|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/02/2005 12:01:31 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by Tallbloke:
Just the general fear of the US under Bush wading in to another country i.e. Iran and the repercussion, backlash and escalation of death and destruction that that will eniviatbly provoke.
Who said violence never solved anything? |
Thanks for the response, Steve.
Given the current state of politics in the US and the world in general, I don't think that the US, even under Bush, would wade into another country ( e.g. Iran, N. Korea ) without the full endorsement of, and commitment by, the majority of the other U.N. security council nations. It would be political suicide for either major US political party to do so. Rather, I believe that, if national security reached the imminent danger point, lacking such UN involvement, the US would opt to shut down its borders to any and all people and cargo originating in non-secured nations, call home its ambassadors, and prepare to defend its homeland - and devil take the hindmost.
Now THAT's what you should fear.
Message edited by author 2005-03-02 12:02:32. |
|
|
|
03/02/2005 12:57:30 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by bbower1956:
I did my tax return and I am by know means rich. The poor do just fine in this country. They got a big chunk of my money. They are the richest and laziest poor people in the world. They have a higher standard of living then the average European. I guess the rich in this country are not very good predators. But I sure like all leftists, you feel you know how best to spend my money. |
Originally posted by RonB:
(...)out of control spending tax money on thousands of giveaway programs that are nowhere supported by the Constitution.
(...)we've survived depressions before. Worse depressions.
Depressions build character and a instill a sense of what's important. Something that's lacking in todays spoiled young people. |
Well, it's been a while since I've come across a more stark and disgusting (but accurate) articulation of the right-wing's beliefs. I hope you're proud of yourselves. Do you know who the poor are in this country? Women and children predominantly. The last statistics I read claimed 60 percent of people living in poverty in the United States are women. When you add in their children, also living in poverty, it's a whopping majority, and I'm talking now about the "official" poverty statistics, which don't include the many millions who are underemployed, working two or three jobs (all those lazy bums you so enjoy blaming for the ills of society) so they can barely climb above the poverty line. Yeah, I'll bet those no-account, undeserving "spoiled" kids are having a WONDERFUL time living off the "lucky rich" folk! By the way, wages -- yes, WAGES -- are the MAIN source of income for people living in poverty, NOT the assistance they receive from social programs. Only 60 percent of people living in poverty receive ANY assistance, which means 40 percent of all people in this country living below the poverty level receive absolutely no assistance whatsoever (none of your precious tax dollars, which, as we all know, are better spent killing innocent people in foreign countries in phony wars initiated by lying, hack politicians -- but please correct me if I've misstated your position). Now let's talk about the homeless. At least 12 percent of the homeless are women without children, and another 34 percent are women living with their children. So again, women and children make up almost half the homeless population in the United States. I don't know the percentage of the homeless who are military veterans, but it's common knowledge that the number of homeless among that group is quite high. I guess they're a bunch of lazy good-for-nothing bums too, right? How about the elderly? Let's see, if I recall, of the 12 percent of elderly poor in this country, the overwhelming majority (somewhere around 70 percent) of those people also are women. So women, children, veterans, and let's not forget the mentally and physically impaired -- bunch of dirty, rotten, lazy bums, according to your world view. I'll have to remember that world view the next time I hear the phrase "compassionate conservative" so that maybe I'll laugh instead of throwing up!
Message edited by author 2005-03-02 17:06:36. |
|
|
|
03/02/2005 01:37:47 PM · #28 |
| I wonder why I don't hear these reactionary extremists (those who call themselves conservatives, but I believe this to be a misnomer) calling an end to the over 125 billion dollars in corporate welfare that the US taxpayers subsidize (by 2003 figures, I"m sure higher now). I wonder why I don't hear them call the corporations that live off of the dole lazy and poor business people. |
|
|
|
03/02/2005 03:38:09 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by bbower1956:
I did my tax return and I am by know means rich. The poor do just fine in this country. They got a big chunk of my money. They are the richest and laziest poor people in the world. They have a higher standard of living then the average European. I guess the rich in this country are not very good predators. But I sure like all leftists, you feel you know how best to spend my money. |
snip |
... wow ...
bbower1956, do you have anything to backup your American poor vs. average European claim? Have you even been to Europe? If you have, you obviously must have visited different parts than me. We have a number of Europeans on this board. Perhaps we could ask them about their standard of living? Of course, I'm assuming that we may have one or two "average" Europeans posting on this site, but, by the looks of the pictures from our resident Icelanders, they may all be extraordinary.
I seriously doubt that the poor in America got "a big chunk" of your money when compared to money spent on the military, infrastructure, etc., but, if you have the figures to back up your apparently hyperbolic claim, I would certainly like to see some information. To make things more clear, perhaps you could start off by defining how much "a big chunk" of your money going to welfare is? 10%? 20%? 30%? You don't have to be exact. A good ballpark figure will do. Start out by defining which government programs you would consider welfare programs that are an inappropriate use or your taxed income. Is it all? Most? Some? Which ones would you like to see kept? Which ones would like to see on the chopping block?
Oh, and then compare the amount (percentage wise) of you taxed income to the USA national budget (percentage wise). In other words, break down the national budget (X% to military, Y% to infrastructure, A% to running the government, B% to welfare programs, etc.) and compare it to the total amount of your taxed income (X% of your taxed income to the military, Y% of your taxed income to infrastructure, A% of your taxed income to running the government, B% of your taxed income to welfare programs, etc.). I would really like to get your reaction once you see how comparatively little you spend on welfare. (As an aside, I was surprised several years ago (I forget the source, so don't ask) to discover that I was taxed approximately two postage stamps worth of money per year by the federal government to support NASA. For the pictures from Hubble, I can happily live with that.)
Please remember, in any response addressed to me, that I don't consider myself a "leftist" and I'm certainly open to changes in the current welfare system, so attacks on Bill Clinton or welfare policy probably aren't going to have much of an effect.
Thanks.
PS. I've read "The Way Things Ought To Be." It's not that couragous an act.
Message edited by author 2005-03-02 17:37:39. |
|
|
|
03/02/2005 05:34:00 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Tallbloke:
For all of those who hate our style of government and economics, here's an alternative: You are free to leave the country at any time
I dont live in your country but I am more afraid of the future because of your country and your president than from any other acts of terrorism. The USA and it's foreign policies have an impact across the entire world. |
I don't mean to minimize your fears, but could you perhaps articulate what they are? Obviously you're not afraid of being attacked / invaded by the U.S. ( at least I would HOPE so ) and you say that your fears are not as great as that from acts of terrorism. So what is it that you fear from US foreign policy? |
Lots
Message edited by author 2005-03-02 21:14:59. |
|
|
|
03/02/2005 08:45:28 PM · #31 |
Wow, Judith Polakoff and Milo655321, your statements are extremely thoughtful and very articulate!
|
|
|
|
03/02/2005 09:38:38 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I wonder why I don't hear these reactionary extremists (those who call themselves conservatives, but I believe this to be a misnomer) calling an end to the over 125 billion dollars in corporate welfare that the US taxpayers subsidize (by 2003 figures, I"m sure higher now). I wonder why I don't hear them call the corporations that live off of the dole lazy and poor business people. |
Because you don't listen very well. And you only hear what you want to hear.
|
|
|
|
03/02/2005 09:45:43 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by bbower1956:
I did my tax return and I am by know means rich. The poor do just fine in this country. They got a big chunk of my money. They are the richest and laziest poor people in the world. They have a higher standard of living then the average European. I guess the rich in this country are not very good predators. But I sure like all leftists, you feel you know how best to spend my money. |
snip |
... wow ...
bbower1956, do you have anything to backup your American poor vs. average European claim? |
Here's just one source of information on this issue: How Poor Are The Poor?. The primary point of the analysis revolves around the census bureau figures that indicate that America's poor have great access to, and possesion of, labor saving and entertainment consumer goods, even above the average European. Its not really a knock against Europeans. Simply one point of analysis when digesting just what the "poverty statistics" really mean.
(Disclaimer: I have no idea who the National Center for Policy Analysis is, and I expect their credibility to be slammed for even daring to point out such a concept.)
Message edited by author 2005-03-02 21:47:12.
|
|
|
|
03/02/2005 10:23:15 PM · #34 |
Thank you for the link, ScottK. I'll read it tonight. From my admittedly-limited knowledge of the group, the National Center for Policy Analysis is a conservative "think tank" based out of Texas and, of course, that doesn't automatically make them wrong or their motives underhanded. Being a moderate, the reason I usually try to stay away from the frustration of internet debates on politics . . . "lies, damn lies and statistics."
But, e'er I go, would agree that social programs, specifically welfare, in the U.S. probably don't take a "big chunk" of bbower1956's money when compared to other government programs?
(Edited to add: I just reread the first paragraph and I realized the third sentence could be interpreted as sarcasm. It was not intended that way.)
Message edited by author 2005-03-02 22:29:36. |
|
|
|
03/02/2005 10:30:06 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by bbower1956:
I did my tax return and I am by know means rich. The poor do just fine in this country. They got a big chunk of my money. They are the richest and laziest poor people in the world. They have a higher standard of living then the average European. I guess the rich in this country are not very good predators. But I sure like all leftists, you feel you know how best to spend my money. |
Originally posted by RonB:
(...)out of control spending tax money on thousands of giveaway programs that are nowhere supported by the Constitution.
(...)we've survived depressions before. Worse depressions.
Depressions build character and a instill a sense of what's important. Something that's lacking in todays spoiled young people. |
Well, it's been a while since I've come across a more stark and disgusting (but accurate) articulation of the right-wing's beliefs. I hope you're proud of yourselves. Do you know who the poor are in this country? Women and children predominantly. The last statistics I read claimed 60 percent of people living in poverty in the United States are women. When you add in their children, also living in poverty, it's a whopping majority, and I'm talking now about the "official" poverty statistics, which don't include the many millions who are underemployed, working two or three jobs (all those lazy bums you so enjoy blaming for the ills of society) so they can barely climb above the poverty line. Yeah, I'll bet those no-account, undeserving "spoiled" kids are having a WONDERFUL time living off the "lucky rich" folk! By the way, wages -- yes, WAGES -- are the MAIN source of income for people living in poverty, NOT the assistance they receive from social programs. Only 60 percent of people living in poverty receive ANY assistance, which means 40 percent of all people in this country living below the poverty level receive absolutely no assistance whatsoever (none of your precious tax dollars, which, as we all know, are better spent killing innocent people in foreign countries in phony wars initiated by lying, hack politicians -- but please correct me if I've misstated your position). Now let's talk about the homeless. At least 12 percent of the homeless are women without children, and another 34 percent are women living with their children. So again, women and children make up almost half the homeless population in the United States. I don't know the percentage of the homeless who are military veterans, but it's common knowledge that the number of homeless among that group is quite high. I guess they're a bunch of lazy good-for-nothing bums too, right? How about the elderly? Let's see, if I recall, of the 12 percent of elderly poor in this country, the overwhelming majority (somewhere around 70 percent) of those people also are women. So women, children, veterans, and let's not forget the mentally and physically impaired -- bunch of dirty, rotten, lazy bums, according to your world view. I'll have to remember that world view the next time I hear the phrase "compassionate conservative" so that maybe I'll laugh instead of throwing up! |
I feel it necessary to respond to the parts of your emotional, yet ill-informed rant that were in reference to what I posted.
You say "Yeah, I'll bet those no-account, undeserving "spoiled" kids are having a WONDERFUL time living off the "lucky rich" folk!"
For your edification, it is YOU, not I, that draws a correlation between being poor and being "no-account", "undeserving", and "spoiled". I only qualified my use of the word "spoiled" by age ( i.e. "young" ), not by economic status. And then, I only spoke in terms of character and a sense of what's important. By your choice of rhetoric, you have exposed your own emotional feelings, but certainly not mine.
Since the determination of living "below the poverty line" only looks at income, and that income does NOT include government assistance, it would be of no little interest to know how many of the families classified as "living below the poverty line" are really living ABOVE the poverty line once government assistance is included in their "income". See, those folks are not actually LIVING below the poverty line, they only have INCOME that would be less than the poverty level IF THERE WAS NO OTHER SOURCE OF INCOME.
|
|
|
|
03/02/2005 10:43:24 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by bbower1956:
I did my tax return and I am by know means rich. The poor do just fine in this country. They got a big chunk of my money. They are the richest and laziest poor people in the world. They have a higher standard of living then the average European. I guess the rich in this country are not very good predators. But I sure like all leftists, you feel you know how best to spend my money. |
snip |
... wow ...
bbower1956, do you have anything to backup your American poor vs. average European claim? Have you even been to Europe? If you have, you obviously must have visited different parts than me. We have a number of Europeans on this board. Perhaps we could ask them about their standard of living? Of course, I'm assuming that we may have one or two "average" Europeans posting on this site, but, by the looks of the pictures from our resident Icelanders, they may all be extraordinary.
I seriously doubt that the poor in America got "a big chunk" of your money when compared to money spent on the military, infrastructure, etc., but, if you have the figures to back up your apparently hyperbolic claim, I would certainly like to see some information. To make things more clear, perhaps you could start off by defining how much "a big chunk" of your money going to welfare is? 10%? 20%? 30%? You don't have to be exact. A good ballpark figure will do. Start out by defining which government programs you would consider welfare programs that are an inappropriate use or your taxed income. Is it all? Most? Some? Which ones would you like to see kept? Which ones would like to see on the chopping block?
Oh, and then compare the amount (percentage wise) of you taxed income to the USA national budget (percentage wise). In other words, break down the national budget (X% to military, Y% to infrastructure, A% to running the government, B% to welfare programs, etc.) and compare it to the total amount of your taxed income (X% of your taxed income to the military, Y% of your taxed income to infrastructure, A% of your taxed income to running the government, B% of your taxed income to welfare programs, etc.). I would really like to get your reaction once you see how comparatively little you spend on welfare. (As an aside, I was surprised several years ago (I forget the source, so don't ask) to discover that I was taxed approximately two postage stamps worth of money per year by the federal government to support NASA. For the pictures from Hubble, I can happily live with that.)
Please remember, in any response addressed to me, that I don't consider myself a "leftist" and I'm certainly open to changes in the current welfare system, so attacks on Bill Clinton or welfare policy probably aren't going to have much of an effect.
Thanks.
PS. I've read "The Way Things Ought To Be." It's not that couragous an act. |
This is exactly the problem, why should you or the government have any right to know how much I make. It is none of your business or the goverments. Besides, where exactly in the Constitution is the redistribution of wealth allowed by the government? The federal income tax is unconstitional. It simply is not there. You can't find it. Social Security is the biggest ripoff in history.
So I'll give you some welfare state for the unfortuntate. Does that mean we should give the poor free air conditioners and cars? We do. And you pay for it. I bet you bought your own car. If you were poorer you wouldn't need to. I know it is hot in the summer but we as a society have survived longer without AC than with it.
No subsides for art. No subsides for farmers. They don't go to the small farmers any how but rather to the largest corporate farms. I don't have a problem with the military budget as that is the one thing the government is supposed to provide that is in the Constitution.
For those knocking corporate welfare, the difference between it and normal welfare is the companies actually employ and pay people in the community. Therefore, giving back more than they are given in tax breaks. Many towns in the midwest have auto plants that were lured there by corporate welfare. The factories provide the families with wages. Wages are returned to the community thru commerce and taxes. And, in most cases, communties thrive. Kerry wanted to give tax incentives to keep jobs here. That is corporate welfare as well isn't it? You are taking taxes from the community that they would otherwise keep.
Back to wages, I was self-employed for 4 years. So 34% for 4 years. What percent of my money are you entitled to redistribute? |
|
|
|
03/02/2005 10:46:17 PM · #37 |
I cannot speak on matters that relate to the USA, but I can assure you that in Canada, people whose income falls under the "poverty line" are not "living".... they are merely "subsisting" .... there is a difference.
Ray |
|
|
|
03/02/2005 10:49:50 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
But, e'er I go, would agree that social programs, specifically welfare, in the U.S. probably don't take a "big chunk" of bbower1956's money when compared to other government programs?
|
Look at your W-2, look at the FICA column. That is welfare for seniors. You are not going to get a penny of it back. If you believe you are then you are not looking at the facts. Even the Dems agree that they will only be able to pay 70 cents of every dollar. If you could only pay 70% of your bills, you are bankrupt. Next to your mortgage, if you have one, this is most likely your biggest bill per month, to FICA. My parents and in-laws are both on SS and all wish they had that money back and could of invested it themselves. As for any one under 55, 0 is going to be our return.
If you want to waste your money on social programs that your congressman uses to buy votes, then do it with your own money. If you want to help the poor than do it at the local level. You do not need some one in DC taking 30% or more of every dollar to send it back to your community.
What other programs do you think got my money? Don't say the military as it is actually called for in the Constition. Freeways should be funded by gasoline taxes. What other programs?
Message edited by author 2005-03-02 23:01:38. |
|
|
|
03/02/2005 10:57:26 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
I cannot speak on matters that relate to the USA, but I can assure you that in Canada, people whose income falls under the "poverty line" are not "living".... they are merely "subsisting" .... there is a difference.
Ray |
This is very true.
I still wonder where the compassion comes in to the conservative "if your poor it’s your fault, deal with it" mentality.
Didn’t Jesus give the ultimate sacrifice for his fellow men? |
|
|
|
03/02/2005 11:09:05 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Didn’t Jesus give the ultimate sacrifice for his fellow men? |
What an idiotic thing to say. How does that relate to taxes? Just because I don't want BIG government doesn't mean I don't love my neighbor. That is typical leftist crap. Jesus did not petition the government to help the poor. He called on individuals to help the poor. He did not say "Go create governments that will redistribute wealth". |
|
|
|
03/02/2005 11:14:13 PM · #41 |
Do you mean the companies that pay their employees minimum wage with no health care benefits while they toil in unsafe conditions? Do you mean the companies that are closing down many of their manufacturing plants to move overseas because they refuse to stop their polluting ways or improve working conditions? Do you mean the companies that have undertaken dirty illegal business dealings such as insider trading or stolen their employees lifetime retirement savings?
Are you referring to the benefits that the employees from Enron received? Or maybe the communities of Love Canal or the Hudson River in NY state that is polluted from PCBs from pollution by GE?
The redistribution of wealth in the US is happening all the time, but the question is to whom is it going. Since the Reagan years, it has been going predominantly to the corporations, and the middle and lower classes are getting very little benefits from that.
Since the Reagan years, and through the GW Bush years, the government is now beholden to the large corporations. It is not a government anymore of, by and for the people.
Originally posted by bbower1956:
For those knocking corporate welfare, the difference between it and normal welfare is the companies actually employ and pay people in the community. Therefore, giving back more than they are given in tax breaks. Many towns in the midwest have auto plants that were lured there by corporate welfare. The factories provide the families with wages. Wages are returned to the community thru commerce and taxes. And, in most cases, communties thrive. Kerry wanted to give tax incentives to keep jobs here. That is corporate welfare as well isn't it? You are taking taxes from the community that they would otherwise keep.
|
Message edited by author 2005-03-02 23:18:33. |
|
|
|
03/02/2005 11:16:59 PM · #42 |
.
Message edited by author 2005-03-02 23:17:52. |
|
|
|
03/03/2005 12:34:27 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by bbower1956:
This is exactly the problem, why should you or the government have any right to know how much I make. It is none of your business or the governments. |
Personally, I don’t care how much you make. I never asked you for that information. The government needs to know how much you make in order to tax you in order to pay for the benefits you receive as a citizen of the country (police, roads, infrastructure, etc.)
Originally posted by bbower1956:
Besides, where exactly in the Constitution is the redistribution of wealth allowed by the government? The federal income tax is unconstitional. It simply is not there. You can't find it. |
Ooookkaaay. I didn’t realize you were a member of the Posse Comatatus. My apologies for the oversight. If you don’t think you have to pay federal income tax, there’re some FBI agents I’d like to introduce you to.
I would note, however, there were taxes in the U.S. on tobacco, the sale of slaves, liquor and other material goods when the Constitution was enacted. It’s unlikely the idea of taxation is making the founding fathers roll in their graves, though I doubt the taxes on the sale of slaves is quite the moneymaker it once was.
Originally posted by bbower1956:
Social Security is the biggest ripoff in history. |
Biggest “in history”? You’ve got a thing for making overly broad statements, don’t you? That's what got me responding if the first place. Wait till your 65. You can turn down any SS benefits you might be entitled to in protest. I agree it could have been written better, people rely on it too much and it was expanded too much during economic heydays of the 1950s.
Originally posted by bbower1956:
So I'll give you some welfare state for the unfortuntate. Does that mean we should give the poor free air conditioners and cars? We do. And you pay for it. I bet you bought your own car. If you were poorer you wouldn't need to. I know it is hot in the summer but we as a society have survived longer without AC than with it. |
By all that’s holy, the poor get free cars and air conditioning? Sign me up! I’ll take a Saturn! It just makes me want to be poor!
Seriously, I think we were in agreement that there can be changes in the welfare system. I’m not fond of the idea of third generation welfare recipients, but they’re in the minority. Welfare, for many recipients, is a short-term solution.
Originally posted by bbower1956:
No subsides for art. |
And an endless stream of Brittany Spears clones. Shoot me now, please!
Originally posted by bbower1956:
No subsides for farmers. They don't go to the small farmers any how but rather to the largest corporate farms. |
Ok, but first you’ve got to get those other countries to stop subsidizing their farmers. (I agree about the corporate farms.)
Originally posted by bbower1956:
I don't have a problem with the military budget as that is the one thing the government is supposed to provide that is in the Constitution. |
Thanks. That’s mighty white of you.
Originally posted by bbower1956:
For those knocking corporate welfare, the difference between it and normal welfare is the companies actually employ and pay people in the community. Therefore, giving back more than they are given in tax breaks. Many towns in the midwest have auto plants that were lured there by corporate welfare. The factories provide the families with wages. Wages are returned to the community thru commerce and taxes. And, in most cases, communties thrive. Kerry wanted to give tax incentives to keep jobs here. That is corporate welfare as well isn't it? You are taking taxes from the community that they would otherwise keep. |
I do like tax incentives for companies for increased production. You’ll find me more of a financial conservative-social liberal. However, it really chaps my hide to hear of companies getting government bail-outs while their top executives are making seven figure salaries.
Originally posted by bbower1956:
Back to wages, I was self-employed for 4 years. So 34% for 4 years. What percent of my money are you entitled to redistribute? |
Me? I don’t think I’m entitled to “redistribute” any of your money, but that’s just me. I may be alone in that opinion. But the government is entitled to take its cut for creating an environment in which you can make that money to pay for the benefits you receive, directly and indirectly, living in this country (roads, infrastructure, science/public education, commerce regulation, police, parks, social programs, etc.). It's not perfect. It could work better.
Are you sure you're not a libertarian?
Originally posted by bbower1956:
Me? Personally, I don’t think I’m entitled to “redistribute” any of your wealth. |
Thank you. I don’t think you’re entitled to either. Unfortunately, the mayor of Chicago thinks it should go into pockets of his contacts and business acquaintances.
|
|
|
|
03/03/2005 01:04:34 AM · #44 |
If I'm not mistaken, the biggest ripoff in history was the Savings and Loan scandal of the 80's when Reagan and Bush I were in power. Very little, if any, of that money was recovered by the unfortunate victims.
Originally posted by bbower1956:
Social Security is the biggest ripoff in history.
|
|
|
|
|
03/03/2005 01:05:19 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Since the determination of living "below the poverty line" only looks at income, and that income does NOT include government assistance, it would be of no little interest to know how many of the families classified as "living below the poverty line" are really living ABOVE the poverty line once government assistance is included in their "income". See, those folks are not actually LIVING below the poverty line, they only have INCOME that would be less than the poverty level IF THERE WAS NO OTHER SOURCE OF INCOME. |
If you really want to get educated about these issues, you can go to the Census Bureau website and cull through the voluminous data there on poverty and find the information you asked me to provide. Frankly, I don't have time right now to do it. The statistics I was relating earlier were facts and figures I had memorized from five or six years ago when I was doing some volunteer work and I needed to know those particular facts. I doubt very much, however, that the situation has changed radically since then, and I think you'll find, as milo stated, that welfare is a short-term solution, truly a "safety net" type program. As I recall, most people who receive benefits do so for three years only, on average, and that average includes the tiny minority who are lifelong recipients, so the three-year figure is probably skewed upward. There are lots of very informative websites you can peruse if you're really interested. Here's one very good one: The Annie E. Casey Foundation And here is a very informative, recent publication that you can find on that site: "Working Hard, Falling Short" |
|
|
|
03/03/2005 06:45:52 AM · #46 |
Wow I started a good heated debate!
Wanting things to be better in one's own country, or disagreeing with certain ways that things are, does not mean that you dislike the country that you live in.
It is said in some book I read that the middle class of America are the Guard for the rich. That as long as the middle class is bickering over this issue or that one, we can never come together as a people to fight the real problems facing our country as a nation. Make no mistake about it, the United States is the best country in the world. I know I have been to quite a few of the others. There is poverty abound in the rest of the world, that far exeeds the debt and poor of the US. Does this mean though that a person can not wish for things to be better in our own country.
Should the media not discuss all issues and ALL options for those issues? The piece I copied in by Zinn brings up many interesting points. He gives the example about prisons and someone in the thread made the comment that what should we do with criminals if not putting them in prisons? Well you are missing the point of the article. The point of the article is 'why are these things not discussed and why are more choices not put before the american people?' If the american people saw everyday on the news what was REALLY happening in Iraq, would they be so keen for americans to be over there dying? Would they be so keen to see Iraqis dying? But they don't see because it is not reported.
These are the questions that do not get to be asked. You can not bring up topics that will allow the average person to start thinking or caring about things. This leads to dissent and causes people to start questioning and if the 'bewildered herd' starts questioning how the country is run then there can be big problems. So you keep them fighting amongst themselves. You keep them sitting in front of the TV watching the superbowl. You keep them preoccupied. It works well.
I remember saying to an aquaintence once that I did not agree with us being in Iraq and I sited several examples why I thought this way. His instant response was that I didn't support the troops and I was not much of a patriot. This response was a quick way of ending the conversation. He attacked me instead of thinking about or attacking what I was saying. It was a quick way to end the conversation without having to think or care about what the real issue was that I was saying. Please don't nitpick what I have written or what anyone else's has written. It will be a much better debate if we all take the idea of what the person is saying and fight that or agree with that.
Message edited by author 2005-03-03 06:59:35. |
|
|
|
03/03/2005 11:55:40 AM · #47 |
SnapperL, If you like Zinn, you would probably be interested in Noam Chomsky //www.chomsky.info.
Specifically I highly recomend the documentary movies "Manufactoring Consent" and "Distorted Morality". They may be hard to find, I found both on the internet. Netflix or the like might have them.
Also I will post 2 articles by Chomsky on terrorism that were written over 10 years appart:
International Terrorism: Image and Reality (1991)
Who are the Global Terrorists? (2002) |
|
|
|
03/03/2005 03:09:25 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
I cannot speak on matters that relate to the USA, but I can assure you that in Canada, people whose income falls under the "poverty line" are not "living".... they are merely "subsisting" .... there is a difference.
Ray |
This is very true.
I still wonder where the compassion comes in to the conservative "if your poor it’s your fault, deal with it" mentality.
Didn’t Jesus give the ultimate sacrifice for his fellow men? |
Interesting you should bring this up. I've been mulling around a thought along those lines myself recently. I'm coming to the belief that one of the biggest hidden "sins" of the "welfare state" is that it removes the incentive and the obligation from the individual to care and show compassion for the welfare of their neighbor. Yes, Jesus gave the ultimate sacrifice for all mankind. And what's more, Jesus commanded us to "love God with all our hearts, and love our neighbors as ourselves". But by "passing the buck", by turning the responsibility for caring for the poor over to government, we relieve ourselves of the obligations of, and deny ourselves the blessing that come from, loving our neighbor.
Your biggest misconception is to assume that because someone doesn't want the government playing God, assuming the role of allmighty caregiver, is because they hate the poor. That assumtion poisons the debate and allows you to justify your own hatred.
|
|
|
|
03/03/2005 03:26:03 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
I would note, however, there were taxes in the U.S. on tobacco, the sale of slaves, liquor and other material goods when the Constitution was enacted. It’s unlikely the idea of taxation is making the founding fathers roll in their graves, though I doubt the taxes on the sale of slaves is quite the moneymaker it once was.
|
I heard this morning that Greenspan supports the idea of a national sales tax over the current income tax. I haven't read any details yet, but this could be an interesting return to our "roots".
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by bbower1956:
Social Security is the biggest ripoff in history. |
Biggest “in history”? You’ve got a thing for making overly broad statements, don’t you? That's what got me responding if the first place. Wait till your 65. You can turn down any SS benefits you might be entitled to in protest. I agree it could have been written better, people rely on it too much and it was expanded too much during economic heydays of the 1950s. |
I can't speak for what Brad meant, but hears a basic synopsis of Social Security: You give us a percentage of every dollar you earn in wages from the time you're born until you're "retirement age" (whatever we decide to define that as). Over the years, we'll decide what we want to do with that money. Then, if you make it to retirement age, we'll pay you a little stipend (again, whatever we define as feasible) to support you for the rest of your life. And hopefully, when that time comes, there'll be some other people paying into the scheme so that we can actually pay you.
Is it the "biggest" in history? History is a long time, and biggest is pretty big. Is it a ripoff? I'll assume the intentions were good and honest. Is it a shell game that is soon going to go bust? Absolutely.
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by bbower1956:
I don't have a problem with the military budget as that is the one thing the government is supposed to provide that is in the Constitution. |
Thanks. That’s mighty white of you. |
Would that be a racial slur...???? What about the contention? The defense of the nation is (the?) one clear constitutionally mandated part of our budget.
|
|
|
|
03/03/2005 03:29:53 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by bbower1956:
Besides, where exactly in the Constitution is the redistribution of wealth allowed by the government? The federal income tax is unconstitional. It simply is not there. You can't find it. |
Ooookkaaay. I didn’t realize you were a member of the Posse Comatatus. My apologies for the oversight. If you don’t think you have to pay federal income tax, there’re some FBI agents I’d like to introduce you to.
I would note, however, there were taxes in the U.S. on tobacco, the sale of slaves, liquor and other material goods when the Constitution was enacted. It’s unlikely the idea of taxation is making the founding fathers roll in their graves, though I doubt the taxes on the sale of slaves is quite the moneymaker it once was.
|
Maybe you went to government schools and can't read but I said the federal INCOME tax is unconstitional. And there was no income tax for many, many years after the Constition was drafted.
Government funding of the arts does not produce artists. How can a grant create talent? Why can't it be at the state level and fund raised at the state level? Why should Ohio pay for art in New York?
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/18/2025 05:25:28 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/18/2025 05:25:28 AM EDT.
|
