Tell me I am wrong-- everyone should vote conservatively and act liberally

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 11 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by jimmyx
every city has beggers on the street asking for money or work, if you can help these few down and out people to achieve some type of normal life in your community, then it would be worth it to try and do the same thing on a much grander scale....


How many of those beggars are actually down and out and how many of them are out there because they want to be?

I moved away from a city where the really needy moved up and on within 4 months time. The vast majority of the beggars were career beggars on a multitude of programs and assistance (quite a few were getting veterans benefits and had nicer clothing, shoes and jewelry than I could ever have and others still actually owned the businesses they were panhandling in front of) and were there day in and day out for decades.

You cant go around assuming every hand out is a hand in need because in my experience the ones actually in need hate being out there and do something rather quickly to fix their situation.


It isnt out of the question that we will see hyperinflation in the United States in the very near future. Your pot of gold could vanish before you know it. I dont care if you bought gold bonds or whatever you think you can do that will protect you. It is likely that the majority of Americans will be in need very soon. I wonder how cold your opinion is of people in need when you find that you have become one of them.

And have you seen all the tent cities in America? Seen how many are homeless? Seen how many children live in families that must rely on food stamps? There is a massive problem with the poor in the United States and its only getting worse.
You also claim that people can just lift themselve out of their problems if the want to. That is not true. Look at the unemployment. Look at the working poor. Who is to blame? The poor and needy? Or the multi-national corporatists that have moved all your jobs offshore.

Most Americans seem so cold and lacking in empathy compared to the rest of the world. Its disturbing.
edit on 11-5-2012 by Germanicus because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 11 2012 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Go back and look at history to see why government needed to step in..


You mean like when the Pharoh needed pyramids built?

Or like when a lesser race needed cleansing?

Or like when non-Christians existing somehow threatened the apocalypse?

Or like when a minority population thought it could just sit at any lunch counter?

Government only exists to march toward totalitarianism. Any semblance of altruism is just tyranny with sugar on top.


Im pretty sure he meant America.

Do you know why it was demanded? Without google?


Is this what you want? But it will be worse this time. Much worse. You can only treat people like animals for so long before they become animals.
edit on 11-5-2012 by Germanicus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Germanicus
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 





If people are refusing to be charitable because they are made that the government is taxing them...I really doubt they have it in their heart to start donating to charity just because they have a little extra cash in their pocket.


Exactly.

And like you say. These people should go back and look at why welfare was demanded by the people. And why it was needed. The Government should have a think about that too.


Lets be honest though. Its bloated way way beyond what it was originally intended for.

It was brought in to avoid people starving, ending up in the work house or having to sell sex to get food. Thats a noble thing.

However when you have people on 'welfare' with Plasma TVs and Ipods your system is doomed.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Well honestly that is how a lot of people function IMO. About 25% of my income goes towards taxes, meanwhile my little brother doesn't get a healthy lunch everyday. Before I started working a few months ago, my family received NO government assistance because we are just barely out of the bracket. We make money, but because of someone in my house incurring a lot of debt many many years ago, we have no food or help (well, had). And people we knew were in slightly different (better) situations but could not help because of the life expenses they had to pay. Without them having to donate some of their income to other people... I think in my heart that they really would help



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


I agree. I mean, there are people who just get shafted and have bad luck and truly try everything they can to survive... those people need help and should receive it. Generally though, for whatever reasons of the universe... they do not in most cases--I know too many stories unfortunately. Helping people should be an action derived from good morality of your friends and family, but never forced, especially because the current system allows (not necessarily promotes) laziness and ineffectiveness.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by jimmyx
every city has beggers on the street asking for money or work, if you can help these few down and out people to achieve some type of normal life in your community, then it would be worth it to try and do the same thing on a much grander scale....


How many of those beggars are actually down and out and how many of them are out there because they want to be?

I moved away from a city where the really needy moved up and on within 4 months time. The vast majority of the beggars were career beggars on a multitude of programs and assistance (quite a few were getting veterans benefits and had nicer clothing, shoes and jewelry than I could ever have and others still actually owned the businesses they were panhandling in front of) and were there day in and day out for decades.

You cant go around assuming every hand out is a hand in need because in my experience the ones actually in need hate being out there and do something rather quickly to fix their situation.


of course i do not assume "every hand out is a hand in need"...but of course, like most republicans, "the vast majority of beggers are career beggers" pretty much sums up their feelings on most every type of government program.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 


I, in fact will say that you are wrong. You admitted it yourself when you said




every city has beggers on the street asking for money or work


If government assistance or as you put it "doing the same thing on a much grander scale" was working, we wouldn't have beggars on the street asking for money or work.

It is obvious that what liberals have tried to ease poverty does not work and has not worked. Perhaps on an individual bases it has helped some people, but obviously the problem has not gone away. Also, of those individuals it has helped, there is no proof that without the government programs existing, that they would of not found a way. Government assistance is the first resort when bad things happen in life, not the last.

Who knows what would of happened to these people had they been able to keep the money they earn, perhaps they would of never fallen on hard times in the first place?

These programs, though made with good intentions, don't ease poverty, they cause poverty. Such as how the minimum wage law doesn't ease poverty but makes unskilled workers unhire-able. Government doesn't solve problems, government causes problems with their interventions.
edit on 11-5-2012 by sageofmonticello because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by justwokeup
 


I do think it is abused and also flawed.

Newt Gingrich's idea of requiring people to train or study while on welfare was great. Im surprised they dont do that now. But jobs must be created for these people. Public works or forcing the corporations to bring back some jobs. But instead you guys demonize cat workers and protesters and workers.

But honestly,you seem to have the most pathetic welfare system in the West. I dont know what you guys complain about. The unemployment benifits are temporary? WTF? What happens to people when unemployment benifits run out? You guys seem psychotic to the poor and needy from the outside looking in.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by PhysicsAdept
 





Helping people should be an action derived from good morality of your friends and family, but never forced


Never forced. That right there is my entire problem with government and social welfare advocates on the left and the right. They have no problem using force to take something from one person and give it to another. Supporting a social welfare program run by the government, whose only tool is force, is the same thing as saying "the ends justify the means".

Even if these social welfare programs did work, the force used by government to facilitate the program renders the program corrupt and morally objectionable.

If I hold my neighbor up at gunpoint to get money to pay my grandmothers medical bills, it is armed robbery, when the government does it, it is "progress". I don't know how liberals and social conservatives can justify armed robbery, but they certainly do. My guess is they don't think about it.
edit on 11-5-2012 by sageofmonticello because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Germanicus
reply to post by justwokeup
 


I do think it is abused and also flawed.

Newt Gingrich's idea of requiring people to train or study while on welfare was great. Im surprised they dont do that now. But jobs must be created for these people. Public works or forcing the corporations to bring back some jobs. But instead you guys demonize cat workers and protesters and workers.

But honestly,you seem to have the most pathetic welfare system in the West. I dont know what you guys complain about. The unemployment benifits are temporary? WTF? What happens to people when unemployment benifits run out? You guys seem psychotic to the poor and needy from the outside looking in.


You appear to think i'm an american. :-)

I'm from the UK. We have multi generational welfare families here.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


I would be curious to hear your interpretation as well as personal beliefs if you would not mind




posted on May, 11 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Germanicus
 


Well like I said, this is obviously a problem in American morality. We need to look at the situation not by how things are messed up today (because they are on both parties) but put ourselves in this hypothetical situation.

So then I would ask you, do you think it could work?



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   
Everyone keep focusing, and trying lay blame, on the type of government we have.

In reality the government isn't the problem, it is a symptom of the problem.

The real problem is in how our economy is organized. The government we have is a result of the economy we have.

When the means to produce are in the hand of a minority class of owners, capitalists, then it is they who control the economy, and who controls the economy controls the nation.

The government has no interest in changing how the economy is organised, their job is to maintain the status quo.
There is a conflict of interest between capitalists, and the rest of us. Capitalists seek profits, we seek resources for life. Capitalists keep resources artificially scarce, in order to maintain and increase profits. This keeps the rest of competing against each other for those resources. When a capitalist can't exploit you for profit, you're cut off. This is why we have government hand-outs.

In a worker owned economy, we could all work, if you want to, no need for government or their handouts. If the means to produce are available then we will produce what we need. We have that capability.

Artificial Scarcity in a World of Overproduction: An Escape that Isn't


Technological capacity to produce enough to satisfy everyone's needs already exists globally and has done so for many decades. Yet needs continue to remain unmet on a massive scale. Why? Quite simply because scarcity is a functional requirement of capitalism itself....

www.worldsocialism.org...

No matter who you support in government, they are not going to change the major problem we have. Look back at history and get some perspective. You all want to blame the latest president for years of economic problems. But that is the governments job, to be the fall guy, the fall guy that gets away with it because we are fed the illusion of change.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Well conservative and liberal ideology overlap when they become extreme.... When I say conservative I mean TRUE conservative, which is hard-working, get what you deserve economy, government out of business, controlled spending and less government mandates and programs... That kind of stuff. Politics of today have by so much watered down conservative and liberal concepts



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by justwokeup

Originally posted by Germanicus
reply to post by justwokeup
 


I do think it is abused and also flawed.

Newt Gingrich's idea of requiring people to train or study while on welfare was great. Im surprised they dont do that now. But jobs must be created for these people. Public works or forcing the corporations to bring back some jobs. But instead you guys demonize cat workers and protesters and workers.

But honestly,you seem to have the most pathetic welfare system in the West. I dont know what you guys complain about. The unemployment benifits are temporary? WTF? What happens to people when unemployment benifits run out? You guys seem psychotic to the poor and needy from the outside looking in.


You appear to think i'm an american. :-)

I'm from the UK. We have multi generational welfare families here.



Ah,sorry.

So you are torrie? Britan is nowhere near as bad as America but it is pretty bad though hey. Not many jobs. And not much future for a kid from a poor family. The governments need to create opportunties. The blame is with Government,not with the poor.

And Im sure most western countries have generational welfare families. We do in Australia. I think we should stop them having children or at least limit them to one. That would solve alot.

Edit- I dont think it should be a persons right to have children. Especially if they are poor and have not planned for it.
edit on 11-5-2012 by Germanicus because: (no reason given)


And if you are not in Britan,whatever. Its pretty similar in most of the west right now.
edit on 11-5-2012 by Germanicus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 


Well and I see where you are coming from and I guess I was slightly unclear on what I was really trying to say. I actually am advocate for taxes, as I think they are important for those very things you mentioned. But where the taxes end up going is the problem... Medicaid, SS, welfare, etc are great in concept but not my responsibility. Taxes to pay for social services like police and fire department are great and IMO impossible to live without in a good country--but also spending needs to be purposeful and deliberate. I have no problem in paying taxes for things like what you mentioned.

And in a way, having a fire department is welfare. BUT it also has to do with immediate threats of safety. I don't mind for paying for the fire-fighters to have a job nor the water they use to put out fires, but if someone was dumb and did something almost deliberate to cause a fire, it should come from their paycheck...

AGAIN though, we need to assume that morality problems are being solved or at least fixed to a better spot than it is now...



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by sageofmonticello
reply to post by jimmyx
 


I, in fact will say that you are wrong. You admitted it yourself when you said




every city has beggers on the street asking for money or work


If government assistance or as you put it "doing the same thing on a much grander scale" was working, we wouldn't have beggars on the street asking for money or work.

It is obvious that what liberals have tried to ease poverty does not work and has not worked. Perhaps on an individual bases it has helped some people, but obviously the problem has not gone away. Also, of those individuals it has helped, there is no proof that without the government programs existing, that they would of not found a way. Government assistance is the first resort when bad things happen in life, not the last.

Who knows what would of happened to these people had they been able to keep the money they earn, perhaps they would of never fallen on hard times in the first place?

These programs, though made with good intentions, don't ease poverty, they cause poverty. Such as how the minimum wage law doesn't ease poverty but makes unskilled workers unhire-able. Government doesn't solve problems, government causes problems with their interventions.
edit on 11-5-2012 by sageofmonticello because: (no reason given)


"government doesn't solve problems, government causes problems with their interventions"

then you should move to somalia...they have no government...so you would have no more problems, there is your perfect country with no interventions.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 





So please, tell me why government stepping out of the problem, putting many more people into a situation where they need help, is going to cause some charity to magically be able to take care of the problem that they can't take care of right now with government help.


Please tell me why government force is acceptable and how the end justify the means. These social programs are paid through stolen money. What would be wrong with a voluntary system? Why must these programs be funded through threat? Also please show me one government social program that is successful.

Is it not possible in your mind that people don't donate to charities because the government has already taken their money? I know that is why I usually don't donate to any charities. Why should I? The government has taken my tax money (otherwise known as my disposable income) and decided to be the charity.
edit on 11-5-2012 by sageofmonticello because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhysicsAdept
reply to post by jimmyx
 


Well and I see where you are coming from and I guess I was slightly unclear on what I was really trying to say. I actually am advocate for taxes, as I think they are important for those very things you mentioned. But where the taxes end up going is the problem... Medicaid, SS, welfare, etc are great in concept but not my responsibility. Taxes to pay for social services like police and fire department are great and IMO impossible to live without in a good country--but also spending needs to be purposeful and deliberate. I have no problem in paying taxes for things like what you mentioned.

And in a way, having a fire department is welfare. BUT it also has to do with immediate threats of safety. I don't mind for paying for the fire-fighters to have a job nor the water they use to put out fires, but if someone was dumb and did something almost deliberate to cause a fire, it should come from their paycheck...

AGAIN though, we need to assume that morality problems are being solved or at least fixed to a better spot than it is now...


look, i'm left of center...and i'm not fond of paying taxes either, especially when i see what they are used for, and the inefficiency in those uses. i understand though, that there are people in our society that would probably end up dead, if it wasn't for some type of federal help paid for by my taxes.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 





then you should move to somalia...they have no government...so you would have no more problems, there is your perfect country with no interventions.


Great argument... Somalia is certainly the model for laissez faire government and free markets. Gimme a break, that is ridiculous to assert. Somalia is in a civil war.

Anyhow I never said government wasn't necessary, to paraphrase, I said that government playing robin hood was not necessary and morally wrong and causes more problems than it solves.

I could just as easily say to you, If you like government intervention, move to cuba, there is your perfect robin hood government.

See how stupid of an argument that would be though? Is it really that hard for you to address the concerns I brought to your attention? Is it really in your mind, government social welfare or 20+ years of civil war. c'mon...
edit on 11-5-2012 by sageofmonticello because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join