Yeah, I'd like to see some federal or state support for soup kitchens, rather than relying on volunteers. Through the years we've proven soup kitchens are effective, why not standardize and increase that kind of support?Turquoise wrote:
I could be wrong here, but I thought most soup kitchens were run by churches.jonsimon wrote:
You might think different if you had ever suffered in your life. Sorry, but minimum wage isn't a choice, no one choses to be the bottom of the food chain. What about the dirt poor, would you support government run soup kitchens? Or is that too commie socialist liberal evil terrorist loving for you?
Many people agree with you. However, about half of America would seem to disagree. I'll put it this way: if more Americans saw things this way, then maybe our social systems would be better run. However, as it currently stands, the half-hearted attempts that our government makes at social programs only prove that socialism is simply not compatible with American culture.CameronPoe wrote:
You are missing the argument. My argument is in favour of taxing the rich to facilitate the development of the less well off. I would not have been able to obtain said degree if it were not for our generous welfare system here in Ireland. It goes without saying that you won't progress unless you work hard but affording everyone as much oppportunity to be able to make it, meeting them half way, is what I'm about.
That's an interesting idea, and I support the possibility of state or locally funded soup kitchens. I don't support the involvement of the federal government though. They just tend to fuck things up and waste money.jonsimon wrote:
Yeah, I'd like to see some federal or state support for soup kitchens, rather than relying on volunteers. Through the years we've proven soup kitchens are effective, why not standardize and increase that kind of support?Turquoise wrote:
I could be wrong here, but I thought most soup kitchens were run by churches.jonsimon wrote:
You might think different if you had ever suffered in your life. Sorry, but minimum wage isn't a choice, no one choses to be the bottom of the food chain. What about the dirt poor, would you support government run soup kitchens? Or is that too commie socialist liberal evil terrorist loving for you?
Um... Phantom, you just contradicted yourself. Cameron would be in no position to make much money if he didn't have the programs he mentioned to educate himself with.Phantom2828 wrote:
Who pays for you to go to school. Thats right the people that are smart and successful. You you make good money you say. Well imagine how much more you would be making if you didn't have to pay for lazy people mooching (which undoubtedly happens).CameronPoe wrote:
You are missing the argument. My argument is in favour of taxing the rich to facilitate the development of the less well off. I would not have been able to obtain said degree if it were not for our generous welfare system here in Ireland. It goes without saying that you won't progress unless you work hard but affording everyone as much oppportunity to be able to make it, meeting them half way, is what I'm about.lowing wrote:
Yes yes, but you CHOSE TO GO TO SCHOOL, right???? You came from a poor family, WANTED a higher education and with assistence got it!!.........Cam, you are doing nothing but proving my point. I just don't get it. YOu took the inititive to finsh school and now you are prospering from your decision. Congrats.
PS ....I noted the "worked hard" in your post as well.............Now you know the point I have been trying to make all this time...........thank you
Becoming economically darwinian does not mean shunning the lower class, though. Instead, it would entail the end of pandering to economic special interest groups. Industries like the Sugar Beet farmers of America should have died long ago, inable to compete with the world sugar market. Instead, our federal government supports farmers that cannot support themselves, hurting the whole of society for the profit of few. The oligopolies and special interest groups of America are pulling her down, and they are at the heart of our failures. It is not social welfare or the poor that is destroying America, rather, it is the coincidentally rich.Turquoise wrote:
I used to feel this way as well, but it looks as if the opposite may be true of America. You have to remember that we have 300 million people. The next largest First World country is Germany (at about 80 million). Our ability to remain First World and still so large is nothing short of a miracle. I don't think this is going to last. I believe America will be Second World in about 50 years. This is partially due to increased world demand for resources, and due to the Hispanicization of our culture.Masques wrote:
Good point, but I think that most here that are arguing the opposing point are comparing the US to like societies (ie. the EU, Japan, Israel, Canada, etc.). While the US is much better than say Egypt it ranks near the bottom on significant societal indicators like education, health care, citizens at or below the poverty line, etc. My argument is that with the inherent advantages the US has economically and with evidence that like nations have made certain structural adjustments to raise the base line for society there is no reason for the US to lag behind in those areas listed.
Note that I'm not saying there's anything wrong with America becoming more Hispanic. I'm just saying that our culture is becoming gradually more Catholic, our families are getting larger, our obesity rate is soaring, and our general health is declining. To make matters worse, healthcare costs are getting ridiculous.
Something's gotta give in the economic tug-of-war that globalization represents, and while China and India are on the rise, America really has nowhere to go but down. We can better adapt to this by becoming more economically Darwinian.
In fact, supporting the poor is in our best interest. Remember the supposed justification for tax breaks to the rich? The money saved is reinvested in the economy. Well, economic study has proven the rich invest in positional goods, goods like larger houses and uneccesary creature comforts that raise the standards for the middle class, forcing it farther down the social scale. However, if one were to support the poor, through tax breaks or any other financial means, their extra income would be invested in essential goods and homegrown industries such as food and housing. Giving to the lower class WOULD accomplish the stated goal of the tax cuts for the rich, and would provide a vital increase in demand for important American industries and consumer goods. As the lower classes move up in rank more people can buy new cars, computers and electronics, pharmecuticals, all the consumer goods that our economy is strongest in production. Giving to the poor benefits national welfare, while giving to the rich detracts from it.
Good point.Turquoise wrote:
That's an interesting idea, and I support the possibility of state or locally funded soup kitchens. I don't support the involvement of the federal government though. They just tend to fuck things up and waste money.jonsimon wrote:
Yeah, I'd like to see some federal or state support for soup kitchens, rather than relying on volunteers. Through the years we've proven soup kitchens are effective, why not standardize and increase that kind of support?Turquoise wrote:
I could be wrong here, but I thought most soup kitchens were run by churches.
Exactly why it is important to speak out in favor of welfare. Over millenia education has proven the greatest tool of reform.Turquoise wrote:
Many people agree with you. However, about half of America would seem to disagree. I'll put it this way: if more Americans saw things this way, then maybe our social systems would be better run. However, as it currently stands, the half-hearted attempts that our government makes at social programs only prove that socialism is simply not compatible with American culture.CameronPoe wrote:
You are missing the argument. My argument is in favour of taxing the rich to facilitate the development of the less well off. I would not have been able to obtain said degree if it were not for our generous welfare system here in Ireland. It goes without saying that you won't progress unless you work hard but affording everyone as much oppportunity to be able to make it, meeting them half way, is what I'm about.
I definitely agree with the prospect of ending corporate welfare. It's one of the only things that the CATO Institute and Socialists can agree on.jonsimon wrote:
Becoming economically darwinian does not mean shunning the lower class, though. Instead, it would entail the end of pandering to economic special interest groups. Industries like the Sugar Beet farmers of America should have died long ago, inable to compete with the world sugar market. Instead, our federal government supports farmers that cannot support themselves, hurting the whole of society for the profit of few. The oligopolies and special interest groups of America are pulling her down, and they are at the heart of our failures. It is not social welfare or the poor that is destroying America, rather, it is the coincidentally rich.
Interesting... I definitely agree that providing the poor with necessary funds for increased consumption of basic goods would stimulate the economy. Bush's tax cuts definitely failed at this effort because the vast majority of benefits went to people in the highest tax bracket.jonsimon wrote:
In fact, supporting the poor is in our best interest. Remember the supposed justification for tax breaks to the rich? The money saved is reinvested in the economy. Well, economic study has proven the rich invest in positional goods, goods like larger houses and uneccesary creature comforts that raise the standards for the middle class, forcing it farther down the social scale. However, if one were to support the poor, through tax breaks or any other financial means, their extra income would be invested in essential goods and homegrown industries such as food and housing. Giving to the lower class WOULD accomplish the stated goal of the tax cuts for the rich, and would provide a vital increase in demand for important American industries and consumer goods. As the lower classes move up in rank more people can buy new cars, computers and electronics, pharmecuticals, all the consumer goods that our economy is strongest in production. Giving to the poor benefits national welfare, while giving to the rich detracts from it.
Still, I would argue the best course of action would be to give the middle class more tax breaks, increase taxes on the extremely rich, and facilitate the growth of small businesses by ending most corporation tax breaks and creating entirely new ones for small businesses (with "small business" being more conservatively defined). I think the current things in place for the poor are good enough.
Of course, giving the middle class more tax breaks would require the government to spend far less, which would discourage warfare in the end. Keeping us out of these dysfunctional countries like Iraq is a good thing.
Last edited by Turquoise (2006-10-22 11:07:01)
Perhaps, but the question remains.... Will America eventually become Second World, despite our best attempts at stopping this? I believe it is inevitable that America will fall in its standard of living.jonsimon wrote:
Exactly why it is important to speak out in favor of welfare. Over millenia education has proven the greatest tool of reform.Turquoise wrote:
Many people agree with you. However, about half of America would seem to disagree. I'll put it this way: if more Americans saw things this way, then maybe our social systems would be better run. However, as it currently stands, the half-hearted attempts that our government makes at social programs only prove that socialism is simply not compatible with American culture.CameronPoe wrote:
You are missing the argument. My argument is in favour of taxing the rich to facilitate the development of the less well off. I would not have been able to obtain said degree if it were not for our generous welfare system here in Ireland. It goes without saying that you won't progress unless you work hard but affording everyone as much oppportunity to be able to make it, meeting them half way, is what I'm about.
I seriously doubt America will remain the superpower it currently is. We just happen to be in a state of primacy at the moment. In the next century, I have a feeling that America, China, and India will all be peers economically and with regards to standard of living.
Logically, this would entail a shift in priorities. Social programs would still exist, but like a lot of the Second World, a new aristocracy will develop.
Besides, as long as so many people foolishly perceive higher taxes on the rich as "punishing success," do Americans not deserve a rude awakening in terms of policymaking? Sometimes, people only learn the hard way....
Good point... It is much easier to focus on the bad than to acknowledge the good.CameronPoe wrote:
Our ideological difference amounts to me believing that all should be cared for because to do otherwise would exclude those that do try or want to better themselves and there would also be a negative impact on society in general (as seen in difference between homeless numbers between Europe and USA) whereas you believe in not supporting all because, as I see it, you're annoyed that your money goes towards a small minority of people who are wasters.
The issue is this... How does one design a social program that can separate those that try and those that don't?lowing wrote:
There is another reason you should agree with me on this........
DO you not think that the money spent on the leeches of society would better be utilized actully helping those that truly need it?..........
Is it really too much to ask that those that can do so, ACTUALLY LIFT A FUCKIN" FINGER to help themselves so we can concentrate on those that can not?
We don't exactly pay shitloads in taxes. Compared to most of the First World, we pay very little in taxes. In certain ways, I think this is a good thing. The problem with many conservative agendas regarding taxation is that they are quick to cut taxes but slow to cut spending. Republicans have had the last 6 years to balance the budget with little opposition. They haven't.Phantom2828 wrote:
The left wing are pussy's that feel nothing is worth fighting for. They believe that people that work hard and earn their place in society should have to suffer and pay shitloads of taxes to fund the bums.
The issue here is not taxation but of spending more than the government actually collects.
Republicans don't seem to differ much from Democrats on social programs. Most neocons are in line with moderate Democrats on these topics. You act like there's some major divergence between the two, but there isn't.fadedsteve wrote:
Punishing others financially isnt answering the problem (i.e. over taxing people to "help poor and misfortunate"). You liberals are assuming that the money collected from over taxation goes to all the proper outlets.
The bottom line is Democrats and liberals are stuck in FDR's "New Deal" policy. . . . .
No, they've been driven out because of unions and globalization. Unions hender the efficiency of a company, and the quality of American autos pales in comparison to most Japanese or European vehicles. This has little to do with taxation.fadedsteve wrote:
This isnt't the 1940's, and over taxing people to create grandiose social programs is a thing of the past. Over taxing people with this uptopian ideal that if we do that, the economy will be fine, is FOOLHARDY. All raising/overtaxing does, is drive more businesses/people away to other countries or out of state. We used to be a country that prided ourselves on manufacturing goods and services. Now all we seem "manufacture" is "entertainment" and "web design/services", that is not going to sustain us!! Look at the upper mid west!! All those automobile factories have been driven out of the country or state, do to OVER TAXING and or stricter regulations of their companies!!
That's kind of the idea behind welfare too, in that it's supposed to help the poor. Nevertheless, taxing the ultrarich more than the rest of us doesn't seem so bad. If you make more than 10 million a year, I'd think a higher tax percentage isn't too much to ask, since someone in that position enjoys more benefits of society than the average citizen. For example, it takes that kind of money to arrange a personal meeting with a Senator.fadedsteve wrote:
We need to stop punishing those who make money!!!! Because the more money they save, the more products and services are able to be produced HERE in the USA. Therefore, creating jobs, allowing people to get out of poverty, etc etc i.e. Living the "American Dream".
Globalization. We could let companies operate completely tax free in America, and they'd still outsource most of it. The American government requires safer work conditions, and the general cost of production is much higher in America than in most of the Third World. Taxes play a mostly small part in all this.fadedsteve wrote:
Just collecting money with the ASSUMPTION that if we do that, we are doing the right thing, is WRONG!!!!!!
Why do you think major US companies outsource alot of their labor, and move their headquarters out of the USA?? BECAUSE THEY GET OVER TAXED AND OVER REGULATED!! We need to get these businesses back HERE at home, so we can create jobs and take care of our country/citizens.
The fact is, industry will move overseas if the labor is cheaper but still skilled enough to do the job. Tax policy has little effect on the principle of comparative advantage.
I agree with the idea of making welfare more selective.fadedsteve wrote:
Absolutely, its a failed exploited financial policy. . .
Why would you want to work, if the government is handing you a check? ? ? ? Where is the motivation in that. . . . I know when I was a kid, and my parents were giving me money, I had no work ethic whatsoever! Obiviously there are extreme cases for people who REALLY need help. However they should be taken on an individual basis, so that funds are distributed to the right people who really need the money. Not blanket checks just because you are poor. . . that isnt helping the government, the peoples motivation to work, or the taxpayers.
I don't think its all a matter of the SOL falling so much as being utterly surpased by the rest of the modern world.Turquoise wrote:
Perhaps, but the question remains.... Will America eventually become Second World, despite our best attempts at stopping this? I believe it is inevitable that America will fall in its standard of living.jonsimon wrote:
Exactly why it is important to speak out in favor of welfare. Over millenia education has proven the greatest tool of reform.Turquoise wrote:
Many people agree with you. However, about half of America would seem to disagree. I'll put it this way: if more Americans saw things this way, then maybe our social systems would be better run. However, as it currently stands, the half-hearted attempts that our government makes at social programs only prove that socialism is simply not compatible with American culture.
I seriously doubt America will remain the superpower it currently is. We just happen to be in a state of primacy at the moment. In the next century, I have a feeling that America, China, and India will all be peers economically and with regards to standard of living.
Logically, this would entail a shift in priorities. Social programs would still exist, but like a lot of the Second World, a new aristocracy will develop.
Besides, as long as so many people foolishly perceive higher taxes on the rich as "punishing success," do Americans not deserve a rude awakening in terms of policymaking? Sometimes, people only learn the hard way....
This is another approach that I whole heartedly support.Turquoise wrote:
I definitely agree with the prospect of ending corporate welfare. It's one of the only things that the CATO Institute and Socialists can agree on.jonsimon wrote:
Becoming economically darwinian does not mean shunning the lower class, though. Instead, it would entail the end of pandering to economic special interest groups. Industries like the Sugar Beet farmers of America should have died long ago, inable to compete with the world sugar market. Instead, our federal government supports farmers that cannot support themselves, hurting the whole of society for the profit of few. The oligopolies and special interest groups of America are pulling her down, and they are at the heart of our failures. It is not social welfare or the poor that is destroying America, rather, it is the coincidentally rich.Interesting... I definitely agree that providing the poor with necessary funds for increased consumption of basic goods would stimulate the economy. Bush's tax cuts definitely failed at this effort because the vast majority of benefits went to people in the highest tax bracket.jonsimon wrote:
In fact, supporting the poor is in our best interest. Remember the supposed justification for tax breaks to the rich? The money saved is reinvested in the economy. Well, economic study has proven the rich invest in positional goods, goods like larger houses and uneccesary creature comforts that raise the standards for the middle class, forcing it farther down the social scale. However, if one were to support the poor, through tax breaks or any other financial means, their extra income would be invested in essential goods and homegrown industries such as food and housing. Giving to the lower class WOULD accomplish the stated goal of the tax cuts for the rich, and would provide a vital increase in demand for important American industries and consumer goods. As the lower classes move up in rank more people can buy new cars, computers and electronics, pharmecuticals, all the consumer goods that our economy is strongest in production. Giving to the poor benefits national welfare, while giving to the rich detracts from it.
Still, I would argue the best course of action would be to give the middle class more tax breaks, increase taxes on the extremely rich, and facilitate the growth of small businesses by ending most corporation tax breaks and creating entirely new ones for small businesses (with "small business" being more conservatively defined). I think the current things in place for the poor are good enough.
Of course, giving the middle class more tax breaks would require the government to spend far less, which would discourage warfare in the end. Keeping us out of these dysfunctional countries like Iraq is a good thing.
Out of curiosity, who does lowing think the needy are, if not the poor?lowing wrote:
There is another reason you should agree with me on this........
DO you not think that the money spent on the leeches of society would better be utilized actully helping those that truly need it?..........
Is it really too much to ask that those that can do so, ACTUALLY LIFT A FUCKIN" FINGER to help themselves so we can concentrate on those that can not?
'Guaranteed minimum income' is an idea that's been tossed around in the Nordic countries for some time now.
Under this scheme, the state provides every adult citizen with a 'salary' that's enough to provide accommodation, food and basic communications. If you're not picky.
I'm beginning to like the idea very much. This would solve a lot of the inefficiency and bureaucracy inherent in targeted or selective welfare systems.
'Guaranteed minimum income' also provides a way out of the 'welfare trap', because welfare and low income work are no longer mutually exclusive options.
Under this scheme, the state provides every adult citizen with a 'salary' that's enough to provide accommodation, food and basic communications. If you're not picky.
I'm beginning to like the idea very much. This would solve a lot of the inefficiency and bureaucracy inherent in targeted or selective welfare systems.
'Guaranteed minimum income' also provides a way out of the 'welfare trap', because welfare and low income work are no longer mutually exclusive options.
Sounds pretty nifty.apollo_fi wrote:
'Guaranteed minimum income' is an idea that's been tossed around in the Nordic countries for some time now.
Under this scheme, the state provides every adult citizen with a 'salary' that's enough to provide accommodation, food and basic communications. If you're not picky.
I'm beginning to like the idea very much. This would solve a lot of the inefficiency and bureaucracy inherent in targeted or selective welfare systems.
'Guaranteed minimum income' also provides a way out of the 'welfare trap', because welfare and low income work are no longer mutually exclusive options.
Are you FORCED to go to university, or do you CHOOSE to go to university, regardless of where it is being finianced? Either way my point is, who ever goes CHOSE to do so, and that is the difference between taking responsibility to better yourself, and saying fuck it, I will take the free ride.IG-Calibre wrote:
Everyone who pays tax in Ireland pays for those who want to go to university - it is not just a gift bestowed out of benevolence by those who are smart & successful but by every tax payer. In fact most people who are smart and successful usually try to pay as little tax as they can..Phantom2828 wrote:
Who pays for you to go to school. Thats right the people that are smart and successful. You you make good money you say. Well imagine how much more you would be making if you didn't have to pay for lazy people mooching (which undoubtedly happens).CameronPoe wrote:
You are missing the argument. My argument is in favour of taxing the rich to facilitate the development of the less well off. I would not have been able to obtain said degree if it were not for our generous welfare system here in Ireland. It goes without saying that you won't progress unless you work hard but affording everyone as much oppportunity to be able to make it, meeting them half way, is what I'm about.
On the contrary, the illogical aspect of that conversation is, his agreement with the fore fathers ideals, and his dismissal of the document that turned those ideals into reality.Turquoise wrote:
Believe it or not, some would call you an economic moderate, rather than an economic conservative. I personally believe in privatizing education completely, since I'm an economically conservative Libertarian.lowing wrote:
I support govt. funded social programs, free college for those that need it, low interest college loans, child care credits, etc....for ANYONE who is trying ot help themselves.
I do not support taking care of an able bodied 30 year old who makes "minimum wage" for no other reason than, his lack of drive, ambition, or attitude. This is something I have said 10,000 times and I just can't get you liberals to admit that it is a reasonable request to ask of any able bodied person.
Ummmmmmm, I dunno what to say...........you maintain our Constitution is "outdated" and therfore, I can only assume, irrelevent. Yet you praise our founding fathers all of who actually signed it.
If you are going ot ride the US gravy train, do you not agree that you better have a good reason why you are on board???
While I agree that we need to take a closer look at the kind of people we subsidize on welfare, I believe your approach to refuting jonsimon is rather illogical. He may have called the Constitution outdated, but that is a relevant observation considering we occasionally make amendments to it. Perhaps, it is time we made a few more....
We are not afforded the same opportunites? Can you show me an example of a single person who was DENIED education in this country, who really wanted one??Turquoise wrote:
I agree with this. It is true that not everyone is afforded the same opportunities. We live in a classist system, because every country is classist to a point. I think a much better argument for less socialism in America is that most of us are given enough of an opportunity to become self-sufficient. Some people do fall through the cracks, and others are people that inherit fortunes (like Bush). Obviously, this means we're not all equals with regards to opportunity.CameronPoe wrote:
Lowing is trying to say everyone is afforded the same opportunity in life. That is simply completely untrue. And yet he persists with his line of 'reasoning' carefully skirting the actual realities of life as applied to the totality of everyone within the nation.
Nonetheless, America is much better than most of the world when it comes to giving a minimum but feasible amount of opportunity to its poorer citizens.
1. tax returnsTurquoise wrote:
The issue is this... How does one design a social program that can separate those that try and those that don't?lowing wrote:
There is another reason you should agree with me on this........
DO you not think that the money spent on the leeches of society would better be utilized actully helping those that truly need it?..........
Is it really too much to ask that those that can do so, ACTUALLY LIFT A FUCKIN" FINGER to help themselves so we can concentrate on those that can not?
2. length of time sucking the govts. tit
3. applications entered for higher education
4. actually attending some sort of trade school or college.
5. age
6. criminal record
All these things considered, and probably more I have not thought off, would paint a pretty good picture of those who need asssitance in helping themselves and those that just want a ride.
Cameronpoe, had the ambition, desire, willpower and passion, to better himself, regardless as to how he got finianced, the point is, he CHOSE t otake advantage of it. We have programs here in the US as well, the difference is those that do and do not take advantage of them. This is the basis of my argument. Cameronpoe has helped himself, therefore recieved needed assistance. I applaude it.Turquoise wrote:
Um... Phantom, you just contradicted yourself. Cameron would be in no position to make much money if he didn't have the programs he mentioned to educate himself with.Phantom2828 wrote:
Who pays for you to go to school. Thats right the people that are smart and successful. You you make good money you say. Well imagine how much more you would be making if you didn't have to pay for lazy people mooching (which undoubtedly happens).CameronPoe wrote:
You are missing the argument. My argument is in favour of taxing the rich to facilitate the development of the less well off. I would not have been able to obtain said degree if it were not for our generous welfare system here in Ireland. It goes without saying that you won't progress unless you work hard but affording everyone as much oppportunity to be able to make it, meeting them half way, is what I'm about.
He wasn't dismissing it, but I can see how you might interpret it that way.lowing wrote:
On the contrary, the illogical aspect of that conversation is, his agreement with the fore fathers ideals, and his dismissal of the document that turned those ideals into reality.Turquoise wrote:
Believe it or not, some would call you an economic moderate, rather than an economic conservative. I personally believe in privatizing education completely, since I'm an economically conservative Libertarian.lowing wrote:
I support govt. funded social programs, free college for those that need it, low interest college loans, child care credits, etc....for ANYONE who is trying ot help themselves.
I do not support taking care of an able bodied 30 year old who makes "minimum wage" for no other reason than, his lack of drive, ambition, or attitude. This is something I have said 10,000 times and I just can't get you liberals to admit that it is a reasonable request to ask of any able bodied person.
Ummmmmmm, I dunno what to say...........you maintain our Constitution is "outdated" and therfore, I can only assume, irrelevent. Yet you praise our founding fathers all of who actually signed it.
If you are going ot ride the US gravy train, do you not agree that you better have a good reason why you are on board???
While I agree that we need to take a closer look at the kind of people we subsidize on welfare, I believe your approach to refuting jonsimon is rather illogical. He may have called the Constitution outdated, but that is a relevant observation considering we occasionally make amendments to it. Perhaps, it is time we made a few more....