Welfare for everyone is the only ANSWER for USA.. here is why

reply to post by boohoo


The ELites are related. For Hundreds of years, Kings ruled and had numerous 'baby mommas' so there would be an heir and others couldn't steal the throne as easily. Plus the king had women on the side besides the harem.

Now, most of the offspring weren't the most special, but they were entitled to a better life than a commoner. Imagine all the offspring over the centuries. Theses are the 'blue bloods' my little Jewish Granny used to say. They are the Ivy League stalwart families. They are the 'hidden force'.

The WHOLE GAME IS RIGGED... OWNED... this is futile. those anti- welfare ----> NEVER address a direct question, always misdirect, they aren't worth the time. trolls, shills, or hopelessly programmed.


In a village, would a Chief feast while his people starved? YES or NO..

wont even get a straight answer to that one

The reason why people co-operate socially and form societies is because they fulfill a common need.

When Capitalism ceases to protect the interests of ordinary average people, what motivation do they have to co-operate in the functioning of a dysfunctional society?

Capitalism serves the greed of a few at the expense of the many.

I have no problem with private enterprise and people benefitting from the fruits of their labour, but business should not be at odds with nor corrosive of the society which nourishes it with opportunities.

I think many in the so called free world are comming to the conclusion that whilst they do not want authoritarian socialism, they do desire a more socially inclusive economic system that benefits all.

reply to post by boohoo

and, you would be mistaken again.
the IRS cannot lawfully bill a non-taxpayer.
(not a 'tax evader' but one who is exempt from income tax)
so, who has to prove what again ?

do tell, how is the IRS going to 'bill' all of the undocumented immigrants in this county, let alone country ?
they are undocumented, remember.

perhaps you are a producer of 'net income', but i'm not and i have no intention of participating in a scam of which i'm already exempt.

I'm pointing out that with the computing power the government has today, you are pretty much screwed if they decide to target you for anything.

well, i can certainly agree with this statement.
see any homeless population for verification.

ummm, ruling families is one thing but citing the effects of the black death population depletion as any indicator in today's economy is simply disingenous.

psssst ... the US has been under siege since long before WWII and it isn't going to end anytime soon.

here's a question for you.
why is it that 'minimum wage' is usually associated with 'low skilled work' when the fact is that one of the most basic skills, 'digging ditches', done by a person WHO IS a UNION member, suddenly is worth $18-$30/hr for their NON-skilled labor ??

no offense to the ditch diggers (we certainly need ya) but i'm inclined to believe that managing to 'cook' any food takes much more skill than dancing with a shovel

There is no constitution

if you say so, but i would disagree.

fyi, the 'owners of capital' also drafted and ratified that non-existant Constitution.

please don't misunderstand, in no way do i support the actions of this runaway government, however, the concept put forth of welfare for all ... well, that's just silly.

reply to post by HanzHenry

In a village, would a Chief feast while his people starved? YES or NO..

wont even get a straight answer to that one

you ask an awful lot of questions but sure do avoid answering any
didn't think this one through very much, did ya ?

a "chief" wouldn't be found in a village, so your question, this time, is moot.
however, when found with his tribe, the answer is NO.

so, are you suggesting that fatherless families should starve because they have no 'chief' ??

reply to post by sy.gunson

I think many in the so called free world are comming to the conclusion that whilst they do not want authoritarian socialism, they do desire a more socially inclusive economic system that benefits all.

much like the society spoke of, written about and shared through folklore, of a time before the corporations came and spoiled American soil.

Originally posted by Honor93
a "chief" wouldn't be found in a village, so your question, this time, is moot.
however, when found with his tribe, the answer is NO.

Didn't spend too much time in Anthropology class, I see. The word "village" has no bearing on the descriptive terms used to define what "Tribal" and "Chieftain" level societies are.

Originally posted by Honor93
and, you would be mistaken again.
the IRS cannot lawfully bill a non-taxpayer.
(not a 'tax evader' but one who is exempt from income tax)
so, who has to prove what again ?

Again you are mistaken, the "owners of capital" have thought of this argument too and have set up a means to easily disrupt your actions. They will have many options to "label" or "Mark" you at that point. They could EASILY label you in a "legal manner" as a "sovereign citizen" and potential terrorist, OR they could exile you to a "designated shelter", which you cannot leave, as they do with homeless people in South Carolina, OR they will simply throw you in a plain old fashioned debtors prison.

Originally posted by Honor93
fyi, the 'owners of capital' also drafted and ratified that non-existant Constitution.

How silly of you, do you actually think the US Constitution was framed for your use? It was created for colonizing LAND OWNERS in the "English Settled America", whom were abandoning their English citizenship and forming a new country. That goal was achieved and has no bearing on what the current "living" constitution means to the average person today. It was not designed to be used by slaves, indentured servants and non-land owning laborers.

FYI, that's YOU!

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by HanzHenry

 

In a village, would a Chief feast while his people starved? YES or NO..

wont even get a straight answer to that one

you ask an awful lot of questions but sure do avoid answering any

didn't think this one through very much, did ya ?

a "chief" wouldn't be found in a village, so your question, this time, is moot.
however, when found with his tribe, the answer is NO.

so, are you suggesting that fatherless families should starve because they have no 'chief' ??

I can tell when people are jealous and have to "one up" me. I guess the ever ending quest to save face because I have demolished you on my OP..

. but this one is SOO laughable!!

what is that about Village and Chief again..

Village Head -- or ______

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by sy.gunson

 

I think many in the so called free world are comming to the conclusion that whilst they do not want authoritarian socialism, they do desire a more socially inclusive economic system that benefits all.

much like the society spoke of, written about and shared through folklore, of a time before the corporations came and spoiled American soil.

There are many models of how societies can function and thrive in a democratic manner and maintaining a system of private free enterprise whilst still putting people before profit in terms of political systems.

For example from where I live I don't see why USA has a problem with taxpayer funded free health care.

I don't understand why in such a wealthy country homeless people live under bridges and in public parks?

reply to post by boohoo

ah geez, junior ... when i & anthropology crossed paths, the Mayans were still a 'mystery' and the ruins in Central America hadn't even been discovered yet

regardless your understanding, your question is still moot.

the "owners of capital" have thought of this argument too and have set up a means to easily disrupt your actions.

yeah, yeah, blah, blah, whatever.
apparently, they are still practicing

ooooooh, i'm scared, can you tell ?

well of course it was, too bad it's been high-jacked by fools of your ilk ... however, we have the remedy, handy.
oh, keep dreaming ... maybe one day you'll figure it out.

reply to post by HanzHenry


that is all ... well, almost ...
thanks for the chuckle

reply to post by sy.gunson

I don't understand why in such a wealthy country homeless people live under bridges and in public parks?

that's because you don't want to

many of them, actually prefer to be outside of this silly system.
some of them have no choice, yet, some of them choose to remain regardless what form of assistance is offered.

unless you are here dealing with it, i wouldn't expect you or anyone else to understand it.

tax funded healthcare is what we already have and you see how well that's working out, right ?
moochers come from 1000s of miles away for it, so it must be pretty darn bad, eh ??

saying there are other models that work is one thing.
providing examples is another, are you game ??
if so, i'll be patiently waiting.