Before There Was Welfare There Was Charity

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

Glad you brought this up...arguing this on another thread....people denying progressives are socialists...

So I started studying the progressive websites....you really have to dig in..because they don't want people like "us" catching on...but yes indeedy they are and one of their main goals is getting the means of production (ownership of) into workers hands and also dividing up land equally and for all....

In light of our analysis above what this should mean, in turn, is that socialism should focus on dispersing the ownership and control of the means of production as widely as possible, so as to promote the enjoyment by the individual of the fruits of his own labor. To put this another way, socialism should promote equity-building capitalism or equity building "laborism". Definition: The term "socialism" properly refers to any economic system, whether capitalistic or "laboristic", that adopts as its objective the greatest economic good of the greatest number. Experience makes it clear that this requires dispersing the ownership and control of the means of production as widely as possible. The opposite of socialism is economic elitism (or degenerate economic conservatism), which is any economic system that seeks maximum good for a tiny elite at the expense of the majority. (This is the system which is in place in the US today.)

www.progressiveliving.org...

Just one tiny snippet of their pages and pages of ways they want to institute "American Progressivism".

Yes progressives are socialists, conservatives and liberals are capitalists, revolutionaries are communists.

WTF does this have to do with OBAMA who is a liberal? The democrats ARE LIBERAL!

Progressives believe in mixed economy socialism and revolutionaries believe in full socialism(everything public).

You are TROLLING the site with MISINFORMATION so naturally people WILL GET MAD!

If people want progressivism then they will vote for SPUSA or the progressive party. If they want communism they will vote CPUSA. If they want enviromentalism they will vote for the green party. Take some time and rsearch the parties man.

If you live in Los Angeles and want to go to NYC then you go straight to NYC not via Tokyo, Japan(around the world) LOL! Stop accusing people and parties for something they are not. It is called slander!!!!

And socialism is not bad. It could solve lots of problems but people need to get rid of the knee-jerking to get to the meat and potatoes. Don't allow others to decide what is best for america or any other country. You decide for youself!

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


So are you a conservative, libertarian or anarchist?

And please no ad hominem attacks or deflection.

I am trying to comprehend your platform.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

So are you a conservative, libertarian or anarchist?

And please no ad hominem attacks or deflection.

I am trying to comprehend your platform.

Why do I need to be labeled in order for you to understand my platform? What the hell is wrong with you? Do you honestly think a one word label will explain everything I've written in this thread? Do you honestly believe a one word label will help you comprehend?

Before there was welfare there was a country below something to ponder:

Current Defense spending notice the decline?



Current welfare spending notice the increase?



The future:



Defense spending has been on the decline contrary to popular opinion but entitlement spending has been on the uptick for decades and yet people are still fixed on one.

This can not continue like they are people who support welfare and supporting the very things they cried foul about with those anti trust laws and monopoly laws.

The more people competing to bring a goods or services to market the better and cheaper that product is and has the net effect of created jobs,wealth,careers,futures,tax revenues for everyone.


Sources:

www.intellectualtakeout.org...

conservativesamizdat.blogspot.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

Free market it ain't just a slogan it's a job

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

So are you a conservative, libertarian or anarchist?

And please no ad hominem attacks or deflection.

I am trying to comprehend your platform.

Why do I need to be labeled in order for you to understand my platform? What the hell is wrong with you? Do you honestly think a one word label will explain everything I've written in this thread? Do you honestly believe a one word label will help you comprehend?

Is it a taboo to choose which party suits your views?

Of course people don't have to believe every single view of that party.

To be honest I could have sworn you were a libertarian, but since you are arguing with many of them, I am guessing you are an old time conservative. "neo" conservatism is a taboo as well. Don't want to get mixed with bush, cheney, rumsfeld, reagan.....etc.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

Is it a taboo to choose which party suits your views?

Let's Just Say It: Political Parties Are the Problem

To be honest I could have sworn you were a libertarian, but since you are arguing with many of them, I am guessing you are an old time conservative. "neo" conservatism is a taboo as well. Don't want to get mixed with bush, cheney, rumsfeld, reagan.....etc.

Why would you waste your time guessing what label suits me best instead of just reading what I've read and analyzing that?

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

Is it a taboo to choose which party suits your views?

Let's Just Say It: Political Parties Are the Problem

To be honest I could have sworn you were a libertarian, but since you are arguing with many of them, I am guessing you are an old time conservative. "neo" conservatism is a taboo as well. Don't want to get mixed with bush, cheney, rumsfeld, reagan.....etc.

Why would you waste your time guessing what label suits me best instead of just reading what I've read and analyzing that?

Yeah ok man. Whatever you say. I call astroturfing..probably the TEA PARTY type to help republicans get back in office. I mean it is cool for everyone and their dog calling Obama a socialist(which is utter bs) and annoys the hell out of me, but lets not dare call a conservative a conservative, and a libertarian a libertarian.

Lets obfuscate everything with sophistry so people have no clue what is left wing and what is right wing. No idea what private industry is, what a mixed economy is, what communism or anarchy is, etc. Lets vote for sarah palin cause she looks good and is supposedly rogue.

Or what about Ron Paul? A true libertarian having to run with the republicans cause people only vote for either big party. You know what the real problem is? Rich people like the rockefellers, rothschilds, soros, koch brothers spending lots of money to brainwash people with idiocy. That is what the problem is! Otherwise everyone with basic political literacy would know how to vote and probably never vote conservatism again. Most, if not all the astroturfing, is from the right. OWS is the way to go and it is NOT democrat sponsored although the democrats would probably love to get their help. OWS is primarly composed of libertarians, socialists, communists and anarchists which the status quo hates to death and persecutes constantly. That is what I think mister french man.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


Dear Lord, you've come into this thread that is undeniably about charity and the welfare state, and claim I am obfuscating because I reject your assertion that you need me to find a label I think best suits me so you can "comprehend" what this thread is about. You've wasted three posts now on this non-issue, and have the audacity to accuse me of obfuscating. Of course, thieves always lock their doors...

reply to post by neo96


Of course miliary spending should be lower than welfare spending. By welfare spending I am talking about the entire package(state welfare, unemployment, disability, medicare, medicaid, social security). How many wars need to be fought when china and russia are turning full capitalist??

On the other side we have a marginally growing USA population who has been loosing work due to offshoring and automation which means we need more social spending and bring back the jobs to america. We need less illegal immigration as well.

Why do you have a problem seeing the obvious? Yes we need a military but we don't need an overbloated black budget. We need accountability. Maybe we can start with the $2.3 trillion unaccounted for by the pentagon spoke of by Donald Rumsfeld or who did 9-11 and why they did 9-11. Obvious stuff for obvious people!

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

Obvious stuff for obvious people!

Like if a person is getting paid by tax revenue is not generating tax revenue that is a drain of the health of the state and the health of the people.

All those defense "corporations" are also civilian employers that make everything else the civilian uses in their daliy lives that provide a job,and wealth which also creates that same tax revenue used to pay for those welfare programs.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

Dear Lord, you've come into this thread that is undeniably about charity and the welfare state, and claim I am obfuscating because I reject your assertion that you need me to find a label I think best suits me so you can "comprehend" what this thread is about. You've wasted three posts now on this non-issue, and have the audacity to accuse me of obfuscating. Of course, thieves always lock their doors...

And why is it that ONLY conservatives have a problem with welfare spending? Even the libertarians are calling you guys out on this nonsense. Don't you understand it is completly silly, if not irrational?

You guys hate the government but have no problem at all funding wars and asking for a huge military complex. I find it troublesome and ironic. Sounds like reaganomics all over again, and those that lived through that period were fooled once too many times.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Beanskinner

 

So you would like to cut the Military budget? Lets cut it 75% - surely cutting out nearly half a Trillion in spending a year would a good thing, no?

No that is not a good thing for the simple fact that put's people out of work and guess what?

They still end up on the government payroll(welfare) and that also puts millions of civilians out of work another also well known fact is the rest of the world is modernizing and increasing their militaries respectfully.

Now instead of having bases across half the world pumping money in to their local economies they should be returned home to their rightful place much like how it use to be.

When those bases were here they pumped money back in to our local economies and created jobs thus creating wealth that in turned generated tax revenue to fund those social programs people love so much but where less people are using them a double win.

Cutting defense is cutting our own throats in more ways than one.

edit on 27-5-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

Well then, you share the same sentiment that I do towards

Welfare.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

Obvious stuff for obvious people!

Like if a person is getting paid by tax revenue is not generating tax revenue that is a drain of the health of the state and the health of the people.

All those defense "corporations" are also civilian employers that make everything else the civilian uses in their daliy lives that provide a job,and wealth which also creates that same tax revenue used to pay for those welfare programs.

A person on welfare generates the same way. They pass their state provided money

In exchange for goods and services that do generate Tax revenue. Those businesses

Emply people with those funds to, and those people

Generate revenue. Same principle

reply to post by EarthCitizen07



Neo has openly stated in this thread that he agrees with most of the points I've made in this thread. Many would label neo just the same as you are attempting to label me. Take note, however, that neo said "most", and my guess is that neo has picked up on the fact that in this thread I have advocated bringing an end to standing armies. I make this guess because neo is no idiot, and doesn't just glance over posts and allow jerking knees to dictate how he posts, nor does he wonder what a thread is about. Neo and I probably do not agree on military and defense policies. This doesn't make me more "liberal" than neo, or he more "conservative" than I.

Your silly label game is childish. It is also being played because you have no valid arguments against unregulated charity doing the job instead of allowing government to do it. If you did, you would have made those arguments instead of sputtering and stammering: But - but - but - ONLY conservatives have a problem with welfare spending....

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

Obvious stuff for obvious people!

Like if a person is getting paid by tax revenue is not generating tax revenue that is a drain of the health of the state and the health of the people.

All those defense "corporations" are also civilian employers that make everything else the civilian uses in their daliy lives that provide a job,and wealth which also creates that same tax revenue used to pay for those welfare programs.

We simply do not need a huge military my friend. We could cut the bloat and divert money to NASA and alternative energy production. I think is very demeaning for american astronauts to be rellying on the russian space program to get to the ISS!

What do you think? Maybe spend the money to go back to the moon and build colonies there? Maybe go to mars? Fund underwater research programs? Fund money into currently untreatable diseases?

The possiblities are endless. Most people who were in the service have learned a trade anyway and they could pick up a civilian job. If not then keep them in the military. I am not a traitor to america but we need to re-examine our priorities before we come a second world nation.

And again why should people be at the mercy of other people? A lot of people say that we shouldn't "rely" on the government, but yet your solution is almost the same. Your solution would have us relying on other people for charity which would almost be worse in my opinion.

I agree that there are a lot of people who abuse the system, but we can't paint everyone with one giant brush. There are a lot of families out there with single parents working two jobs while raising 2 kid, these people people pay taxes and should have a safety net provided by the government to help them put food on their table.

Also the highly developed and advanced nations have a really good welfare system in place, these nations also have the happiest populations and the highest standards of living coincidentally.

I would simply like some examples of nations that have

Depended on charity and contained poverty, in a comparable

Way to what we have here.

I am still not convinced that charity can get the job done

Alone.