Serious question for Socialist Americans

[M14 Shooter]

Socialiats, among -many- other things, seek to provide "social justice", which boils down to taking from the haves and giving to the have nots. They do this because their version of morality tells them that it is wrong for people to go without when others have more than enough, and they see government as the means thru which they may attain that end.

In short, they happily force their morality upon others, while taking great exception should someone try to do the same to them.

However, though, are you totally against the idea of social “safety nets”?

I'm not clear - do you agree or disagree with my assertion?
If you disagree, please explain why.

 

[miami_thomas]

Boy, I really hate to throw out a term that may be construed here as a wild, radical, un-American notion, but what the hell:

Balance.

See, the Left is a little too quick to offer assistance, the Right is a little too quick to say no. An environment of proper balance would make it clear to people that they can't expect handouts without sincere effort first, and it would also be able to provide assistance when and where appropriate, in this land of plenty.

Unfortunately, both ends of the spectrum have their heads so far up their ass that they can't see this obvious fact, and/or their fragile egos prohibit them from giving an inch on the topic and actually engage in mature and reasonable discourse on it.

I know, I know, crazy.

.

Who ever said offer nothing? Look I'm for charity providing support for the homeless and hungry. I'm not for providing wealth redistribution to provide someone a better life.

 

[miami_thomas]

What many democrats believe (of course not all, but most rational ones) is that welfare and unemployment are safety nets; the “ultimate goal” - however - is not to provide food and housing to everyone by any means.

I think what most people on the far right should ask themselves is; do I want to live in a country where (a) there are social safety nets in place, or (b) there aren’t any social safety nets in place.

I would agree with safety nets. But we are well beyond safety nets at this point. We are now talking about providing someone with a better quality of life. I make good money but not great money. I struggle at times to make ends meet. But I pay around 28,000 dollars a year in federal taxes not including SSI or Medicare. For what? What do I get extra for that money? I think that is taxation without representation. Last there has always been charity even without the government.

That's Miami all right.BTW, your outrageous property taxes are keeping you safe by allowing the Nazi-Dade Piggery to buy drones to keep an eye on you and your place.

When did property tax become federal tax?

 

[miami_thomas]

The ultimate goal is to provide food and housing for everyone. When you offer everyone food and housing for nothing most people are not going to freely work. So how can you force someone to work and still maintain human rights?

There is something totally wrong with you.
You are worried about socialism, which is not really happening, and right under your nose this country is becoming so plutocratic( just for you... government by the wealthy ),it is amazing. Also we are so much an oligarchy(just for you again...government by the few
), that between these two factions this country needs the groups looking out for the rest of the population.
So why not stop beating the drum for the two types in this country and see where the real downfall of America is coming from today.
Label me a socialist if you want it makes me no never mind.

I agree there should be less regulation and less government so small business can compete with the powerful and rich that back the democrats.

 

[rightwinger]

The ultimate goal is to provide food and housing for everyone. When you offer everyone food and housing for nothing most people are not going to freely work. So how can you force someone to work and still maintain human rights?

Since we are walking down Hyberbole Lane.....

Why do Capitalists expect workers to work for a wage where they can't afford to care for their families?

Why is it Marxist believe it is everyone else’s responsibility to provide more to them?

It is the Capitalist who relies on the taxpayer to feed and house their workers when they pay substandard wages

Don't like what I pay you? Here is how you can get foodstamps

 

[Mac1958]

Boy, I really hate to throw out a term that may be construed here as a wild, radical, un-American notion, but what the hell:

Balance.

See, the Left is a little too quick to offer assistance, the Right is a little too quick to say no. An environment of proper balance would make it clear to people that they can't expect handouts without sincere effort first, and it would also be able to provide assistance when and where appropriate, in this land of plenty.

Unfortunately, both ends of the spectrum have their heads so far up their ass that they can't see this obvious fact, and/or their fragile egos prohibit them from giving an inch on the topic and actually engage in mature and reasonable discourse on it.

I know, I know, crazy.

.

Who ever said offer nothing? Look I'm for charity providing support for the homeless and hungry. I'm not for providing wealth redistribution to provide someone a better life.

Surely you realize that saying "I'm for charity providing support" is the same thing as the GOP saying "no", don't you? The question is whether government should be involved, and you are saying "no", as I said.

.

 

[miami_thomas]

Socialiats, among -many- other things, seek to provide "social justice", which boils down to taking from the haves and giving to the have nots. They do this because their version of morality tells them that it is wrong for people to go without when others have more than enough, and they see government as the means thru which they may attain that end.

In short, they happily force their morality upon others, while taking great exception should someone try to do the same to them.

However, though, are you totally against the idea of social “safety nets”?

For instance, are you against the idea of folks receiving temporary unemployment payments for when they suddenly lose their job, just to stay afloat for a few months in between?

I suppose unemployment insurance is a form of taking from the haves, and giving to the have nots, but is not a concept that I’m against. Are you?

Let the private industry provide insurance for this. If someone chooses not to buy the insurance, then that is their problem. Why is it the responsibility of others to be responsible for the irresponsible?

 

[editec]

The ultimate goal is to provide food and housing for everyone. When you offer everyone food and housing for nothing most people are not going to freely work. So how can you force someone to work and still maintain human rights?

You really think THAT is a "serious" question?

 

[miami_thomas]

Since we are walking down Hyberbole Lane.....

Why do Capitalists expect workers to work for a wage where they can't afford to care for their families?

Why is it Marxist believe it is everyone else’s responsibility to provide more to them?

It is the Capitalist who relies on the taxpayer to feed and house their workers when they pay substandard wages

Don't like what I pay you? Here is how you can get foodstamps

That is Democrats. This is not the same world it was before when your propaganda worked. Now countries are competing for corporations and you people just have not figured it out yet. Canada and England are reducing corporate taxes to get corporations there to employ their citizens. We on the other hand are still living in the progressive past with people like you talking about forcing corporations to pay more to their workers and raise taxes on the rich. Go to countries that have no rich anymore and see what their quality of life is and you will see where we are going. Heck you just need to go to Detroit to see our progressive future.

 

[Decepticon]

All this comes down to the following...

Either we are the UNITED States of America and our CITIZENS band together to make the country a better place, or we're all individually on our own and those of the herd that get culled out? Tough!

So you either believe in the power of people uniting to create more than they could achieve individually or believe in the power of rational self interest.

I've found that the people who believe in rational self interest are the same ones who have never felt the cold, capricious hand of fate deal them a cruel blow. For until they have NO CHOICE but to rely upon the kindness of others, do they realize how valuable that sort of help is.

 

[miami_thomas]

Boy, I really hate to throw out a term that may be construed here as a wild, radical, un-American notion, but what the hell:

Balance.

See, the Left is a little too quick to offer assistance, the Right is a little too quick to say no. An environment of proper balance would make it clear to people that they can't expect handouts without sincere effort first, and it would also be able to provide assistance when and where appropriate, in this land of plenty.

Unfortunately, both ends of the spectrum have their heads so far up their ass that they can't see this obvious fact, and/or their fragile egos prohibit them from giving an inch on the topic and actually engage in mature and reasonable discourse on it.

I know, I know, crazy.

.

Who ever said offer nothing? Look I'm for charity providing support for the homeless and hungry. I'm not for providing wealth redistribution to provide someone a better life.

Surely you realize that saying "I'm for charity providing support" is the same thing as the GOP saying "no", don't you? The question is whether government should be involved, and you are saying "no", as I said.

.

Providing shelter and food for the poor is not the same as providing government housing, food stamps, cell phones, electricity, internet, etc… for the poor. It is helping them survive and get a job and back on their feet. We far too often spend our money on things that help the needy stay needy rather than help the needy get on to their own two feet. We don’t provide welfare for the poor we provide the poor a life in poverty.

 

[Decepticon]

Since we are walking down Hyberbole Lane.....

Why do Capitalists expect workers to work for a wage where they can't afford to care for their families?

Why is it Marxist believe it is everyone else’s responsibility to provide more to them?

It is the Capitalist who relies on the taxpayer to feed and house their workers when they pay substandard wages

Don't like what I pay you? Here is how you can get foodstamps

You do know that's EXACTLY what Wal-Mart does right?
It dumps the medical and subsistence needs of it's employees on the local economy.

 

[AmericanFirst]

The ultimate goal is to provide food and housing for everyone. When you offer everyone food and housing for nothing most people are not going to freely work. So how can you force someone to work and still maintain human rights?

They can't. Socialism has never been a success. If they say CHINA they would be dishonest, China is prospering because of capitalism. Socialists are dishonest.

 

[M14 Shooter]

All this comes down to the following...
Either we are the UNITED States of America and our CITIZENS band together to make the country a better place, or we're all individually on our own and those of the herd that get culled out? Tough!

1: False dichotomy
2: The question isn't the validity of the idea that people should/could/can "work together to help others" but the validity of the idea that the government should take away your choice to do so or not.

When you provide for the needy, you are, in effect, working so that others may have means.
When you do this voluntarily, it's charity
When you are forced to do so, it's involuntary servitude.

Why do you support involuntary servitude?

 

[miami_thomas]

All this comes down to the following...

Either we are the UNITED States of America and our CITIZENS band together to make the country a better place, or we're all individually on our own and those of the herd that get culled out? Tough!

So you either believe in the power of people uniting to create more than they could achieve individually or believe in the power of rational self interest.

I've found that the people who believe in rational self interest are the same ones who have never felt the cold, capricious hand of fate deal them a cruel blow. For until they have NO CHOICE but to rely upon the kindness of others, do they realize how valuable that sort of help is.

That was how our country was founded originally. I don't think most people however have an issue with provider shelter and food. But not at the rate it is currently being provided. We make if far too easy for someone to just live off the system and even game the system. We should provide the minimum necessary as far as food and shelter support. We should provide more in assisting someone to take care of themselves.

What do you do with people that refuse to take care of themselves? Is the answer to have everyone else to take care of them or to let them suffer from their own decision until they change their minds? Currently everyone else takes care of them.

 

[Dragon]

The ultimate goal is to provide food and housing for everyone. When you offer everyone food and housing for nothing most people are not going to freely work. So how can you force someone to work and still maintain human rights?

Well, that depends on whether we have an economy in which work is needed to produce wealth or not. If we need everyone working or the whole thing breaks down, then being supported while not working ISN'T a human right, although generally speaking we do support those who can't work for some reason.

If we have an economy in which most work is done by machines, and there aren't enough decent jobs to keep everyone employed, and if when many people don't work things DON'T break down as long as the machines keep working, that's a different story.

A right to free food, housing, etc. emerges as we move from the first economy to the second.

 

[rightwinger]

Who ever said offer nothing? Look I'm for charity providing support for the homeless and hungry. I'm not for providing wealth redistribution to provide someone a better life.

Surely you realize that saying "I'm for charity providing support" is the same thing as the GOP saying "no", don't you? The question is whether government should be involved, and you are saying "no", as I said.

.

Providing shelter and food for the poor is not the same as providing government housing, food stamps, cell phones, electricity, internet, etc… for the poor. It is helping them survive and get a job and back on their feet. We far too often spend our money on things that help the needy stay needy rather than help the needy get on to their own two feet. We don’t provide welfare for the poor we provide the poor a life in poverty.

Government programs provide both a safety net and a path out of poverty. In taking a path out of poverty it is nearly impossible to pay for housing, food, healthcare and transportation while you are working a low paying job or trying to get an education

 

[Mac1958]

Surely you realize that saying "I'm for charity providing support" is the same thing as the GOP saying "no", don't you? The question is whether government should be involved, and you are saying "no", as I said.

.

Providing shelter and food for the poor is not the same as providing government housing, food stamps, cell phones, electricity, internet, etc… for the poor. It is helping them survive and get a job and back on their feet. We far too often spend our money on things that help the needy stay needy rather than help the needy get on to their own two feet. We don’t provide welfare for the poor we provide the poor a life in poverty.

Government programs provide both a safety net and a path out of poverty. In taking a path out of poverty it is nearly impossible to pay for housing, food, healthcare and transportation while you are working a low paying job or trying to get an education

... and it's an issue that must be approached and addressed with balance, my original point.

.

 

[KevinWestern]

Socialiats, among -many- other things, seek to provide "social justice", which boils down to taking from the haves and giving to the have nots. They do this because their version of morality tells them that it is wrong for people to go without when others have more than enough, and they see government as the means thru which they may attain that end.

In short, they happily force their morality upon others, while taking great exception should someone try to do the same to them.

However, though, are you totally against the idea of social “safety nets”?

I'm not clear - do you agree or disagree with my assertion?
If you disagree, please explain why.

M14 Shooter – It’s a toughie (whether I agree or not).

For one, I certainly don’t subscribe to a “socialist” setup where everything is co-owned, all wealth is shared to a significant degree, ect.

However, I don’t necessarily like the idea of 97% of the entire wealth of this country being held by the top half of the nation, while the bottom half holds about 3%.

Why is it happening? For a lot of reasons, one of them being that we’re no longer the manufacturing powerhouse we once were. The jobs that paid good wages to low-skilled factory workers in the 50’s have since moved overseas, and America now is now much more of a “highly skilled” society. Also, because of technology, the work of ten men now only takes one guy, and that one guy gets paid a good amount of money. This income gap is not due to an “evil wealthy” conspiracy, it’s simply just the result of a changing economic landscape in America.

That said, we simply have less opportunities in America today for the “other 9 guys” who were replaced by the single highly skilled worker, and therefore we have an ever increasing pool of Americans in poverty.

So, how to fix that? The solution in my view is NOT by simply taking money from the top earners and putting into the bank accounts of the lower earners. This solves nothing with regards to the larger picture, which is an American economic landscape which has evolved and we need to adapt to. All it ends up doing, most of the time, is make people on the bottom dependent on a welfare check. Again social safety nets are OK, however welfare sometimes falls into the realm of what people think as a “permanent” check coming to them.

But again we - as a nation - need to discuss some solutions that will address this issue of a growing wealth and income gap between the top earners and the low earners. Simply saying that the lower earners need to "take personal responsibility" and "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" to better themselves doesn't cut it, because it doesn't address the systemic fact that there simply aren't enough jobs to go around.

As I mentioned, in the past 10 guys would make $50,000k (or the equivalent in 50's $'s) each, but now it's just one guy making $100,000k. Those other nine guys are now settling for $20-30,000k each.

Either way, we have a genuine issue on on our hands.

I think something needs to be done. It seems like we can do better when we’re the richest country in the world, yet there are millions of children who are starving and without access to medical care, ect. I think there is room for the government to step in here to assist.

I apologize if I haven’t answered your question, but this is what just kind of came out.

 

[M14 Shooter]

However, though, are you totally against the idea of social “safety nets”?

I'm not clear - do you agree or disagree with my assertion?
If you disagree, please explain why.

M14 Shooter – It’s a toughie (whether I agree or not).
For one, I certainly don’t subscribe to a “socialist” setup where everything is co-owned, all wealth is shared to a significant degree, ect.

Well, that's good - but you'll note that my possts doesnt reference this at all.

However, I don’t necessarily like the idea of 97% of the entire wealth of this country being held by the top half of the nation, while the bottom half holds about 3%.

Those who live in and contrubute to a free society will almost always have more, and better, stuff than those that don't. The only way to change that is to get rid of the "free" part.

So, how to fix that? The solution in my view is NOT by simply taking money from the top earners and putting into the bank accounts of the lower earners. This solves nothing.

But again we - as a nation - need to discuss some solutions that will address this issue. I think something needs to be done. It seems like we can do better when we’re the richest country in the world, yet there are millions of children who are starving and without access to medical care, ect. I think there is room for the government to step in here to assist.

That's all well and good - but again, it's a question of forcing people to abide by someone's version of morality or allowing people to act as their morality might dictate.
As I said - the only way to change that is to get rid of the "free" in "free society".

I apologize if I haven’t answered your question, but this is what just kind of came out.

10-4.