The beezzer Principle/Party

page: 4
31
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


My god , sir bunny, this might just really work.
It could be set up rather like AA meetings , very informal and with each person starting with a sponsor that has successfully followed through with the program with good results.
I really like this one beez.




posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by BritofTexas
Education is the key.

But it does have to be Federally backed. As a qualification in Dallas has to mean the same in Seattle or Juneau.

Apprenticeships are a wonderful idea, it would however mean convincing companies to invest in the workforce.


Yes which means government providing them some kind of incentives...I'm not for one for keeping the tax cuts for businesses but to say however, you will get these same cuts if you provide apprenticeships/internships would be a great incentive, some companies would come around for that.



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 




There are many people brainstorming ideas. Its imperative we do.



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 10:46 AM
link   
Unfortunately I believe that there's too much of a rift in the citizens, so Government would have to play a part at least temporarily because I have seen more people not give a crap thanks to the divisiveness of the world , 500 years ago it may have worked this way, but now almost everybody's about me myself and what's mine...there are a few exceptions, but for the most part I believe that most people don't give a crap and that goes for the churches too, because I have gone to them for help before and they're a joke, I have found one out of thousands willing to help anybody, because they are simply just as jaded as the populous, in fact there are some (christian) churches who refuse to help unless you are a registered MEMBER of their church (this is extortionist in my view). I also being pagan, have told them (and with very little acceptance) that they should be more communal in that they should offer such help as well without strings, but their attitude is the same (just so you know it's not me picking on Xtians or any religion) There is way too much divisiveness everybody is worried too much about well they don't beleive what I believe or they are lesser than me, they are just lazy no good hedonists etc....I have heard it all.



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by ldyserenity

Originally posted by jimmiec
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


The difference's in community helping those in need and government helping those in need is that government really does not care. You are just numbers input into a computer. You can vote yourself more aid. When community helps those in need they actually care. They are not being paid to help. They actually care. Not to mention the huge amount of money the government wastes that never gets to the people in need.
A co-op that everyone can pay into, say $10.00 a week would work. For that you get medical help, financial help, unemployment. If you don't have $10.00 a week to pay in then you can pay by volunteering some time helping others. It is actually the way it used to be in America and it worked. Government saw it as a way to garner votes and took it over.


Yes that is true, but it never ceases to amaze me that the only time you see communities come together are after big natural/manmade disasters...like after 9/11 and after katrina and sandy, however the rest the time most of them would drive by a woman broken down with a kid in the car on the side of the road and not help...most of them, we are the type who would stop and try to help anyway, regardless but being on the side of broken down and stuck with kids in the car in the state of NJ before and not a damn person helping ever, I can tell you from experience most of them don't bother trying to help in normal circumstances. Not even something as simple as asking if you need them to call someone for you.
edit on 10-11-2012 by ldyserenity because: spelling & add



I think it's hard for people to help because because of fear. Someone can get robbed or hurt if they pull over to help. A person helping the community can get fined by the city for not filing a permit first. There was a story of a woman being charged for helping stray cats. It's pretty ridiculous. It seems as if there are crazy little laws that can fine you for anything these days.
edit on 10-11-2012 by texasgirl because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by texasgirl

Originally posted by ldyserenity

Originally posted by jimmiec
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


The difference's in community helping those in need and government helping those in need is that government really does not care. You are just numbers input into a computer. You can vote yourself more aid. When community helps those in need they actually care. They are not being paid to help. They actually care. Not to mention the huge amount of money the government wastes that never gets to the people in need.
A co-op that everyone can pay into, say $10.00 a week would work. For that you get medical help, financial help, unemployment. If you don't have $10.00 a week to pay in then you can pay by volunteering some time helping others. It is actually the way it used to be in America and it worked. Government saw it as a way to garner votes and took it over.


Yes that is true, but it never ceases to amaze me that the only time you see communities come together are after big natural/manmade disasters...like after 9/11 and after katrina and sandy, however the rest the time most of them would drive by a woman broken down with a kid in the car on the side of the road and not help...most of them, we are the type who would stop and try to help anyway, regardless but being on the side of broken down and stuck with kids in the car in the state of NJ before and not a damn person helping ever, I can tell you from experience most of them don't bother trying to help in normal circumstances. Not even something as simple as asking if you need them to call someone for you.
edit on 10-11-2012 by ldyserenity because: spelling & add




I think it's hard for people to help because because of fear. Someone can get robbed or hurt if they pull over to help. A woman helping her community can get fined by the city for not filing a permit first. There was a story of a woman being charged for helping stray cats. It's pretty ridiculous. It seems as if there are crazy little laws that can fine you for anything these days.





And a lot of the fear is media hype....how many women and children under four yrs old would rob someone? It's media intilled BS...I think this division is a agenda. Asking the government to reverse this is the only way it'll be done. Then we can faze out the old welfare system when we have removed the divisiveness and the media scare tactics.



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by ldyserenity

Yes which means government providing them some kind of incentives...I'm not for one for keeping the tax cuts for businesses but to say however, you will get these same cuts if you provide apprenticeships/internships would be a great incentive, some companies would come around for that.


The apprentices/interns would have to be paid a basic living wage. Otherwise they'll still be on welfare. So tax breaks for the company's on each apprentice/intern shouldn't be a problem.

We also need to look at the school system. A basic education should enable you to get a job. You shouldn't need a Bsc in Media studies to get a job at Walmart.



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by BritofTexas
 


Well that's why they would need the government while they were doing internship/apprentice, but they'd get off it once they're working and hopefully it would be able to be fazed out after a point where more people are working and less are unemployed where it tips to the other favor, that and straightening out the balance from division to unity, commUNITY, so that Community would pick up the slack.



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by ldyserenity
 


It is too late. The only way to implement a self sustaining community system is by America hitting bottom. When there was a system that communities participated in they were not taxed to death so people that were blessed with abundance gave freely. Taxes would have to be lowered in order for them to feel like they can afford to give. There is however an abundance of good people in America willing to give. The feeling you get from giving is profoundly powerful. Addictive actually. That is something you have to experience to understand.



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by jimmiec
reply to post by ldyserenity
 


It is too late. The only way to implement a self sustaining community system is by America hitting bottom. When there was a system that communities participated in they were not taxed to death so people that were blessed with abundance gave freely. Taxes would have to be lowered in order for them to feel like they can afford to give. There is however an abundance of good people in America willing to give. The feeling you get from giving is profoundly powerful. Addictive actually. That is something you have to experience to understand.


I think you're wrong with that first part, and that last part of your post, because I have given and probably have a lot less that anybody here does...and still give regardless of taxes. JS.



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 11:13 AM
link   
SandF Beeze

but why not go to the source of all this largess?
the taxpayer

thats where to yell "RETURN my CHECK"!


quit feeding the beast...
it will go away on its own



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 11:16 AM
link   
First I would like to say, nice idea beezer. I have been saying similar things for years. WE used to help each other. Churches used to help people in need. We did not need the Government to step in and help.
We started turning the curve to government dependency in the 1930's with the "New Deal". It got worse in the 60's and 70's.


NOW....................

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by beezzer
 


I don't see any difference between the community getting together to help those in need, and the Government using tax money to help those less fortunate. The end result is the exact same thing.


That is funny, I know you're joking....................Right? Please tell me you're joking...


LOOK AROUND YOU!!!
The Government turns everything they touch to "rabbit droppings" (no offense beez).
Lets take the black families for instance. Since the 1960's the renamed "Aid to Families with Dependent Children" (AFDC) has decimated them.
70% of black families live in single parent homes now.

You can not fix these types of situations by throwing money at them. If the Government really wanted to help they would set up training programs and education programs. They would set up programs to lift people's self esteem and self worth.


They will not do this because they want people DEPENDENT on the government.
Quad



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 



Certainly we are economic slaves BECAUSE we are victims of a Capitalist Oligarchy?

Shouldn't, rather than swat away at the symptoms, you ferret out and get rid of the root cause of the disease? Our Constitution was a good idea. I think we can all agree on that. What people do not realize is > It is all the amending, weakening and dismantling that has occurred thus far, that needs to be reversed.

Social programs? We can make smarter and more effective choices but there is a clear need and a present danger of losing them to the proven detriment of society as an interactive group. Programs like Headstart for example, saves lives and money and cost very little to bring a vast improvement. Everyone is not educated to realize or know the actual value and WORTH of Headstart and they might categorically reject it out of hand. Sure someone else might step in but can you depend on that? And it is vital so the niche left without it would be more perilous and costly than the program.

You wouldn't know that until you repeat the mistakes of the past. Must we do this time and time again? Many of these are hard fought and hard won programs. Their worth is assured, proved and already accepted as part of the obligation of a civil society where people must live cooperatively. We have already BEEN THERE, DONE THAT and it didn't work.
In order to get ahead your investments, should for the largest part, get you a great return. A well educated, world class, populace is a great return. More entanglements will not solve our problems but going back to when Investment Banks could not dabble in the stock market with peoples investments for example, would be a good move.
Some problems are easily fixed by force and others are like a tangle that tightens the harder you pull. The more you try to get it out, the harder it fixes itself in there. Sometimes your efforts create more problems, even worse problems. So sometimes the solution is to loosen up and retrace your steps. Go back and see where you messed up....Not pile more wood onto the fire.
edit on 10-11-2012 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Quadrivium
 


Well, during the depression, there was LOTS of suffering and poverty and starvation. Nobody helped all those people. The government then made attempts to make sure assistance would be there for Americans in the future. Nothing wrong with that - it was a sincere attempt. These programs were originally put in place to provide temporary assistance until people could get back on their feet. And for the majority, it still works that way. Are there people who take advantage of the system? Sure, but you don't think those same people won't try to take advantage of Beezzer? Sure they will. So, cut 'em off, right? What if those scum bags have little children who are innocently suffering the sins of their parents? Still want to cut them off? What do you do?



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Quadrivium
First I would like to say, nice idea beezer. I have been saying similar things for years. WE used to help each other. Churches used to help people in need. We did not need the Government to step in and help.
We started turning the curve to government dependency in the 1930's with the "New Deal". It got worse in the 60's and 70's.


NOW....................

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by beezzer
 


I don't see any difference between the community getting together to help those in need, and the Government using tax money to help those less fortunate. The end result is the exact same thing.


That is funny, I know you're joking....................Right? Please tell me you're joking...


LOOK AROUND YOU!!!
The Government turns everything they touch to "rabbit droppings" (no offense beez).
Lets take the black families for instance. Since the 1960's the renamed "Aid to Families with Dependent Children" (AFDC) has decimated them.
70% of black families live in single parent homes now.

You can not fix these types of situations by throwing money at them. If the Government really wanted to help they would set up training programs and education programs. They would set up programs to lift people's self esteem and self worth.


They will not do this because they want people DEPENDENT on the government.
Quad



Would you like to go back to this?


Perhaps the greatest tragedy to befall the homeless population during the Great Depression was an incident with marchers that became known as the Bonus Army. Assembling in Washington, D.C., in 1932 were 17,000 veterans and their families who requested bonuses promised by the federal government for their service in World War I. Read more: About the Homeless Population During the Great Depression | eHow.com www.ehow.com...



President Hoover and the Republican Congress knew that issuing the bonuses to the veterans would damage the already precarious situation in the federal budget and chose not to act. The president ordered the removal of the homeless veterans, and on July 28, the U.S. Army led by General Douglas MacArthur charged the encampment with fixed bayonets and forcibly evacuated the Bonus Army. Hundreds were injured and many were killed. Read more: About the Homeless Population During the Great Depression | eHow.com www.ehow.com...


About the Homeless Population During the Great Depression Read more: About the Homeless Population During the Great Depression | eHow.com www.ehow.com...

Surely it is the job of every charity to put itself out of business. They should be there as a last resort. NOT the first and only option.



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Under the current management, we are economic slaves. We are heading towards more economic slavery. There is no light at the end of the tunnel. We're doomed!


way to fear monger!

Currently, the government defines where you live, what you eat, where you shop, what you have, by the size of the check they send you every month.
wtf are you talking about? That's just not true in the universe I live.

Be it medical, disability, unemployment, welfare, social security checks, that dollar amount determined by the gvernment, determines how you live your life.
way to manipulate the facts to fit your viewpoint

It's time to return those checks.
I agree that it'd be best if people didn't need assistance, but they NEED assistance because businesses are greedy and refuse to pay them more.

A singe mother with three kids can't just return her check, however. That single mother lives paycheck to paycheck, she votes for whomever will keep her and her kids fed.
You aren't basing this off of any real statistic....you're just basing this off of your preconceived notions. It's not true. In fact not many people who voted for Obama, we're on welfare link


This is where the beezzer Principle comes in.

That single mom needs an outside impetus to help her get out of the box the government has secured her in. We need to step in and provide guidance on her education, job possibilities, housing possibilities.
So YOU want to control her life

Does she want more for her little family?

If yes then we step up and step in, aid her in networking. Aid her in education. Aid her in internships. Aid her in getting out of this box that the government put her in!
Just because you say the government controls someone's life, doesn't make it true. I'm sorry but you aren't going to take the 30 year old gas station attendant, and teach her how to be a businessperson, or any other educated profession. Plus even if you did, you'd still have to replace her, and that person would be unable to earn enough to feed their family. You have a noble idea, but it's not realistic at all, sorry. Now if we could convince the multi-national businesses to raise wages for the minimum wage earners, so they could feed their families without government assistance....I think that'd be a better way to go about it.

Yes, it'll take work on our part. But if we do this one person at a time, one block at a time, one town at a time, then we can start returning those government checks.
And put the checks into your pocket...do you think people will do this for free? Who's going to pay for it? The government most likely!

The more checks we return, the less power the government will have over us. The stronger we, the people, will become.

The beezzer Principle embraces everyone.


We can do this. If we want it bad enough, we CAN take our country back.

You need to face reality. It's obvious that your views of reality are based off of preconceived notions, and they don't actually match up with what's going on in the real world. Not everyone is capable of becoming educated to do middle class work. I feel your intent is noble. But you're basing everything off of your preconceived notions, and they simply aren't true.
edit on 10-11-2012 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 11:53 AM
link   



Currently, the government defines where you live, what you eat, where you shop, what you have, by the size of the check they send you every month.

Be it medical, disability, unemployment, welfare, social security checks, that dollar amount determined by the gvernment, determines how you live your life.

It's time to return those checks.

A singe mother with three kids can't just return her check, however. That single mother lives paycheck to paycheck, she votes for whomever will keep her and her kids fed. No matter how poorly. And she has every right to think of her family first.



Sure there are many people on government assistance, but the vast majority of us work and earn our own paychecks and are happy to do so. The government has never told me where to live, what to eat, where I shop, or what I have. When the government decides we should help each other out more, I agree with that. My taxes in Texas are low as hell to begin with.


I am well below the poverty line but I live in an apartment with my girlfriend and we depend on no one.

The only check the government sends me is my tax return. And I am already looking forward to getting that one in 2013
edit on 10-11-2012 by Hawking because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv
reply to post by Quadrivium
 


Well, during the depression, there was LOTS of suffering and poverty and starvation. Nobody helped all those people. The government then made attempts to make sure assistance would be there for Americans in the future. Nothing wrong with that - it was a sincere attempt. These programs were originally put in place to provide temporary assistance until people could get back on their feet. And for the majority, it still works that way. Are there people who take advantage of the system? Sure, but you don't think those same people won't try to take advantage of Beezzer? Sure they will. So, cut 'em off, right? What if those scum bags have little children who are innocently suffering the sins of their parents? Still want to cut them off? What do you do?




All very good points - especially since the GOP is firmly against abortion. They prefer those children be born - and then NOT supported.


Beezzer's plan says they get help because everyone will just want to! And also, every household in America gets a unicorn, that craps rainbows! That sounds realistic, right?



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Since there is a war going on between the haves and have not's the good feeling you get when you help people will not be enough. The haves do not get that good feeling when money is forced from them. America is forever changed. The divide is now too great to bridge. Sure, there will be some to help those in need but generally that is lost. Government will continue doing what it does until collapse. Only then can we revive charity and common sense.



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Ghost375
 


The reason there are entitlements in the first place is because people did NOT help out those who needed it, and the government was forced to step in and help them.

The reality of the situation is that there are entitlements because people did not do what you are suggesting.

The truth is there aren't entitlements because the government is trying to control us, or because they want us dependent on them. I don't care how many times Fox News tells you this, or how many times you tell it to yourself. It's not true. There are entitlements because people do NOT help out their neighbors. There are entitlements because corporations will pay employees the bare minimum they are required to pay them. They don't care if their employees have enough to feed their children.

This is why there are entitlements.
And what you're suggesting is exactly what people have proved they aren't capable of doing. It's a noble thought, but not realistic, I'm sorry, I wish it were otherwise.





new topics
 
31
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join