How do we break society off the government teet?

[Hayabusa Rider]

The vast majority of the Unemployed do.

I just had a look at the budget for the county in which I live. The fact is that a whole lot of people have not working as a career. Making babies shouldn't be a job. Heaven knows I see a lot of that every day in the city I work. In fact Steeplerot earlier made an interesting comment. The work ethic for too many is don't. Let someone do it for you.

 

[nehalem256]

Deregulation of the banking industry just caused a worldwide economic collapse and there are still lunatics suggesting that we regulate too much and that THAT is the problem.

The problem is we regulate the wrong things. I remember in the summer of 2007 going to the store and seeing a sign that the price of milk was raise due to state minimum price laws.

So the government was regulating the price of milk while failing to regulate credit derivatives

This thread is simply an insane right wing circle jerk about nonexistent american "liberals." Our democrats are to the right of conservatives in every other first world country and continue to move more to the right everyday. The republicans have pulled so far towards the cliff of the right that ANYTHING differing from talking points is labelled the mythical "liberal" oppressing them.

In what world is support for gay marriage a "right wing" ideal?

In what world is having divorcing 2 wives and wanting an open marriage a "right wing" ideal?

In what world is supporting bail outs for single mothers a "right wing" ideal?

Just because Europe is composed of radical left-wing parties does not make the Democrats right-wing.

 

[rudeguy]

I just had a look at the budget for the county in which I live. The fact is that a whole lot of people have not working as a career. Making babies shouldn't be a job. Heaven knows I see a lot of that every day in the city I work. In fact Steeplerot earlier made an interesting comment. The work ethic for too many is don't. Let someone do it for you.

And that's nothing new.

When I was growing up, those people were homeless bums. The difference is now those same people drive almost new cars, eat like kings and have a nice place to live...all free to them.

 

[r3dsh1ft]

There are only two ways that i see us doing it. 1 the system crashing and we will be forced off of the Gov's teets. or...

2. Regulations are severely reduced causing job growth and small business growth.

 

[Jhhnn]

The problem is we regulate the wrong things. I remember in the summer of 2007 going to the store and seeing a sign that the price of milk was raise due to state minimum price laws.

So the government was regulating the price of milk while failing to regulate credit derivatives

So, uhh, "States' Rights" is a concept with unintended consequences?

In what world is support for gay marriage a "right wing" ideal?

Irrelevant to the topic at hand

In what world is having divorcing 2 wives and wanting an open marriage a "right wing" ideal?

In a world of male dominance, & in Newt's world. Irrelevant wrt economic issues, as well.

In what world is supporting bail outs for single mothers a "right wing" ideal?

In that same male dominated world where men aren't held accountable for their own actions, where financial support of their own children is optional. In a world where paying work has been automated & offshored, where it's more profitable to do that & loan the govt money for social welfare than for corporate interests to pay reasonable wages employing Americans.

Just because Europe is composed of radical left-wing parties does not make the Democrats right-wing.

Radical left wingers like these?

http://www.thenation.com/slideshow/162731/slide-show-europes-far-right-resurgence

 

[Jhhnn]

I just had a look at the budget for the county in which I live. The fact is that a whole lot of people have not working as a career. Making babies shouldn't be a job. Heaven knows I see a lot of that every day in the city I work. In fact Steeplerot earlier made an interesting comment. The work ethic for too many is don't. Let someone do it for you.

Everybody wants to be like Mitt- retired on $2M/mo, letting other people do it for him. Actually, they'd rather be like the Walton heirs, retired by virtue of inheritance.

And that's nothing new.

When I was growing up, those people were homeless bums. The difference is now those same people drive almost new cars, eat like kings and have a nice place to live...all free to them.

Nice bit of false attribution. Believing in lies is the core value of right wing delusionists.

 

[nehalem256]

In a world of male dominance, & in Newt's world. Irrelevant wrt economic issues, as well.

Which of course explains why as women have gained more power divorce has risen. Its because male dominance leads to divorce

In that same male dominated world where men aren't held accountable for their own actions, where financial support of their own children is optional.

Liberals refuse to hold women accountable for anything. Hell, many states passed laws to legalise women abandoning their babies (see safe haven laws).

And apparently you never heard of child support laws huh... although why the left thinks it is ok to ruin the life of some 18 year old boy, because his gf is too stupid to get an abortion is beyond me. Or wait its not, it is because liberals refuse to hold women accountable for their actions.

And you are assuming that the woman even knows who the father is...

In a world where paying work has been automated & offshored, where it's more profitable to do that & loan the govt money for social welfare than for corporate interests to pay reasonable wages employing Americans.

You mean a world where liberals increased the size of the work force by encouraging women to get jobs. And of course in no world is a 20 year old single mother with 2 kids going to be able to get a job to support them and pay for day care.

Radical left wingers like these?

http://www.thenation.com/slideshow/162731/slide-show-europes-far-right-resurgence

Perhaps you should look up the word resurgence. The left-wing has dominated European politics for decades. And still does, those all appear to be MINORITY parties.

 

[shadow9d9]

Which of course explains why as women have gained more power divorce has risen. Its because male dominance leads to divorce



Liberals refuse to hold women accountable for anything. Hell, many states passed laws to legalise women abandoning their babies (see safe haven laws).

And apparently you never heard of child support laws huh... although why the left thinks it is ok to ruin the life of some 18 year old boy, because his gf is too stupid to get an abortion is beyond me. Or wait its not, it is because liberals refuse to hold women accountable for their actions.

And you are assuming that the woman even knows who the father is...



You mean a world where liberals increased the size of the work force by encouraging women to get jobs. And of course in no world is a 20 year old single mother with 2 kids going to be able to get a job to support them and pay for day care.



Perhaps you should look up the word resurgence. The left-wing has dominated European politics for decades. And still does, those all appear to be MINORITY parties.

That is a pile of insanity that I will not touch.

 

[Jhhnn]

Perhaps you should look up the word resurgence. The left-wing has dominated European politics for decades. And still does, those all appear to be MINORITY parties.

Yeh- as if British Tories aren't Conservative, or Merkel's party, or Sarkozy, either, let alone Fidesz, the ruling party in Hungary.

The rest? Just your usual misogynist rant.

 

[nehalem256]

Yeh- as if British Tories aren't Conservative, or Merkel's party, or Sarkozy, either, let alone Fidesz, the ruling party in Hungary.

The rest? Just your usual misogynist rant.

Right.

Because pointing our reality is now misogyny :\

1.) Sorry, but any rational person know that a 20 year old single mother is not going to be able to get a job to support 2 kids and pay for daycare.

2.) Any person who has seen divorce stats knows that increasing women's power is correlated with increasing divorce. The opposite of what you claimed

3.) Any person with basic understanding of economics knows that increasing the supply of labor will lead to decreasing wages

4.) It is blatantly obvious that liberals refuse to hold women accountable for their actions at any time. You yourself were willing to allow a woman, who had 7 children taken from her for abusing them, to continue having more. http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=33355803&postcount=2

 

[Incorruptible]

End the welfare immediately, too bad for those people who want to steal my hard earned tax dollars

 

[shadow9d9]

End the welfare immediately, too bad for those people who want to steal my hard earned tax dollars

In fantasy world maybe. Reality is that you will be affected by the homeless, the tons of ER bills, the crime, and dead people on the street. Do some research on the great depression please. Fantasy is fun. Idealism is fun. Reality is a different story though.

 

[Incorruptible]

In fantasy world maybe. Reality is that you will be affected by the homeless, the tons of ER bills, the crime, and dead people on the street. Do some research on the great depression please. Fantasy is fun. Idealism is fun. Reality is a different story though.

More fear mongering, what your saying is these people are animals who cant behave

 

[shadow9d9]

Oh, and if you want to end welfare, we should end corporate welfare first. You could reduce the military machine by 75% each year, which is corporate welfare to defense contractors that are not needed. Then you could make corporate taxes a flat tax so we don't have 1/3 of the Fortune 500 paying 0 in taxes. Then you could regulate the banks so we don't need to spend a trillion in bailouts again in the future.

 

[shadow9d9]

More fear mongering, what your saying is these people are animals who cant behave

Fear mongering? Umm, it happened already. It is reality. Go research the great depression. These are not hypotheticals.

And people cannot take care of themselves. How many people do you know that can retire without assistance anywhere near 60? Unless it is 100%, what do you think will happen to the people that end up on the street? Crime, ER bills that YOU will pay, homelessness that will affect your property, your safety, you and your kids' exposure to drug related incidents, etc.

 

[nehalem256]

Oh, and if you want to end welfare, we should end corporate welfare first. You could reduce the military machine by 75% each year, which is corporate welfare to defense contractors that are not needed.

I 100% agree with decreasing military spending

Then you could make corporate taxes a flat tax so we don't have 1/3 of the Fortune 500 paying 0 in taxes.

And should we also make personal income a flat tax? :sneaky:

Then you could regulate the banks so we don't need to spend a trillion in bailouts again in the future.

Of course you do realize that TARP was nominally $700 billion... of which less than $400 bilion was spent... and much of that was repaid to the government.

Oh and btw we spend $389 billion on health care bailouts for the poor (Medicaid) in 2010 alone. http://www.statehealthfacts.org/profileind.jsp?cat=4&sub=47&rgn=1

 

[Incorruptible]

Oh, and if you want to end welfare, we should end corporate welfare first. You could reduce the military machine by 75% each year, which is corporate welfare to defense contractors that are not needed. Then you could make corporate taxes a flat tax so we don't have 1/3 of the Fortune 500 paying 0 in taxes. Then you could regulate the banks so we don't need to spend a trillion in bailouts again in the future.

When I said end welfare, it means end all welfare

No regulation of banks

 

[1prophet]

This what the American left don't seem to understand. A job is a means to an end. If the creature comforts of life were supplied without effort, a vast percentage of people would choose not to work. Nobody wants to scrub toilets for 8 hours a day. What they want is food and shelter.

That's also why it's so funny that the left which supports things like welfare and unemployment is so quick to attack me for sitting on unemployment. Trust me, if I don't have to work I'm not going to. If I do have to work, I'm going to make sure I have the best paying job I can. If I've gotta put in 40 hours a week, might as well get the highest compensation I can. But if I can live a slightly lower lifestyle but all of my time is my own, I'm willing to make that trade off. I think a lot of people feel the same way.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-funemployment4-2009jun04,0,7581684.story

Yes you can, but mentally you can atrophy no different than the person that sits on the couch watching TV, eating all day and not exercising.

That's why most people who are unemployed for a long period of time have difficulty getting back into the work environment and most employers know this.

The few that can go back with little to no problems are the ones that have kept a regular schedule (not sleeping til 11 am every day) and find things to keep themselves busy.

 

[Steeplerot]

Nice bit of false attribution. Believing in lies is the core value of right wing delusionists.

They act like paranoid animals angry someone else is eating a meatchunk.

Maybe one day they will be civilized. Doubtful though. How do you deprogram narcissism/sociopath tendencies fed to them by a sick society?

They have been told they were pooped out into a world magically set up for them, thus have a bigass entitlement chip on their shoulder, like somehow they are some self made pioneer, it's pathetic and delusional as hell.

 

[1prophet]

Fear mongering? Umm, it happened already. It is reality. Go research the great depression. These are not hypotheticals.

And people cannot take care of themselves. How many people do you know that can retire without assistance anywhere near 60? Unless it is 100%, what do you think will happen to the people that end up on the street? Crime, ER bills that YOU will pay, homelessness that will affect your property, your safety, you and your kids' exposure to drug related incidents, etc.

People were far more orderly and respectful in the soup lines during the great depression than today's generation outside their favorite big box store during the start of black Friday.

As for people becoming a threat, do you remember the LA riots?
They didn't burn down or loot Beverly hills, or Simi Valley, instead they do like they always have and burn and loot their own neighborhood.

This idea of Mad Max style roving gangs that are going to infiltrate and destroy well off neighborhoods or homeless are going to squat in your backyard if we cut off their welfare funds is liberal Hollywood brainwashing bs.

 

[Steeplerot]

They didn't burn down or loot Beverly hills, or Simi Valley, instead they do like they always have and burn and loot their own neighborhood.

This is a racist generalization the corporate media fed to the rest of the USA. City hall was burned, the military induction center for all of so cal was burned -to the ground. Military equipment dumps were raided. And suburban malls all the way out to the valley were looted.

The "black peoples randomly burning shit" is such a joke to one who was actually there. Seriously, do you all ever use critical thinking? Or do you just cherry pick what fits your twisted view of others?

It doesn't even make sense, this line of thinking.



Hundreds and hundreds spontaneously gathered downtown in front of LAPD headquarters. A traffic booth in the parking lot went up in flames. Local news pictured glass doors and windows being smashed as cops in riot gear lined the inside of the building. At one point demonstrators tore down a U.S. flag and set it on fire. News reports said that cars were flipped over and torched, including at least one police car. The crowd surged through the downtown area, attacking symbols of power from City Hall, to the courthouses, to the LA Times building.

Over the next several days, the media reported that crowds attacked the Military Induction Center in the Crenshaw district, that the DMV building in Long Beach was torched, and that there was a firebombing of the probation office in Compton. Police set up concrete barricades surrounding many stations.

But yeah, it was dem damn darkies randomly burning shit because....uhh. You dont know do you?

Because you are part of the problem.

At the time I was just a wee little idealistic anarchist running a co-op in Hollyweird. I was there. I also attended a high school in Inglewood literally right next to Compton. I saw this unfold having to go south to school daily. It was all over.


The -only- reason Beverley Hills did not get torched is simple, when the shit hit the fan the LAPD abandoned the working class peoples neighborhoods to defend the rich. Go figure!

We had a good sized riot also here in San Francisco when the Iraq war started, same pattern: City Hall torched, banks vandalized, police forced up to retreat to save their masters. The rich.

But of course they generalized it in the media by saying it was random acts of destruction by hooligans.

LOL I saw blue haired old ladies showing young kids how to build molotovs in that one.

Fighting back against power unfairly leveraged against normal working people is a American tradition as old as this countries history.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ja6f67DalPs

 

[WhipperSnapper]

As we stand with the poor economy, unstable job market and rising inflation, more people are turning to the government to support themselves and their families. I 1000% think there should be temporary assistance programs to help people, however we have gone far beyond that.

I am not blaming the individual, the government or any group. Its society that has made it ok for this to happen. Its no longer seen as a bad thing to live on welfare for years or decades at a time. Apparently now Disability is another option for people that don't want to work. Of course not everyone on Disability has this problem (my own mom is on it) but there are plenty of people on it who very well COULD work.

The problem boils down to several factors, in no particular order.

(1.) An increasingly obscene amount of the wealth produced by our society is going into the pockets of the top 1% or 5%, which means that the bottom 99% or 95% is going to be poorer and thus more dependent on government assistance.

(2.) Bad international trade and immigration policies were implemented for the purpose of allowing the top 1% or 5% to maintain a larger percentage of workers' contribution to wealth production as profit. The result has been an economic phenomenon called Global Labor Arbitrage, which is basically a merger and averaging out of the U.S. economy and labor market (and thus standard of living and quality of life) with that of the poverty of the third world. (You can do the math.)

(3.) Population explosion has worsened Malthusian forces, which means that the relative prices of limited resources are higher than what they would be if we had a lower population. When 2X the population wants to use Y amount of land, the cost of those resources on Y amount of land is going to be much higher than it is if only 1X amount of people wanted to use it.

The causes of our nation's economic decline really aren't that difficult to understand, but Americans have been propagandized to believe in a free market religious dogma and to oppose big bad evil socialism and "big gubermint".

 

[WhipperSnapper]

No, we've never gotten less government over time, so that's certainly not what got us here. We need more effective government, not more government. Huge difference. Smaller or bigger isn't really the issue, effective or not effective government is the issue. If you have more effective government, it also doesn't need to be as big because fewer resources are wasted.

That's a great point. It is almost as though all the Republicans and Tea Tards can contemplate is "less government or more gubermint" while being completely unaware of the possibility that the problem might not be the exact size of the government but rather its economic policies.

 

[nehalem256]

The problem boils down to several factors, in no particular order.

(1.) An increasingly obscene amount of the wealth produced by our society is going into the pockets of the top 1% or 5%, which means that the bottom 99% or 95% is going to be poorer and thus more dependent on government assistance.

(2.) Bad international trade and immigration policies were implemented for the purpose of allowing the top 1% or 5% to maintain a larger percentage of workers' contribution to wealth production as profit. The result has been an economic phenomenon called Global Labor Arbitrage, which is basically a merger and averaging out of the U.S. economy and labor market (and thus standard of living and quality of life) with that of the poverty of the third world. (You can do the math.)

(3.) Population explosion has worsened Malthusian forces, which means that the relative prices of limited resources are higher than what they would be if we had a lower population. When 2X the population wants to use Y amount of land, the cost of those resources on Y amount of land is going to be much higher than it is if only 1X amount of people wanted to use it.

The causes of our nation's economic decline really isn't that difficult to understand, but Americans have been propagandized to believe in a free market religious dogma and to oppose big bad evil socialism and "big gubermint".

On 2), in addition to the increase in the workforce participation rate in the US caused by women entering the workforce which basic economics tells us will depress wages. Basically this is a doubling down on 2.

On 1.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States#Measurement I think your 99 or 95% is a bit of an exaggeration. It seems to be more like 20% vs 80%. Of course for obvious reasons the left has popularized the 1% vs 99% instead of 20% vs 80%.

 

[nehalem256]

That's a great point. It is almost as though all the Republicans and Tea Partiers can contemplate is "less government or more government" while being completely unaware of the possibility that the problem might not be the exact size of the government but rather its economic policies.

Just like the problem is not regulations, but where they are. It seems pretty clear we need more regulation of the financial industry.