As a libertarian I support your choices.

[Paulie]

There has been more tyranny in the name of protecting the children than I can possibly cite on here. It's the perfect veil to hide your tyrannical intentions behind. I don't know the exact answer to the problem but more government is absolutely not it.

If you don't have better solution you're just ranting.

The solution starts at the individual level. People need to change the way they think. We're becoming accustomed to look to the government.for the answers to many problems that begin with OURSELVES

You've gone from ranting to dreaming. Good luck.

I give the solution and you call it dreaming

If you think the solution is that people need to change the way they think, you're either VERY patient, or you're dreaming.

Wrong. I'm not nearly patient ENOUGH and that's why I favor getting the government the hell out of the way so that people can start learning. Self preservation would set in pretty quickly and people would get the **** up off their asses and start realizing their potential because they have no other choice, and thats the way it should be. You ever accomplish something really great after working your ass off and feel that sense of pride afterwards? That feeling right there is what way too many people are missing out on because they believe government can legislate them that feeling instead.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Read this:

Cloward–Piven strategy - Wikipedia

They LITERALLY plotted to keep poor people poor and import more poor people.

They being two academics not associated with the Democratic Party. So?

Here's more:

"Political scientist and sociologist Frances Fox Piven has inspired and angered political activists for decades. Almost fifty years ago, the Nation published an article by her and her colleague and husband Richard Cloward in which they argued that, with Democrats in control of the White House and Congress, poor people should claim the welfare benefits to which they were entitled. The result would swamp the system and lead to something new, a guaranteed annual income, which would end poverty as we knew it."

A Moment for Movements

Again, this is not the Dems plotting, it is academics attempting to manipulate the Dem party.

It looks to be a successful bit of manipulating, won't you agree?

.

 

[Indeependent]

If you believe the Dems got together in some smoke-filled room and plotted how to keep people poor and dependent on the gov't, you're delusional. If you think the Dems saw poverty and suffering and tried to come up with a system to alleviate both, you're on track. If those systems had unexpected consequences no one should be surprised. If those systems require constant monitoring, evaluation, and updating no one should be surprised.

Blaming one group is not the answer, working together to fix what is broken is the answer. Obamacare is a good example. The GOP demonized the program and repeatedly tried to kill it. Had they been willing to work with the Dems (and vice versa), we might actually have a decent healthcare system.

You are delusional.
I have been paying attention to this issue for 30 years and you haven’t.
Unlike you, I do not have allegiance to either ideology; I simply deal with facts.
You do realize that the Ds and Rs have different constituencies appealing to very different agendas with the end result being cheap labor.

Doesn't seem like those 30 years have yielded any answers, only a lot of bitterness.

Always say “No!” to unconditional public assistance when you are able bodied.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You kind of have it backwards though. Communism is considered the eventual result after socialism. The only reason government ever was involved in any of these systems is because that's how it's manipulated and plundered. None of these systems needs a government to operate but when the people start to realize it isn't working on a grand scale and want out, the government maintains its implementation for the purpose of control and abuse.

Except that socialism is specifically defined as government ownership and control of the means of production.

Communism is specifically defined as a stateless form of existence where the people hold the means of production in common as a collective.

Socialism must, by definition, be a government-run system.

My argument is that government is a necessary evil. No matter how hard we may try, government will always exist in some form. Thus, communism (like anarchy) is only possible for a very brief period of time. Thereby, communism leads to socialism, not the other way around.

.

 

[Paulie]

You kind of have it backwards though. Communism is considered the eventual result after socialism. The only reason government ever was involved in any of these systems is because that's how it's manipulated and plundered. None of these systems needs a government to operate but when the people start to realize it isn't working on a grand scale and want out, the government maintains its implementation for the purpose of control and abuse.

Except that socialism is specifically defined as government ownership and control of the means of production.

Communism is specifically defined as a stateless form of existence where the people hold the means of production in common as a collective.

Socialism must, by definition, be a government-run system.

My argument is that government is a necessary evil. No matter how hard we may try, government will always exist in some form. Thus, communism (like anarchy) is only possible for a very brief period of time. Thereby, communism leads to socialism, not the other way around.

.

We'll agree to disagree. But i do believe government is necessary as well. To protect people's rights. The constitution may not be 100% perfect but its intention was awesome. The problem is that it's still only a piece of paper and only as good as its adherence and we the people abandoned that responsibility a long time ago because we got too complacent and trusted politicians too much.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You kind of have it backwards though. Communism is considered the eventual result after socialism. The only reason government ever was involved in any of these systems is because that's how it's manipulated and plundered. None of these systems needs a government to operate but when the people start to realize it isn't working on a grand scale and want out, the government maintains its implementation for the purpose of control and abuse.

Except that socialism is specifically defined as government ownership and control of the means of production.

Communism is specifically defined as a stateless form of existence where the people hold the means of production in common as a collective.

Socialism must, by definition, be a government-run system.

My argument is that government is a necessary evil. No matter how hard we may try, government will always exist in some form. Thus, communism (like anarchy) is only possible for a very brief period of time. Thereby, communism leads to socialism, not the other way around.

.

We'll agree to disagree. But i do believe government is necessary as well. To protect people's rights. The constitution may not be 100% perfect but its intention was awesome. The problem is that it's still only a piece of paper and only as good as its adherence and we the people abandoned that responsibility a long time ago because we got too complacent and trusted politicians too much.

I didn't mean to get bogged down in a semantics discussion.



But, I agree that the constitution only works when the average person is committed to its adherence or committed to the proper protocols when it needs to be changed.

Somehow, constitutionalists need to get control of the education system. The current system is deliberately not teaching citizens how to self-govern.

.

 

[Ray9]

A lot of what's happening today has more to do with Charles Darwin than Franklin Roosevelt or Karl Marx. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink-this idiom has merit. I can't make people take better care of themselves and neither can you. People who suffer from their choices and live in poverty belong to every age. A central authority that sees its mission to save people from themselves ultimately burdens the people who do things right and actually encourages and creates more of the behavior it tries to stop. It probably just can't be fixed. It can only be made worse by trying to fix it.

 

[Paulie]

The industrial revolution was the beginning of the end. Once we started getting our own vehicles and cool trinkets and television it was over. We no longer had to pay attention to what was happening to us politically anymore because we had all this new shit to distract and occupy us and keep us pacified and once they knew we weren't keeping an eye on tings anymore they ripped the constitution to shreds and screwed the living shit out of us and we literally didn't even care because we didn't have to anymore.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

A lot of what's happening today has more to do with Charles Darwin than Franklin Roosevelt or Karl Marx.

Is that ever the truth.

Success eventually breeds its own failure.

.

 

[Paulie]

i mean Jesus Christ they don't even have to take away safety nets. Just imagine the pandemonium if they took away just the social media? We have an entire generation of people now who's lives are completely dependent on their standing in the social media world. My hope for any kind of change is basically gone I just want to live my life in freedom that doesn't threaten anyone else's freedom. It's really so little to ask of society and yet it seems impossible for so many to comprehend

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The industrial revolution was the beginning of the end. Once we started getting our own vehicles and cool trinkets and television it was over. We no longer had to pay attention to what was happening to us politically anymore because we had all this new shit to distract and occupy us and keep us pacified and once they knew we weren't keeping an eye on tings anymore they ripped the constitution to shreds and screwed the living shit out of us and we literally didn't even care because we didn't have to anymore.

[...] iam pridem, ex quo suffragia nulli / uendimus, effudit curas; nam qui dabat olim / imperium, fasces, legiones, omnia, nunc se / continet atque duas tantum res anxius optat, / panem et circenses. [...]

... Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions — everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses.

—Juvenal, Satire 10.77–81

 

[Indeependent]

I’m trying to determine how to respond to decades of Democrats fostering and helping to encourage irresponsible behavior.
The main influence on this bad behavior is the public system and the fact that politicians can suck taxes from one region to support irresponsible behavior in another region.
NOTE: I’m not saying Republicans don’t suck regarding other matters, but this issue is a Democrat created and fostered problem.

If you believe the Dems got together in some smoke-filled room and plotted how to keep people poor and dependent on the gov't, you're delusional. If you think the Dems saw poverty and suffering and tried to come up with a system to alleviate both, you're on track. If those systems had unexpected consequences no one should be surprised. If those systems require constant monitoring, evaluation, and updating no one should be surprised.

Blaming one group is not the answer, working together to fix what is broken is the answer. Obamacare is a good example. The GOP demonized the program and repeatedly tried to kill it. Had they been willing to work with the Dems (and vice versa), we might actually have a decent healthcare system.

You are delusional.
I have been paying attention to this issue for 30 years and you haven’t.
Unlike you, I do not have allegiance to either ideology; I simply deal with facts.
You do realize that the Ds and Rs have different constituencies appealing to very different agendas with the end result being cheap labor.

Labor is a product people pay for like any other. Don't you want the things you need for as cheap as you can get them? The answer to business seeking cheap labor is to increase your value. There are unlimited ways to increase your labor's value in this country. Why do you think all these immigrants want to come here? This is where their labor is worth the most because of the plethora of opportunities available to them. The left doesn't seem to support the idea of increasing your value to employers they simply want the government to legislate that value and that's insane.

I agree with your philosophy but it doesn’t work in NY.
I can’t tell you how many incredibly talented builders in NY lost their careers when GW opened the borders.
Half of Nassau County is not built according to code.

 

[Paulie]

The industrial revolution was the beginning of the end. Once we started getting our own vehicles and cool trinkets and television it was over. We no longer had to pay attention to what was happening to us politically anymore because we had all this new shit to distract and occupy us and keep us pacified and once they knew we weren't keeping an eye on tings anymore they ripped the constitution to shreds and screwed the living shit out of us and we literally didn't even care because we didn't have to anymore.

[...] iam pridem, ex quo suffragia nulli / uendimus, effudit curas; nam qui dabat olim / imperium, fasces, legiones, omnia, nunc se / continet atque duas tantum res anxius optat, / panem et circenses. [...]

... Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions — everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses.

—Juvenal, Satire 10.77–81

It's not even a new concept. It's literally the exact same way every tyrannical government has ever come to be from a once free people. So much history to learn from and we make the same mistakes every single time.

 

[Paulie]

I’m trying to determine how to respond to decades of Democrats fostering and helping to encourage irresponsible behavior.
The main influence on this bad behavior is the public system and the fact that politicians can suck taxes from one region to support irresponsible behavior in another region.
NOTE: I’m not saying Republicans don’t suck regarding other matters, but this issue is a Democrat created and fostered problem.

If you believe the Dems got together in some smoke-filled room and plotted how to keep people poor and dependent on the gov't, you're delusional. If you think the Dems saw poverty and suffering and tried to come up with a system to alleviate both, you're on track. If those systems had unexpected consequences no one should be surprised. If those systems require constant monitoring, evaluation, and updating no one should be surprised.

Blaming one group is not the answer, working together to fix what is broken is the answer. Obamacare is a good example. The GOP demonized the program and repeatedly tried to kill it. Had they been willing to work with the Dems (and vice versa), we might actually have a decent healthcare system.

You are delusional.
I have been paying attention to this issue for 30 years and you haven’t.
Unlike you, I do not have allegiance to either ideology; I simply deal with facts.
You do realize that the Ds and Rs have different constituencies appealing to very different agendas with the end result being cheap labor.

Labor is a product people pay for like any other. Don't you want the things you need for as cheap as you can get them? The answer to business seeking cheap labor is to increase your value. There are unlimited ways to increase your labor's value in this country. Why do you think all these immigrants want to come here? This is where their labor is worth the most because of the plethora of opportunities available to them. The left doesn't seem to support the idea of increasing your value to employers they simply want the government to legislate that value and that's insane.

I agree with your philosophy but it doesn’t work in NY.
I can’t tell you how many incredibly talented builders in NY lost their careers when GW opened the borders.
Half of Nassau County is not built according to code.

There's 49 other states to give it a try in. The market provides.

 

[alang1216]

Always say “No!” to unconditional public assistance when you are able bodied.

Just the opposite for me. I went to public school and I sent my kids to public school.

 

[Paulie]

Actually my math was wrong, there's 56 other states

 

[Indeependent]

Always say “No!” to unconditional public assistance when you are able bodied.

Just the opposite for me. I went to public school and I sent my kids to public school.

How far away are you from the closest Hood?

 

[alang1216]

Always say “No!” to unconditional public assistance when you are able bodied.

Just the opposite for me. I went to public school and I sent my kids to public school.

How far away are you from the closest Hood?

Currently about 3-6 miles depending on your definition.

 

[Ray9]

The industrial revolution was the beginning of the end. Once we started getting our own vehicles and cool trinkets and television it was over. We no longer had to pay attention to what was happening to us politically anymore because we had all this new shit to distract and occupy us and keep us pacified and once they knew we weren't keeping an eye on tings anymore they ripped the constitution to shreds and screwed the living shit out of us and we literally didn't even care because we didn't have to anymore.

[...] iam pridem, ex quo suffragia nulli / uendimus, effudit curas; nam qui dabat olim / imperium, fasces, legiones, omnia, nunc se / continet atque duas tantum res anxius optat, / panem et circenses. [...]

... Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions — everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses.

—Juvenal, Satire 10.77–81

It's not even a new concept. It's literally the exact same way every tyrannical government has ever come to be from a once free people. So much history to learn from and we make the same mistakes every single time.

"Civilizations die from suicide, not by murder"-Arnold toynbee

 

[Blues Man]

So you think it's more humane to leave kids with people who can't or wont care for them

Got it

Sometimes yes, sometimes, no. Would you take a child from his family because his family can't afford life insurance?

I never said life insurance was a requirement but responsible parents do.

So here we go again

If you can't afford to provide food , shelter, clothing, and yes medical care for your children then you should not have kids.

Why should anyone expect other parents who do all of the above for their children to give money that could be used for the welfare of their own children to someone else who refuses to provide all those things for his own family?

I don't have kids so why should I have to pay more of the money I earn so people who have kids they never should have had can get a check?