Inequality for All

[Archer77]

It is easy AND fair to blame the govt for the specific scenario I originally mentioned because it is the GOVERNMENT that set it up that way. People are abusing the system because the govt lets them; just as they pave the way for the people Parker describes.

The system has built so much momentum that its impossible to stop the machine even after its plainly obvious its barreling out of control.  After decades of spending on social programs, its pretty obvious that such efforts either failed or any benefits derived from them have long since dissipated.

[Wiggs]

Don't worry about it gentlemen. As unbelievable as it may sound to you, an economic reset button will be pressed very soon.

[Archer77]

Don't worry about it gentlemen. As unbelievable as it may sound to you, an economical reset button will be pressed very soon.

Ill be on my ranch in Montana if anybody wants to reach me.

[Parker]

The system has built so much momentum that its impossible to stop the machine even after its plainly obvious its barreling out of control.  After decades of spending on social programs, its pretty obvious that such efforts either failed or any benefits derived from them have long since dissipated.

I think the only way to stop it, is a sort of domino effect of appeal to the people. Most of today's people 40 and under grew up with a lack of structure, dyfunction, or parents just couldn't cut it...the government became the parent. If one can somehow harness the mass' wants for a better life and transform that into a desire to get it themselves...then there is a chance.

"One would rather rule in failure, than partner in success"...is a saying, the ability to make people see that they are ruling in failure, and try to get them on the "high" of partnering is success of this nation and their communities.

[avxo]

I've been thinking of picking up some extra money, maybe buy a new car and do some upgrades to my house. How many kids do you think I need to get enough government checks to accomplish my financial goals? Do you know which states pay the best because here in Oregon a family of three with little or no income is entitled to $503 per month? I probably spend this much at Starbucks each month. I was hoping for more like a couple of grand on top of what I have coming in already.

More silliness.

My point is that I don't think you should be entitled to even a $1, let alone $503 per month. Why? It's quite simple really. I am not responsible for your family, and if you can't afford to feed it that's your problem and not mine.

Why should money get taken from me at the point of the proverbial gun to feed you? Do I owe you anything? What do you think entitle you to the fruits of my labor?

[Primemuscle]

The new scam is SSI and many people are in on it. They even run ads on TV in my area for attorneys helping people get SSI. You have people who have are bipolar getting checks just to sit on their butts all day. Weed heads, heroin addicts, drunks, and just damn lazy people all have something that "prevents them from working". It is huge...

What l think you mean is SSD (Social Security Disability).  Despite what you imagine, SSD benefits are difficult to get. Almost without exception all new claims are denied. An appeal takes at minimum 2 years to be heard.

[Shockwave]

More silliness.

My point is that I don't think you should be entitled to even a $1, let alone $503 per month. Why? It's quite simple really. I am not responsible for your family, and if you can't afford to feed it that's your problem and not mine.

Why should money get taken from me at the point of the proverbial gun to feed you? Do I owe you anything? What do you think entitle you to the fruits of my labor?

face.

[Primemuscle]

More silliness.

My point is that I don't think you should be entitled to even a $1, let alone $503 per month. Why? It's quite simple really. I am not responsible for your family, and if you can't afford to feed it that's your problem and not mine.

Why should money get taken from me at the point of the proverbial gun to feed you? Do I owe you anything? What do you think entitle you to the fruits of my labor?

I think you'd be happier living somewhere other than the U.S. Not sure where since most civilized countries have some socialized programs, but maybe India or some African third world country.

[avxo]

I think you'd be happier living somewhere other than the U.S. Not sure where since most civilized countries have some socialized programs, but maybe India or some African third world country.

I would be happiest living in the country envisioned by the Founders of this nation, actually. As for what most "civilized" countries do, I'd argue that any country that implements the sort of "socialized programs" you support forfeits the "civilized" label. Why? Because the majority "decided" that they can, at the point of the government's gun, sign checks in my name. Checks which I make sure are cashed because I'm held at gunpoint. But a transaction that occurs at gunpoint isn't a civilized transaction, and those who point a gun to my face to force me to open my wallet, even when they have a fancy badge and act in the name of democracy, are thugs and robbers.

I'll ask you again, under what moral principle do you think that you can seize my means to fulfill your ends?

[_bruce_]

I think you'd be happier living somewhere other than the U.S. Not sure where since most civilized countries have some socialized programs, but maybe India or some African third world country.

These programs are ace if access is regulated but unfortunately their abuse has wreaked some good havoc on the system breeding a generation of, often foreign, leeches.
Civilized countries only exist when they're made up of civilized people which are target number one by our fine governments.

[Archer77]

These programs are ace if access is regulated but unfortunately their abuse has wreaked some good havoc on the system breeding a generation of, often foreign, leeches.
Civilized countries only exist when they're made up of civilized people which are target number one by our fine governments.

I agree totally.  These programs do not address the underlying problem of dependency.  What was designed as a type of last case scenario for people in need has become an acceptable lifestyle.  Allowing amnesty to millions of illegals will only stress the system further by increasing the burden on working Americans.

[_bruce_]

I agree totally.  These programs do not address the underlying problem of dependency.  What was designed as a type of last case scenario for people in need has become an acceptable lifestyle.  Allowing amnesty to millions of illegals will only stress the system further by increasing the burden on working Americans.

It won't stress it, as it has already been destroyed, ..that's been the sole reason for laissez-faire immigration - it's a weapon, a tool to carve up one huge cake into smaller and weaker parts -> a blubbering stew where the higher ups are chief eternal.

Since decades the western nations have been under an onslaught of "politically correct" terror which serves to mentally break the host nations, minimize self determination and polarize it's people. The enrichment people, aka immigrants, are more often than not stout socialist supporters and vote out a dying middle class.

The Islamists have long used this mechanism to push their own agenda and exported people into oil depending countries as a, sometimes literally, ticking bomb.

[The Showstoppa]

As a beginning point, the U.S. Government needs to stop issuing checks for every kid the "poor" pop out. Set a limit: say, ONE.

QFMFT!!!!!   Mandatory sterilization if you have two kids and can not financially support them. If you want govt assistance then how is it not logical?  They have proven to be a burden on society so why allow them to continue to procreate?

[Montague]

QFMFT!!!!!   Mandatory sterilization if you have two kids and can not financially support them. If you want govt assistance then how is it not logical?  They have proven to be a burden on society so why allow them to continue to procreate?

Show,
Let's say I had a kid I couldn't afford. A little guy from the IRS knocks on your door and says you must fork over 5% of your income to help support my kid. I know you're a good dude and would probably be happy to help.

10 months later, I have another kid...that I still can't afford, and the same IRS guy says they're now going to take 10% of your pay to help support both of my kids. You may question the logic in me having a second child when I couldn't even support one, but you agree.

Then, I keep having a new kid, on average, every 9-11 months, and that IRS prick shows up after every one demanding more money from you for my kids. At what point do you determine enough is enough?

The people in charge of government assistance are not making that call, and they NEED TO!!!

[dr.chimps]

We are talking about USA, aren't we? Computers have same price everywhere in the world. In fact, they are cheaper in USA than anywhere else. Let's compare USA to Poland, shall we? Poor people in Poland earn about 500$ per month. Cost of living is maybe 80% of what it is here. Do the math. On top of that, I come from the biggest shithole in Poland. And yes, still, people do have computers here. And everyone has access to internet.

So please don't bullshit me. You don't even know the real meaning of "poor". You merely adopted the poverty. I was born in it, moulded by it. I didn't see iPhone until I was already a man...

Hehe.   

[Primemuscle]

I would be happiest living in the country envisioned by the Founders of this nation, actually. As for what most "civilized" countries do, I'd argue that any country that implements the sort of "socialized programs" you support forfeits the "civilized" label. Why? Because the majority "decided" that they can, at the point of the government's gun, sign checks in my name. Checks which I make sure are cashed because I'm held at gunpoint. But a transaction that occurs at gunpoint isn't a civilized transaction, and those who point a gun to my face to force me to open my wallet, even when they have a fancy badge and act in the name of democracy, are thugs and robbers.

I'll ask you again, under what moral principle do you think that you can seize my means to fulfill your ends?

You don't have the means for fulfill my ends. I guess you should just stop worrying about it, because from your post, you seem a bit obsessed and angry with regards to this subject. I don't have any idea where you can go where you can earn a decent living and not pay any taxes. When you figure that out, let me know.

[Primemuscle]

Show,
Let's say I had a kid I couldn't afford. A little guy from the IRS knocks on your door and says you must fork over 5% of your income to help support my kid. I know you're a good dude and would probably be happy to help.

10 months later, I have another kid...that I still can't afford, and the same IRS guy says they're now going to take 10% of your pay to help support both of my kids. You may question the logic in me having a second child when I couldn't even support one, but you agree.

Then, I keep having a new kid, on average, every 9-11 months, and that IRS prick shows up after every one demanding more money from you for my kids. At what point do you determine enough is enough?

The people in charge of government assistance are not making that call, and they NEED TO!!!

Let's say you have 10 kids and since you earn a good income you can well afford to take care of them. One day you get fired and can't find another job that pays enough money to support all those kids. Should the government take them from you and exterminate them because you can no longer afford them?

[avxo]

You don't have the means for fulfill my ends. I guess you should just stop worrying about it, because from your post, you seem a bit obsessed and angry with regards to this subject. I don't have any idea where you can go where you can earn a decent living and not pay any taxes. When you figure that out, let me know.

I don't want to not pay any taxes. There are things which are appropriate and for which government can and should tax people in order to provide them: police, courts and military come to mind.

You say I seem angry. You know, I am and I think I'm justified. Because I see politicians take money from me by a vote, only to then throw it away on commercials against smoking and bank bailouts. Because I see my fellow citizens think they can live of me and elect people to vote to let them do it.

You say I don't have the means to justify your ends; perhaps and that depends on what your ends are. But that's is pussy-footing around the issue. But you support programs that take money from my pocket to give to someone else. What is that, if not using my means to justify your ends?

You can accuse me of being cold-hearted or whatever, because I don't want to be taxed so that the government can then turn around and give people good stamps. But then, I would, voluntarily donate money to a private charity to do the same thing.

[The Showstoppa]

Let's say you have 10 kids and since you earn a good income you can well afford to take care of them. One day you get fired and can't find another job that pays enough money to support all those kids. Should the government take them from you and exterminate them because you can no longer afford them?

So you would compare the probability of your "scenario" to the reality of what Montague and me said?   THAT is the real problem.  Anytime someone comes up with plausible solutions some dumbass comes up with some 1 in a billion scenario and thinks its comparable. 

[avxo]

Let's say you have 10 kids and since you earn a good income you can well afford to take care of them. One day you get fired and can't find another job that pays enough money to support all those kids. Should the government take them from you and exterminate them because you can no longer afford them?

Again, bifurcation. There are private charities that can help. But beyond that, I will also speak the politically incorrect opinion: If you can't care for your children – the reason doesn't matter – you are a bad parent and you and only you are responsible for what happens to those kids.

As for the government exterminating them? I am fundamentally opposed to that. Nobody can violate the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of the people.

[Montague]

Let's say you have 10 kids and since you earn a good income you can well afford to take care of them. One day you get fired and can't find another job that pays enough money to support all those kids. Should the government take them from you and exterminate them because you can no longer afford them?

You're describing an entirely different context than the scenario I narrated. I'm referring to people continually choosing to have children they cannot provide for, and the government perpetually handing them money from our incomes.

Your complete deviation from that context tells me that either:
a.) you truly don't understand the point several of us are making in this thread, or
b.) you are deflecting in a futile attempt to defend your stance.

[The Ugly]

Avxo and Montague layin' it down. Good work, gentlemen.

[240_Iz_Nutz]

You are trolling right? This is so far from true, even in the USA, that this statement has to be a troll. Let's not even get to talking about the rest of the world.

edit: Your claim is anecdotal for someone living in Poland. Well, it's wrong. Especially when applied to countries like the USA. I know of at least a dozen people personally that don't own, nor have access to a computer. Let alone the internet. Yeah, this is anecdotal, but it's the absolute truth. And these are people that aren't considered "poor" in the USA. Each one of these people know their own chain of people in the same situation.

There are libraries everywhere that have free computer use with nice connections.

[Roger Bacon]

We are talking about USA, aren't we? Computers have same price everywhere in the world. In fact, they are cheaper in USA than anywhere else. Let's compare USA to Poland, shall we? Poor people in Poland earn about 500$ per month. Cost of living is maybe 80% of what it is here. Do the math. On top of that, I come from the biggest shithole in Poland. And yes, still, people do have computers here. And everyone has access to internet.

So please don't bullshit me. You don't even know the real meaning of "poor". You merely adopted the poverty. I was born in it, moulded by it. I didn't see iPhone until I was already a man...

Exactly!  Even the most rural, undeveloped areas in Appalachia have public schools and libraries packed with modern computers and internet access.

Anyone in the United States, regardless of their location has internet access.  It may be a little bit less convenient in the worst cases.  

[240_Iz_Nutz]

The program, as it is currently run, is a "reward system" that encourages "poor" people to have more children they cannot afford. I know many people are producing children solely for the U.S Treasury checks that they bring. We need to move away from that type of encouragement, as it is certainly not helping the problem, but rather propagating it.

I am with you on this. Feed your kids ramen and mac and cheese and sell the rest of the money off for half price to fund your habits.