Before There Was Welfare There Was Charity

reply to post by Beanskinner

Yes I am sorry to say that you are wrong - Welfare dollars and "private" dollars are not segregated in the economy, a dollar you have in your pocket could very well have been introduced into circulation by a welfare recipient

Not wrong never said "segregated" per say the difference is income tax and welfare reciepents are not paying in most cases anything whatsoever.

Those people who are paying income tax and who are making more are paying more in to that system and by the system i mean government, the great wealth redistributor.

Those people who are on welfare are not paying as much income tax if any but take more out of the system than return to it that is a fact,compounded by new people introduced who are still taking more out of that system than returning to it.

By closed system i mean welfare continually taking more and getting more benefits where the difference has to be paid for by those who have taxable income hence the perpetual need to keep taking from those producers.

Welfare is nothing but unchecked consumerism.

reply to post by Beanskinner


But the point you are missing is that it was not "government" money to begin with, it was a taxpayers money that they worked hard for and should have been able to decide how it got distributed.....

reply to post by Beanskinner

I think the more shocking thing is how you guys can demonize the idea of feeding

hungry Americans.

I have a simple question and expect a simple answer….

Why can’t those hungry Americans feed themselves like the rest of us??

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

Exposing what true progressives want to do to this country is not trolling....if you think what you believe in makes people mad than that is for YOU to deal with not me.....

but you are inferring this on the democrats, correct? That is slander!

Hillary Clinton has admitted she is a progressive and Obama is also one he just doesn't have the $%^# to admit it...because as we all know he only says what gets him votes when he needs them. Socialists/progressives believe the means of production should be owned by the workers and that wealth should be redistributed in ways such as welfare which the op and I seem to disagree with...if the op has a problem with my posts than he can tell me himself...thank you.

Then why the hell is Clinton on the democrat party?

And if Obama is truely a progressive how come he has not nationalised anything? In fact he has not even talked about nationalising anything. Most americans don't know what that word means............

Stop the fantasising man. The russians and chinese would laugh at your insane ignorance.

Originally posted by neo96

That is a matter of opinion which people are free to disagree with what people fail to see you can either lead,follow or become the victim must like history has shown.

Before world war 1 and world war 2 America really had no military, but we did have the necessary will drive and resources to transform in to that most famous arsenal of democracy.

The rest of the world arms and modernizes a point of which i have previously posted, Time waits for no man the purpose of the military is to ensure this nation exist's.

You can thank the nazis for most of the technology. It was called project paperclip and is declassified.

Werner Von Braun lead the effort to the moon during 70-72, after he developed the v2 rockets for germany.

The russians and chinese are light years behind america thanks to area 51. stealth fighters and stealth bombers costing trillions. Wasted money imo!

By private industry again let someone else shoulder the burden of cost the world we all know today is due to the fact someone came up with an idea to better their lives and make a buck off it thus creating wealth,jobs,careers and opportunities for others.

sounds good on paper but the companies can keep the technology under wrap for as long as they want. If the technology belongs to private hands it means it does NOT belong to the public; ie me and you! is that what you really want or do you want technology that belongs to americans as a whole?

The possibilites are indeed endless when you get the government off the neck of the people.

If we don't like government then I suppose the constitution allows us the right to change it. Second amendment comes to light.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

You can thank the nazis for most of the technology. It was called project paperclip and is declassified. Werner Von Braun lead the effort to the moon during 70-72, after he developed the v2 rockets for germany.

Nope but i will say the last time America got any "spoils of war".

The russians and chinese are light years behind america thanks to area 51. stealth fighters and stealth bombers costing trillions. Wasted money imo!

Use to believe that all China and Russia could do is imitate and duplicate but the past decade has proved
otherwise,

sounds good on paper but the companies can keep the technology under wrap for as long as they want. If the technology belongs to private hands it means it does NOT belong to the public; ie me and you! is that what you really want or do you want technology that belongs to americans as a whole?

Welfare sounds good to some on paper but the reality is different as we all know.

If we don't like government then I suppose the constitution allows us the right to change it. Second amendment comes to light.

Not a fan of armed "revolution" and while we do have the right to keep and bear arms personally i will never turn arms agianst another American for selfish wants,

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


You can create a thousand straw man arguements to make a case for capitalism over a mixed economy but a ponzi scheme still means the people who invest first reap the most benefits and those that invest last lose everything.

In stock market terms it is called a boom-bust cycle. The booming cycle is where bubbles are formed on high hopes and expections; the fools rush in double/triiple their money....then the bust cycle is when credit becomes expensive, the markets shrink, bad news start coming out and the market crashes. Another common analogy is the bear and bull market.

The smart people buy when everyone sells, and the dumb people do the opposite. The smart people relly on the dumb people so they don't have to work hard. Guess what, capital hill loves insider information and they are in neck deep in military and big pharma trading. that is why all the legislation favors big business and constantly screws the public. You are supposed to screw in capitalism otherwise you are a fool.

Those that started the industrial revolution in europe are the wealthiest plus the banking families of course.

And you are wrong a mixed economy denotes the nationalisation of critical industry and banking, while leaving small and medium business in private hands. You should research social democracy for more information!

The articles you are using are full of #!!!

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

You can create a thousand straw man arguements to make a case for capitalism over a mixed economy but a ponzi scheme still means the people who invest first reap the most benefits and those that invest last lose everything.

Capitalism is a Ponzi scheme??

What exactly do you propose, professor; a mixed economy? WTF is that? Nationalizing BIG BUSINESS??

Where has that worked for ALL OF THE PEOPLE?

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


Dear Lord! Is there anyone who disagrees with me who actually even knows what Strawman arguments are?

Straw Man (Fallacy Of Extension):

attacking an exaggerated or caricatured version of your opponent's position.

For example, the claim that "evolution means a dog giving birth to a cat."

Another example: "Senator Jones says that we should not fund the attack submarine program. I disagree entirely. I can't understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that."

On the Internet, it is common to exaggerate the opponent's position so that a comparison can be made between the opponent and Hitl

How do you expect me to take you seriously when you don't even understand the language your using?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Straw man
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Man of straw" redirects here. For the novel by Heinrich Mann, see Der Untertan.

A straw man is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

You are misrepresenting capitalism to attack socialism.

That is where the straw man is!

I debunked your nonsense exactly one post before your post.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Beanskinner

 

Yes I am sorry to say that you are wrong - Welfare dollars and "private" dollars are not segregated in the economy, a dollar you have in your pocket could very well have been introduced into circulation by a welfare recipient

Not wrong never said "segregated" per say the difference is income tax and welfare reciepents are not paying in most cases anything whatsoever.

I am not talking about the Welfare recipient, I am talking about the currency

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

You are misrepresenting capitalism to attack socialism.

I am not "misrepresenting" anything. If anyone is "misrepresenting capitalism" it would have to be Dean Baker, Milton Friedman, and Ludwig von Mises, all of whom I quoted directly in response to your claim that with a "little digging" I could discover why capitalism does not work.

Direct refutation is not "misrepresentation".

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


You have some studying to do...socialism is putting the means of production in the ownership of the workers or government

national socialism is putting the means of production in the ownership of the government.

Obama is doing both splitting ownership between Unions (workers) and government (bailouts) slowly taking private ownership away.

The progressives run under the Democratic party in order to win elections because they would never get in under a Progressive party line...just like the Tea Party runs under the GOP line.

Have I helped your confusion, man???

And I am a woman by the way, man.

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

You can create a thousand straw man arguements to make a case for capitalism over a mixed economy but a ponzi scheme still means the people who invest first reap the most benefits and those that invest last lose everything.

Capitalism is a Ponzi scheme??

What exactly do you propose, professor; a mixed economy? WTF is that? Nationalizing BIG BUSINESS??

Where has that worked for ALL OF THE PEOPLE?

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

I am supposed to take you seriously?

You didn't understand a word I have spoken in many posts.

Then you laugh like a fool with the iranian dictator wearing explosives as your avatar!

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by Beanskinner

 

But the point you are missing is that it was not "government" money to begin with, it was a taxpayers money that they worked hard for and should have been able to decide how it got distributed.....

and so it goes with every road, sign and bridge in the nation... If I had a thing against bridges

I could launch the same tactic

and of course it has to be aimed at poor people, that is what you

guys CHOOSE to take issue with.

It is Christianity turned on its head 360

Damn the poor and help the rich

Just look beyond the subtext and it is right there to see

reply to post by Beanskinner


The fundamental rule is government is printing and borrowing and giving to people who take more out of that system than pay into it.

And i am talking about that welfare recipient and the most basic economic rule there is and one that makes the topic is when the cost of doing business is when your paying out more than your taking in:

You go bankrupt just like this nation is.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


It's not slander....it would be libel because I wrote it, but I didn't say anything that wasn't true or accuse them of a false crime.....don't incite...it's unbecoming.

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

You have some studying to do...socialism is putting the means of production in the ownership of the workers

nationalism is putting the means of production in the ownership of the government.

Obama is doing both splitting ownership between Unions (workers) and government (bailouts) slowly taking private ownership away.

The progressives run under the Democratic party in order to win elections because they would never get in under a Progressive party line...just like the Tea Party runs under the GOP line.

Have I helped your confusion, man???

And I am a woman by the way, man.

In a socialist country the government runs the economy on behalf of the people FOR the people!

What private ownership has he nationalised? Not much!

Yes the tea party runs the GOP, but the progressives have zero influence in the democratic party. If they had influence they would make unions strong, put tariffs on imports, prosecute corporate coruption and most importantly nationalise business.

Obviously you have no clue what you are talking about! Just slandering away. I am actually suprised the democrats don't take offense at the constant abuse and sue the perpetrators...seriously it is getting annoying having to refute the same nonsense everywhere.

reply to post by Beanskinner


I do believe that may be a straw man argument right there!!

The constitution allows for infrastructure and defense NOT welfare as we have it now.

reply to post by timetothink


Sorry but infrastructure are local and state issues paid for via property taxes as the system is current setup it is robbing from peter to pay paul.

Example of this let's say why is New York or California getting money from Indiana to pay for their roads,bridges and road signs?

People are paying for others who get no benefit from those monies being spent and yet another form of welfare if one thinks about it.

The states with the most populations will always get the most money while the little guys are left blowing in the wind.

The way it should be working if people are to receive any funds at all that tax revenue should never leave the state and go to benefit each state in that way instead of being sent to Washington to get doled out to the whose "cooler crowd".