You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Welfare State Mentality....
- Thread starter Jets2007
- Start date
Not to get too far off base but Al Gore was on the committee that funded the development of the internet and was actually quite instrumental in the development of the internet, which is exactly what he claimed. But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of a good sound bite.
Al Gore is so pompous and self important that even when he's actually telling the truth people assume it's a lie, how funny is that?
Al Gore is so pompous and self important that even when he's actually telling the truth people assume it's a lie, how funny is that?
But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of a good sound bite.
The thread needed something light since nothing new has been said in the last 50 posts.Just a contest to see who can get the last word.
The Tourist
Moderator
ZeroJunk said:Thats's a joke. Al Gore invented the internet.
Actually, Al Gore would be far too young.
Univac was invented by people the age of my parents, and that's the WWII generation.
If I was to name something accomplished primarily by the younger generations it would be bio-tech, or at least refining the ideas to actually make and market something beyond theory.
I've often wondered how my grandmother collected Social Security for more years than they worked and never paid a dime into it (they were military retirees and I suppose back in the 30's, 40's and 50's the military didn't take out SS)?
I think anytime you subsidize behavior, you will get more of it.
I also think that our obligations to the poor extend to education and training the first time. After spending $70,000 on average from K-12 education, if your skills and education can't find you employment because you have made terrible decisions with your life, then I think there is no requirement of the Government to confiscate my money to pay you because you have children.
We are in life wherever our decision making put us. Good or bad. If, like me, you fathered kids as a teenager and then had to join the military, and live impoverished for a decade before going to college (thanks Uncle Sam!), then fine. Accept responsibility for your actions. Do your best to correct it. I probably could have gotten onto welfare and had I done so, I bet I would have never gone to college; may not have joined the Army, nor eventually put myself where I am today. Why would I?
Hungry kids and self-respect are a powerful motivator.
I think anytime you subsidize behavior, you will get more of it.
I also think that our obligations to the poor extend to education and training the first time. After spending $70,000 on average from K-12 education, if your skills and education can't find you employment because you have made terrible decisions with your life, then I think there is no requirement of the Government to confiscate my money to pay you because you have children.
We are in life wherever our decision making put us. Good or bad. If, like me, you fathered kids as a teenager and then had to join the military, and live impoverished for a decade before going to college (thanks Uncle Sam!), then fine. Accept responsibility for your actions. Do your best to correct it. I probably could have gotten onto welfare and had I done so, I bet I would have never gone to college; may not have joined the Army, nor eventually put myself where I am today. Why would I?
Hungry kids and self-respect are a powerful motivator.
The Tourist
Moderator
kjm said:Hungry kids and self-respect are a powerful motivator.
KJM, I don't know you, but you sound like a decent guy.
If so, then you probably have done some pro bono work in your life. I think it's a good idea.
In my state of Wisconsin, the deer herds here are becoming a problem. You hear stories of the DNR mismanagement, you hear the horrors of CWD, some places have the despised "earn a buck" programs, and some areas haven't seen a decent deer in three years.
In this mess, are the subsistance hunters. These are guys with families, or extended families in rural areas. They don't hunt for sport or trophies, they hunt to eat--whatever is in season.
I see these guys in the sporting goods store buying only what they truly need. Things like ammo (or reloading components), jackets, etc.
I make sure they have a good sharp knife when they leave.
And I either lie about what the knife costs or sharpen for free. They don't know the truth, but that's part of the gig.
Now, they have families. I don't think a hand up is a hand out. What are these guys doing wrong? Farming has always been a crap shoot, and Wsconsin prides itself on the work of farmers and the dairy industry.
Is this charity? I don't think so. It's what the Amish practice, it's what neighbors used to do. I'll bake you a apple pie, and your kids shovel my snow, that sort of thing.
In that mix we have food stamps, tax deductions and grants. Carefully monitored, I see no reason why a guy trying to support his family cannot petition his government for limited help in thin years.
I'm not for welfare queens, don't get me wrong. I look at this more as community involvement.
KJM,that's well said.
My father worked in a cotton mill and my mother was a cook in the school cafeteria.Yet ,I managed to make enough money to retire when I was 50,and didn't screw anybody or steal anything to do it.I did it by working long hours at something I really didn't like doing starting when I was 15 years old.And I saved 15 % every year for about 30 years.( could have bought a lot of stuff instead of saving)
The eternal victims that post in this forum have an unbelievable imagination for coming up with reasons why many can't make it.I had a very hard time finding people that wanted to work.We had at least a dozen over the years work a few days and leave,some would come in the first day and not come back after lunch.It was just simple telephone customer service.Everybody that has stayed there has at least $300,000 in profit sharing contributed 100% by the company.
The quitters are probably sitting at home now posting on some forum about how they couldn't make it without the government.
Welfare mentality indeed.
My father worked in a cotton mill and my mother was a cook in the school cafeteria.Yet ,I managed to make enough money to retire when I was 50,and didn't screw anybody or steal anything to do it.I did it by working long hours at something I really didn't like doing starting when I was 15 years old.And I saved 15 % every year for about 30 years.( could have bought a lot of stuff instead of saving)
The eternal victims that post in this forum have an unbelievable imagination for coming up with reasons why many can't make it.I had a very hard time finding people that wanted to work.We had at least a dozen over the years work a few days and leave,some would come in the first day and not come back after lunch.It was just simple telephone customer service.Everybody that has stayed there has at least $300,000 in profit sharing contributed 100% by the company.
The quitters are probably sitting at home now posting on some forum about how they couldn't make it without the government.
Welfare mentality indeed.
Dust Monkey
New member
If you paid into SS, you should get your money back.
If you are on welfare, HUD, food stamps, section 8 housing, please get a job or starve.
IMO, the government is not supposed to make sure you have food, a house, a car, medical care, or education. That is your responsibility.
I remember reading somewhere that over 50% of americans get some form of entitlement. 50%, that is a good voting block for any party who wants to continue squeezing the govt teat for lazy people.
Welfare or entitlements are wrong. It is robbery and slavery for those whose taxes go to support it. I believe in 05, right at 52% of our national budget was earmarked for entitlements.
Its time for people to either get a job or starve.
If you are on welfare, HUD, food stamps, section 8 housing, please get a job or starve.
IMO, the government is not supposed to make sure you have food, a house, a car, medical care, or education. That is your responsibility.
I remember reading somewhere that over 50% of americans get some form of entitlement. 50%, that is a good voting block for any party who wants to continue squeezing the govt teat for lazy people.
Welfare or entitlements are wrong. It is robbery and slavery for those whose taxes go to support it. I believe in 05, right at 52% of our national budget was earmarked for entitlements.
Its time for people to either get a job or starve.
The Tourist
Moderator
Dust Monkey said:Its time for people to either get a job or starve.
I have no problem with this ideology if it is applied fairly and you live by your own convictions.
However, if you continually build your home on a flood plain, in "tornado alley" or below a levee line, then don't belittle welfare as you scream for FEMA.
If there is a public standard, then this standard applies to you.
That said, I greatly admire how the Japanese and Amish take care of their own people.
Not necessarily. I'm sure that we, as a people, are smart enough to figure out a way to do it.Redworm, by "not screwing people over in the name of financial freedom" we are effectively screwing ourselves.
You don't have to see the world in such absolutist terms.
Dust Monkey
New member
However, if you continually build your home on a flood plain, in "tornado alley" or below a levee line, then don't belittle welfare as you scream for FEMA.
I agree. Our house has suffered 2 hits from tornadoes, I have not seen FEMA, ever. Its called home owners insurance, part of that personal responsibility thing.
Tourist,
While I appreciate your sentiment- I really do, I totally disagree. Charity comes from individuals and we are obligated as humans to provide charity. On that we agree.
Charity does not come from the barrel of a gun. That is what the government uses (a monopoly on the legitimate use of force). to collect taxes, and when taxes are going to something I find morally abhorant, I believe that it is theft. I could go into my libertarian philosophy that was honed while I was in the most dire of straits financially, but I will not (another thread perhaps).
Government has no right to take from me what belongs to me and give it to somebody else. A 51% majority in a legislative body does not make it charity. A donation isn't a donation if it was taken from you at the threat of losing everything you have if you don't pay.
So charity yes. Confiscation- no.
While I appreciate your sentiment- I really do, I totally disagree. Charity comes from individuals and we are obligated as humans to provide charity. On that we agree.
Charity does not come from the barrel of a gun. That is what the government uses (a monopoly on the legitimate use of force). to collect taxes, and when taxes are going to something I find morally abhorant, I believe that it is theft. I could go into my libertarian philosophy that was honed while I was in the most dire of straits financially, but I will not (another thread perhaps).
Government has no right to take from me what belongs to me and give it to somebody else. A 51% majority in a legislative body does not make it charity. A donation isn't a donation if it was taken from you at the threat of losing everything you have if you don't pay.
So charity yes. Confiscation- no.
The Tourist
Moderator
kjm said:Tourist, While I appreciate your sentiment- I really do, I totally disagree
Thank you for your kind approach. I have often said that forums are a place for a debate, not open war. I don't mind one bit if people disagree with me.
I don't find the SS system fitting into that "barrel of a gun" scenario.
Strangely, there is a sytem that uses this idea and I feel is counter-productive.
I know of many high schools where the cirriculum is trying to teach a sense of community. In that effort, they have a semester of "volunteer outreach" which is mandatory.
How the concept of volunteering can be mandatory is beyond me.
And as much as I believe pro bono work aids both the donor and the donee (BTW, I am still awaiting Homeland to clear me to work in the vets' hospital), I would never espouse that into forced servitude.
This cuts both ways for me. That idea of "service to the state" seems to work quite well in Israel. They have a choice, however, of working in a hospital, the army or a kabbutz.
We used to have a forced service to the state called a draft, but it was rejected because those subject to it weren't allowed to vote. It caused us to rethink policy after Vietnam and we lowered the voting age to 18, and we did away with the draft (in all wars of necessity this country has been involved in, there has been too many people trying to get in the armed services i.e.: Audie Murphy lying to get in).
I favor universal military training, but I oppose universal military or government service.
I think we both agree on charity. Social Security however is our difference, and I believe if we were forced to donate to a non-interest bearing account that does not belong to us, and we cannot have any say over, why not have people forced to save into a private account that does grow with interest, does work to make the US economy productive (through investment), and can be controlled by me. Then- when I am old, I can give it all away or to my heirs if I so choose when I die.
It is really surprising how large a retirement account can grow from a modest salary if begun early- even with low yield investments. I think we'd all be better off and more self reliant. Then- the Red Cross and churches, synagoges and other charities could focus on the truly hard-cases and not worry about lazy folks who have constructed their lives as to meet defined criteria so they'll be eligible to stay on the dole. It does happen. My wife sees it everyday in most of her students and in discussions with their parents. I've seen it in my interviews with job candidates who show up to interview and use profanity, disrespect and other ways to make sure they don't get the job but looked like they tried to a caseworker.
I favor universal military training, but I oppose universal military or government service.
I think we both agree on charity. Social Security however is our difference, and I believe if we were forced to donate to a non-interest bearing account that does not belong to us, and we cannot have any say over, why not have people forced to save into a private account that does grow with interest, does work to make the US economy productive (through investment), and can be controlled by me. Then- when I am old, I can give it all away or to my heirs if I so choose when I die.
It is really surprising how large a retirement account can grow from a modest salary if begun early- even with low yield investments. I think we'd all be better off and more self reliant. Then- the Red Cross and churches, synagoges and other charities could focus on the truly hard-cases and not worry about lazy folks who have constructed their lives as to meet defined criteria so they'll be eligible to stay on the dole. It does happen. My wife sees it everyday in most of her students and in discussions with their parents. I've seen it in my interviews with job candidates who show up to interview and use profanity, disrespect and other ways to make sure they don't get the job but looked like they tried to a caseworker.
The concept of SS is that the money you put it grows at the same rate as the overall economy, in essence you get interest because you take out more than you put in, most of the time. The problem is not in the concept but in the application. If they govt did not treat SS revenues as general revenue then the SS system could buy govt bonds instead of selling them to the chinese.
It's really not a bad system. The problem is that the govt couldn't keep their greedy hands off the money. The problem we face now is more akin to company managment using the pension fund money than it is anything else.
It's really not a bad system. The problem is that the govt couldn't keep their greedy hands off the money. The problem we face now is more akin to company managment using the pension fund money than it is anything else.
I don't find the SS system fitting into that "barrel of a gun" scenario.
How so? In the end, the government will use force to take what it wants from you.
Let's say I figure out how much of my taxes are going towards social programs I don't like, and I deduct that amount from the check I send the IRS. They then send me another bill, with a large fine saying that I have to pay. If I resist that, they put out a warrant for my arrest. If I resist that, they forcefully come after me. If I resist that, I get shot.
Think about it. The government tells you they are going to take x dollars from you to pay for whatever they feel like it. Either you pay, or you go to jail/die.
How is not fitting into the barrel of a gun scenario? Would you care to explain a method of someone not letting their tax dollars go towards programs that disagree with that doesn't involve jail or death?
G-Cym, blame your ancestors. Several thousands years of human civilisation proved that people do not plan ahead for retirement. SS was made manditory because otherwise people don't save enough money along the way. A very small percentage of people have the self discipline to save for retirement.
Human nature hasn't changed since SS was started, however, the younger generation in general save more than the boomers did. The 401k is the best retirement invention since SS. I see SS eventually being some sort of absolute minimum safety net and people's own savings being the primary retirement money. This will happen over a few decades and there won't be any great sudden change. Of course this won't prevent alarmist politicians from trying to make a big deal out of it.
Human nature hasn't changed since SS was started, however, the younger generation in general save more than the boomers did. The 401k is the best retirement invention since SS. I see SS eventually being some sort of absolute minimum safety net and people's own savings being the primary retirement money. This will happen over a few decades and there won't be any great sudden change. Of course this won't prevent alarmist politicians from trying to make a big deal out of it.
alarmist politicians from trying to make a big deal out of it
It won't get the necessary attention any other way.
The Tourist
Moderator
G-Cym said:How is not fitting into the barrel of a gun scenario?
You have to ask yourself the defining question, "Is my government a tyranny?"
Yeah, we joke a great deal about 'Billary,' even Ann Coulter. And there are the endless rumors about black helicopters and huge concentration camps being constructed in remote areas.
But besides the ranting of a "friend of a friend," do you really believe that the army is going to gun you down on a city street for delinquent tax money?
Being that delinquent taxes are a federal crime, how many inmates wander the halls of Leavenworth?
In terms of physical weight, value, police man hours and number of suspects booked, my town has seized more illegal fireworks than firearms.
mountainclmbr
New member
I have a question: If people can't be trusted to make the "right" decisions and live with the consequences of their decisions; making the nanny state necessary......................Then should government take over personal decisions on religion? Shouldn't government assign and enforce compliance with religious orders? Government could do this without "establishing" a religion. It could enforce compliance with a preexisting religion.