OF MONEY. Too many people think those benefits just fall out of the sky and don't cost anyone anything.

"Well I've got my "free" health care, no one is really paying for it, it's just there. Free."

"Well I want my 2 months of vacation every year, but it doesn't cost money to pay someone to take my place or to pay me while I am on vacation does it? There's no cost involved with me wanting all this # for free is there?"

Again, I am not saying I am against these entitlements, but I wish more people understood the concept that you can't print money for whatever you want. These things are not "free". There is a COST associated with your vacation/heath care/benefits for life.

With the world wide economy today, get used to going without.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


It makes no difference whatsoever, financially speaking, how large or small government is. I am against big government in principal, but not from an economic standpoint. You could cut government spending to zero, and you would still have compounding interest on a national debt which grows daily. Without it, under our current economic system, you would have total collapse.

Originally posted by thegoods724
hey i need food stamps and unemployment, everything else ill accept. And if your going to lose gov programs, attack gov jobs first like education and fda and department of transportation

And SWAT teams for the department of education...

Why does the Dept of Education need a SWAT team?

Originally posted by SG-17
reply to post by proximo

 

We spend $687,105,000,000+ every year on the military. The drug war costs over $50 billion a year. Legalizing and taxing marijuana would inject over $70 billion into the US economy. Properly taxing corporations, big pharma, and big oil would also increase revenue exponentially.

Yes, you could "properly tax" corporations, big oil and big pharma. But what are they going to do? They are going to make up that loss of revenue somehow. Hell, if I was business man and the government jacked the taxes on my corporation, I am slashing employee wages to the bare minimum and cut jobs if I have to, to make up the difference. And then those employees get paid by the government (unemployment/welfare) instead of being paid by me.

The almighty dollar. It is what it is.

ever wonder, just what kind of healthcare system we would have without medicare and medicaid??
in my area, according to one of our elected representatives, over 50% of the revenues going into the healthcare providers are coming from these two programs...
take that 50% away, and well, I got a feeling we will be finding ourselves with less need fro doctors and nurses, and more unemployment...
housing??? well, ya see the banks pulled a good one this time, people's mortgages are adjusting and well, they are finding themselves being less able to pay the mortgage. add to that that they are losing their jobs, that there is an abundance of houses on the market, and well, many are opting to rent them out....and hoping that they will get to amount they need to pay the mortgage at least. you are also gonna have more people wanting to rent, which means that the cost is gonna get higher, needs to get higher, and well, ...drop the rental assistance, and it is gonna need to get lower!!
food?? well, there's some good news here!! there's a good chance that we might see a food shortage in the near future, with america's breadbasket being flooded and blown away by the storms. and well, drop the food stamp program and I guess that will leave more food for the few that can afford the price!!! of course, when the rest of us starve to death, well that will probably create a few new problems that will cost a ton of money to fix!!

there is no easy fix to this problem. our economy is no longer capable of operating without a ton of money being diverted in every direction, it's destination not determined by the people that earned it, but rather the people in charge of this big scam!!
ya, let's drop the social programs!! I dare ya!! within a few months you would have landlords not being paid their rent, stores with half as many customers, doctors with far fewer patients, and employees demanding higher wages!! and the higher wage earners eventually earning less, as those other employees are heard and start getting a wage that is more adequate to fill their needs! and well, less profit, all of which will offset any saving on your tax bill from the cuts!!!

Originally posted by Darkrunner

Yes, you could "properly tax" corporations, big oil and big pharma. But what are they going to do? They are going to make up that loss of revenue somehow. Hell, if I was business man and the government jacked the taxes on my corporation, I am slashing employee wages to the bare minimum and cut jobs if I have to, to make up the difference. And then those employees get paid by the government (unemployment/welfare) instead of being paid by me.

Really? Has that ever happened in the history of this country? Taxes in the past have been much higher than they are now, yet I don't remember employees wages being slashed.

reply to post by origamiandurbanism


Happens all the time. Caterpillar threatened to do so just recently in Illinois if they raised their taxes. They were going to cut positions or move the entire facility out of state. And they had several states interested in having Caterpillar move there. Nebraska and Indiana were eager to get Caterpillar to move, offering generous tax incentives.

I think they are staying in Illinois for the time being.

According to Wiki, Social Security income is 899 bn and expenses are 701 bn. So How come these programs need to be cut, if they are solvent, even generating net income?

What you need to cut is military - EU spends 1,63% of GDP on military, US spends 4,5%.

Originally posted by Darkrunner
reply to post by origamiandurbanism

 

Happens all the time. Caterpillar threatened to do so just recently in Illinois if they raised their taxes. They were going to cut positions or move the entire facility out of state. And they had several states interested in having Caterpillar move there. Nebraska and Indiana were eager to get Caterpillar to move, offering generous tax incentives.

I think they are staying in Illinois for the time being.

Yeah, I forgot about the corporate blackmail that goes on now in this country. Greed and shareholders are out of control. Illinois raised the corporate tax rate from 4.8 to 7 percent (for a four year period) and Caterpillar, who from what I can tell made almost 3 billion in profits in 2010, threatened to leave (and did move some of their plants). How about paying back into the community and state that has allowed you to make 3 billion dollars in one year?

Again, taxes have been much higher in our country in the past and corporations and companies did just fine. So why the change now? Greed, greed, greed and more greed.