by teenyuck 20 Replies latest jw friends
People should be able to live and exist on wlefare but not enjoy it.
are you kidding? There are people who have made 'careers' out of being on welfare for two and three generations...they're experts at 'beating the system'. Also, there is so much fraud.... people collecting on multiple accounts who make six figure incomes. I don't mind helping those who need help, but the waste from the unconcerned politicians is numbing.
Soylent Green.....
Personal and family responsibility.
When the government decided that they knew better how to handle our money for everyday living, the people should have risen up and said NO. History has proven that the government cannot handle our money and does not have our best interests at heart.
Lawmakers simply do not listen to the people anymore. It is all about special interests.
Nearly every American citizen receives some form of aid these days, regardless of need.
Is that true? What form does this aid take?
I was thinking about myself (here in the UK), I have been paying my National Insurance contributions for 14 years. I have had a job continuously since I left school (state education), so I am fortunate never to have had to claim unemployment benefit (or is it Jobseekers Allowance these days?). So I was thinking that I have not had anything back out of the system in that time.
Depends on what you count as aid, welfare or benefit. I have been provided with healthcare all my life, and free contraception for the last 13 years, as well as an education to the age of 17. These days I could pay for those things myself, but at 18, on £3120 a year it might not have been so easy. Being ill or getting pregnant would not have helped much.
I used to get tax relief on mortgage payments, but that stopped years ago.
My personal viewpoint is that I am proud to be a British subject, and a member of our society. I am glad to be part of a society that cares for the weak and disadvantaged. That has to be paid for. Our politicians tell me that it is possible to care for the weak, improve health services, have more teachers, more policemen, and put more people in prison, and cut taxes. I am only a humble voter, so I don't understand how that works, but if they say they'll do it, I'm sure it must be true.
So you're a "flat-taxer" huh Teeny? Myself, I see the good in both the flat tax and a national sales tax.
Either way would be better than what we have now, but only if administered properly.
Personally I'd prefer a national sales tax. And not a single rate for every purchase. Food and essentials at a lower rate and non-essentials at a higher but reasonable rate and some strict controls over increases. I've read something about a proposal for a national sales tax that would send "refund" checks to low-income people. Bad idea. If we're going to change the system, lose the refunds completely. Well maybe not. Have a provision in the national sales tax law that says should the gov't ever get its act together and there's a surplus, that surplus goes back to the people. In the most simple manner possible. The refund is x dollars, divide that by the number of citizens, and mail an equal check to everyone.
(now THAT'S sure to draw some flames! )
Mike.
Bendrr....Doh!!!!
Thats what I meant!!!! I was *thinking* (kinda, sorta, before coffee) and knew it was a tax every one paid....you got it. A sales tax. (slaps forehead)
Either way would be better than what we have now, but only if administered properly.
The key is to get citizen groups involved to oversee the gov in these types of things. We need a consumers group to help....
I see no reason for flames....
My problem with the welfare system is pretty much the same as the problem I have with socialized medicine , there are just too many people who like to milk the system and collect on falsified claims . I notice the medical side is even inventing new illnesses to explain why people can't work such as chronic fatigue . I know the government has the money but they are trying to manipulate the world economy and make everyone dependent on US aid .
Many people are 'rugged individualists' until they find themselves in a world of shit due to circumstance. I never understood why people are so offended at the notion of a portion of their taxes going into a pool to help people during hard times.
and modern citizens have come to expect a government that intervenes to soften the landing when they fall.
Whats wrong with that? We can debate how much of a safety net we want, but the idea isn't bad. My grandfather grew on a farm as a 'rugged individualist' before many government safety nets. Stories of the family living in fear of having a bad crop and being wiped out with no where to go and no one to help. No thanks. Life should be more than just worrying about survival all the time.
Utopian Reformist asked:
Do you realy believe any of the rich would ever use their power or resources to save the rest of us if a national collapse occurred?
to which Teenyuck replied:
No, I don't think the rich would use their power or resources to save the rest of us....why should they? Are they required to? Is that a prerequiste to be wealthy?
The poor found out quickly after 1929 that indeed the rich weren't going to lend them a hand. This being a democracy, they elected a Robin Hood president in FDR.
I believe in limited government welfare programs, because the rich hate the poor, and vice versa, so the government becomes a necessary go-between via taxation.
The poor are going to get money from the rich one way or another, either by plunder or taxation.
Are there any modern societies that aren't socialistic in some respects? I mean, was Marx absolutely wrong in every way?
Welfare as an absolute minimum safety net...good idea.
'Great Society' entitlementism...bad idea.
Check out these comments from a former submarine officer:
"Many people don't understand that the military is basically a socialist enclave of the U. S. in the following senses.
The military is a top-down, centrally-planned society. The military tells you what job to do, where to live (die), and takes care of your needs for you, e.g., everyone gets health care, meals, housing, transportation, eyeglasses, dental care, prescriptions. The social safety net is really very wide, and it is all provided by the federal government. The military is owned by the "soldiers/workers" in the sense that the government of the U.S. is "of" the people, "by" the people, and "for" the people.
Because of this, even though the military is a "top-down" community, most people in the military are better taken care of by their employer than is a typical civilian doing a similar job. Corporate America is much more of a jungle than the military. More civilians workers than soldiers are injured or killed on the job! And I'll even go so far as to say that my submarine seemed more democratic than many of the civilian workplaces I've seen, in the sense that the submarine commanders I worked for listened to the other officers and to the crew, and made decisions that often reflected that input---not on everything, of course, but more often than in my current workplace (a university!!!). That's because a mistake in a submarine can cause everyone, including the captain, to die at the bottom of the ocean. So there's more of a sense of community, that everyone needs to do well for me to do well.
The strange thing, though, is that the Republican Party is seen as "owning" the military vote, even though many of the social programs that exist for soldier-workers are criticized vociferously by Republicans when proposed for civilian-workers.
It really makes no sense for military people to vote for Republicans. If the Republicans were consistent and honest, they would propose *privatizing* the military. By their arguments, the federal government can't do anything efficiently or well, so why trust the government with something as important as national security?
But the Republicans do not propose this. Therefore, they implicitly acknowledge that the government *can* do things well, which means that Democrats should argue that we should extend those social programs that work in the military to the rest of society because when workers are better taken care of, they can focus on doing better work for their employers.
The point I want to make with this essay is that someone needs to give "permission" to folks in the military to vote for Democrats. While I do not like the idea of retired generals becoming President (or Secretary of State), I do think that Wesley Clark will get a lot of military people thinking about voting for a Democrat for the first time ever.
This is good news for the Democratic Party.
Howard Dean should reach out to military people in other ways beside being against Bush's making a mess in Iraq. He should point out that military people have social programs that work. Why shouldn't civilian workers also have those same programs? And wouldn't soldiers like to leave the military and not lose their health care and other social benefits?
Dean should point out that the social contract between soldiers and the military is more consistent with the Democratic Party than with the Republican Party. Don't let Clark be the only one saying these things!
The military really is more progressive socially and ahead of the rest of the country in a lot of ways. Vermont is like that also..."
IronGland --- I think farmers get too much these days , WTF they pay them not to grow crops .
Last I knew the veterans do get medical and social bennefits . There is such a thing as the VA .
I heard it said that you could make up to 7.80 $ an hour and still qualify for welfare . I am willing to bet that most americans make less than that .
