Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid

[Larkinn]

There are jobs for people who actually want to work.

You know this how?

Your talking to a person who has worked for everything I have. I didn't inherit a damn thing. I worked full time, sometimes two jobs and put myself through college. What incentative do I have to look forward to, 30% of income given to people that don't want to help themselves. Who the government so eagerly feeds, provides shelter to, provides welfare to, provides medical care to, provides medical care to their kids, feeds their kids.........etc..etc..... Then when I get ready to retire with the money they have taken out of "my" paycheck the system is going to be bankrupt. Sorry if I don't seem a little more compassionate for governmental charity.

Oh, well that means everyone can do it. Let me guess. You are white, grew up in a middle class neighborhood, parents took care of you, etc, etc.

Wow...you had to work two jobs to pay for privileged higher education. I'm just crying crocodile tears for you now.

 

[jreeves]

You know this how?



Oh, well that means everyone can do it. Let me guess. You are white, grew up in a middle class neighborhood, parents took care of you, etc, etc.

Wow...you had to work two jobs to pay for privileged higher education. I'm just crying crocodile tears for you now.

You jackass you don't know jackshit about me, I don't really care how you feel about me. As matter of fact, my dad worked his ass off. My dad was a carpenter, you worthless scum. Just cause people make it out of poverty without governmental assistance doesn't make them privileged.

But since you want to make ignorant conclusions about my background, let me make a few about you. Your one of those people who democrats tailor there social spending around because you don't think you can wipe your ass unless the government does it for you.

 

[jreeves]

Like the wizard of oz some people need to go out in search of a heart. If a society cannot support its own it has no right to call itself a society. If for this brief second of time that we exist, we are so selfish we cannot support each other than we are a sad species of primitive being.

excellent site
http://www.swans.com/library/art14/desk067.html

"Following the money is not easy in this global economy and all the schemes and scams that dot its landscape. Take, for example, the path of $16 billion in contracts the U.S. awarded KBR, the former subsidiary of Dick Cheney's Halliburton, for work in Iraq; money that was funneled through shell companies in the Cayman Islands in order to avoid paying US taxes, while Iraq's reconstruction languishes. Or consider the growing number of billionaires on planet Earth in a zero-sum economic game that rewards the lucky few with diamond-studded dog collars, and sends pets-turned-financial-burdens back to the shelter for the unlucky many victims of the subprime-credit-housing scandal that has only scratched the surface. Our Martian Blips..."

I guess before the "New Deal" we couldn't call America a society. I guess all of the people before the "New Deal" were primitive beings. Wow, I didn't know evolution moved that quickly.

 

[Diuretic]

There are jobs for people who actually want to work. Your talking to a person who has worked for everything I have. I didn't inherit a damn thing. I worked full time, sometimes two jobs and put myself through college. What incentative do I have to look forward to, 30% of income given to people that don't want to help themselves. Who the government so eagerly feeds, provides shelter to, provides welfare to, provides medical care to, provides medical care to their kids, feeds their kids.........etc..etc..... Then when I get ready to retire with the money they have taken out of "my" paycheck the system is going to be bankrupt. Sorry if I don't seem a little more compassionate for governmental charity.

With all due respect you didn't answer the question. I can swap personal work histories too if you like, yours is similar to mine but I was asked the question for a reason.

 

[Diuretic]

I guess before the "New Deal" we couldn't call America a society. I guess all of the people before the "New Deal" were primitive beings. Wow, I didn't know evolution moved that quickly.

Hoovervilles were very primitive. Of course humans lived in them but they looked to be pretty primitive.

 

[BrianH]

Anyway we look at it, our welfare system is jacked up beyond belief. I don't have a problem helping someone get back on their feet. By all means, take money out of my check if it will help someone for a "little while" until they can find the means to make money for themselves.

The problem we have in this society, is that welfare is given out too easily. If I sould have to take a drug test to earn my money, I believe the person accepting my money for welfare should have to take one.

Also, another problem we have with welfare is the prolonged, long-term assistance given to people. Why work, if you can get a paycheck for not working? I can see where that would be appealing. I used to work across from the human resources department. I would drive to my 40-hour (standard I kow) a week job in my 11-year-old pick-up and watch people with brand-new lexus and new cars pull into the resources department for their welfare checks.

There is something wrong with the system. And everyone should acknowledge it. I'm sure it's not the case everywhere, but it is a wide-spread problem.

Give them the assistance they need for a limited amount of time until they can figure out how to support themselves.

 

[jreeves]

With all due respect you didn't answer the question. I can swap personal work histories too if you like, yours is similar to mine but I was asked the question for a reason.

There is unemployment benefits which, in my opinion, should be taken out seperately than taxes. This would ensure that a person who has put into their unemployment account, money while they look for work.

 

[jreeves]

Hoovervilles were very primitive. Of course humans lived in them but they looked to be pretty primitive.

Ok so you can look to one time pre-New Deal and say that people were struggling, so what? Even now with tons and tons of spending, I go to Washington D.C. and see people sleeping on top of steam vents. That looks pretty primitive too. That doesn't make the US as a whole primitive.

 

[Diuretic]

Anyway we look at it, our welfare system is jacked up beyond belief. I don't have a problem helping someone get back on their feet. By all means, take money out of my check if it will help someone for a "little while" until they can find the means to make money for themselves.

The problem we have in this society, is that welfare is given out too easily. If I sould have to take a drug test to earn my money, I believe the person accepting my money for welfare should have to take one.

Also, another problem we have with welfare is the prolonged, long-term assistance given to people. Why work, if you can get a paycheck for not working? I can see where that would be appealing. I used to work across from the human resources department. I would drive to my 40-hour (standard I kow) a week job in my 11-year-old pick-up and watch people with brand-new lexus and new cars pull into the resources department for their welfare checks.

There is something wrong with the system. And everyone should acknowledge it. I'm sure it's not the case everywhere, but it is a wide-spread problem.

Give them the assistance they need for a limited amount of time until they can figure out how to support themselves.

Without being too country-specific it seems to me that social security is also a useful insurance policy against attack on the status quo. I don't know but I wonder if Bismarck used it to stop exactly that sort of attack.

 

[Diuretic]

There is unemployment benefits which, in my opinion, should be taken out seperately than taxes. This would ensure that a person who has put into their unemployment account, money while they look for work.

I think that's done in Canada, not sure if it's a provincial or a national programme. I reckon that's a good idea. Bit of a problem if someone leaves school or uni and can't get a job but I suppose they could return at least a portion of the money when they start earning.

 

[Diuretic]

Ok so you can look to one time pre-New Deal and say that people were struggling, so what? Even now with tons and tons of spending, I go to Washington D.C. and see people sleeping on top of steam vents. That looks pretty primitive too. That doesn't make the US as a whole primitive.

No it doesn't, I agree, the same sight can be seen in Toronto but it doesn't make Canada primitive either. Where I live we have benign weather (apart from the heatwave we have at the moment) but we have homeless people who live in the parklands that surround the downtown area of the city. That doesn't make Australia primitive either.

No, there has to be a much more sophisticated analysis, I agree.

 

[Taomon]

Govt can't ensure a standard of living. People are responsible for their own successes or failures and have no business in blaming others for their own shortcomings.

I wasn't suggesting blaming anyone. But if we allow businesses to control our government as we have, we get inequality in the work place. We get no job security. We get unlivable wages.

So at what point do we as a society begin to care about the well being of our citizens?

It is very easy to sit back and scream that everyone is responsible for themselves, but the truth is that we do not live in an anarchistic state. We are not separate entities who happen to exist next to each other. We are a society.

So if I work two jobs to feed my family but cannot save, is it my fault that I am under-privileged, poor, and subject to the constraints of a waning job market? Or is it the fault of greedy business owners and investors (and the laws that are geared to protect them and not us) who refuse to pay a livable wage, utilities companies that fleece the public, the rising cost of living?

We do not need to lay blame. We only need to give two shits about the well being of the poor & working classes.

I am all for paying for health insurance, higher education, food, shelter & clothing, utilities and so on...just fucking make them affordable.

I ask this again and again; why is this wrong?

If we could afford to save for retirement, pay for rent/mortgage, utilities, taxes, food, clothing & basic necessities...we would and that would raise our GNP.

 

[Taomon]

No, I'm for limited govt. I'm not for no govt.

What role would you have government play? You obviously want a police force and emergency response units. But you don't care if people can eat, get a fair education, have shelter and so on.

What do you suppose is the root of most crimes?

Poverty and despair.

 

[Taomon]

No we shouldn't ensure it, if people want a certain standard of living, work for it. Stop taking billions of dollars from the hard workers paychecks and let them ensure their own standard of living.

In order to let workers ensure their own destinies, we need to take back some of the power that businesses and their investors have gained.

Sure, you can stop taxation, we would not have a government, we would become fiefdoms. There would be no guarantee that we could work or earn a living as the companies would pay what they felt like paying...to maximize profits.

Right now, we are damned if we do and damned if we don't. I would think that stopping government corruption and reigning in the powerful banks, investment firms, and their clients from controlling our society would be a more lasting proposition.

 

[Taomon]

There are jobs for people who actually want to work. Your talking to a person who has worked for everything I have. I didn't inherit a damn thing. I worked full time, sometimes two jobs and put myself through college. What incentative do I have to look forward to, 30% of income given to people that don't want to help themselves. Who the government so eagerly feeds, provides shelter to, provides welfare to, provides medical care to, provides medical care to their kids, feeds their kids.........etc..etc..... Then when I get ready to retire with the money they have taken out of "my" paycheck the system is going to be bankrupt. Sorry if I don't seem a little more compassionate for governmental charity.

Why do you suppose there is a population of poor, disenfranchised people? Do you suppose cutting them off from any funding will solve that problem or do you suppose that crime would escalate?

Do you actually have a feasible solution or are you just bitter and demand that all the money you make goes to you?

We cannot hold all people to our own standards. There are always circumstances that factor in and you do not seem to be considering anyone else's plight. You are only concerned with your self.

 

[jreeves]

In order to let workers ensure their own destinies, we need to take back some of the power that businesses and their investors have gained.

Sure, you can stop taxation, we would not have a government, we would become fiefdoms. There would be no guarantee that we could work or earn a living as the companies would pay what they felt like paying...to maximize profits.

Right now, we are damned if we do and damned if we don't. I would think that stopping government corruption and reigning in the powerful banks, investment firms, and their clients from controlling our society would be a more lasting proposition.

It would seem to me businesses would be part of the solution, not part of the problem. Businesses creates jobs, which is what is needed to bring people out of poverty.

I never suggested stop collecting taxes, I am suggesting providing tax relief. I am part of a tax group that helps pay 70 % of all the taxes in this country. Instead of handing out my taxes to the poor in the form of income tax credits (which pay absolutely nothing into the tax system), why doesn't the government provide someone that has one of the highest tax burdens with relief.

Again investment firms allow new businesses and businesses to expand. This to me sounds like a good thing. The more businesses and the larger businesses are, the more jobs that it creates. Again part of the solution.

 

[Taomon]

It would seem to me businesses would be part of the solution, not part of the problem. Businesses creates jobs, which is what is needed to bring people out of poverty.

I never suggested stop collecting taxes, I am suggesting providing tax relief. I am part of a tax group that helps pay 70 % of all the taxes in this country. Instead of handing out my taxes to the poor in the form of income tax credits (which pay absolutely nothing into the tax system), why doesn't the government provide someone that has one of the highest tax burdens with relief.

Again investment firms allow new businesses and businesses to expand. This to me sounds like a good thing. The more businesses and the larger businesses are, the more jobs that it creates. Again part of the solution.

Theory and practice are two separate things.

In theory, yes, this all sounds grand and I myself would agree to it.

But the problem comes into practice. The past sixty years or so has provided more than enough evidence that investment firms and corporate interests outweigh or have complete disdain for the rights and well being of the workers.

And let's face it, as you pointed out we need companies to give us jobs and investment firms to expand those companies and make more jobs and wealth. But those companies need workers to perform those jobs.

Somehow, the well being of the workers and any semblance of solidarity has been driven out of our heads with an inundation of propagandist marketing and education.

You are part of a tax group who pays 70% of the taxes...then you are in the working class, correct? You should understand, more than anyone, why we need equality in this issue.

 

[Diuretic]

What role would you have government play? You obviously want a police force and emergency response units. But you don't care if people can eat, get a fair education, have shelter and so on.

What do you suppose is the root of most crimes?

Poverty and despair.

With aquisitional crimes it's usually greed in the white collar types (corporate crooks), drugs or just plain old strain theory.

 

[Diuretic]

In order to let workers ensure their own destinies, we need to take back some of the power that businesses and their investors have gained.

Sure, you can stop taxation, we would not have a government, we would become fiefdoms. There would be no guarantee that we could work or earn a living as the companies would pay what they felt like paying...to maximize profits.

Right now, we are damned if we do and damned if we don't. I would think that stopping government corruption and reigning in the powerful banks, investment firms, and their clients from controlling our society would be a more lasting proposition.

Years of union-busting have meant workers have weak representation.

 

[Diuretic]

It would seem to me businesses would be part of the solution, not part of the problem. Businesses creates jobs, which is what is needed to bring people out of poverty.

I never suggested stop collecting taxes, I am suggesting providing tax relief. I am part of a tax group that helps pay 70 % of all the taxes in this country. Instead of handing out my taxes to the poor in the form of income tax credits (which pay absolutely nothing into the tax system), why doesn't the government provide someone that has one of the highest tax burdens with relief.

Again investment firms allow new businesses and businesses to expand. This to me sounds like a good thing. The more businesses and the larger businesses are, the more jobs that it creates. Again part of the solution.

Businesses want labour but they want it cheap. It's not altruism. They wouldn't pay for labour if they could get slaves and they wouldn't use slaves if they could get a machine to do the work.