Personal responsibility and freedom are neo-con gags and smoke screens

[zillafurby]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
*butts in with obligatory comment that raising someone's nominal wage does not change the real value of their labor and they will soon be forced back into the same buying power that they already have*

this is about distribution of gdp not the amount of it, go back to your books.

 

[zillafurby]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: zillafurby

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: zillafurby

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: zillafurby
i told what a basic standard of living would be in my view, adn that $10-$15 an hour would pay of it in most instances. If i thought more was appropriate id suggest more, but I dont. I think a basic standard of living is all that should be guaranteed to people prepared to do their best.

So it's arbitrary.

OK, next point- How does one determine who gets to live in a gov't house and how much they pay to live there? Or is that fully paid for by tax dollars too?

CkG

its not arbitrary its about some justice. government housing, well either the government provides it, or its done privately in which case people need to earn more inorder to pay the mortgage. i guess pople who's income cant support private accommodation should be provided a basic house for a basic rent.

Right...so it's arbitrary.

So furby - who decideds who lives in gov't housing? What income are we talking about? Didn't your $10-15/hr wage already address the money for mortgage situation? Or has it now become $10-15/hr PLUS gov't housing? Or is gov't housing only for those that don't have a job?
Basically - what should be the requirements a person has to meet to live in a gov't house?

CkG

i know americans dont like reading or listening to other popelsz arguments but if you look at what i put above;

assume a single parent, with 2-3 kids, enough money to clothe, feed, pay the bills, provide a normal upbringing for the kids, like some pocket money, live in a local government house, or whatever you have, access to free healthcare, and enough disposable income for a tv, a few treats etc, not much, but given it only applies to the bottom 10-20% of society not that costly either. a minimum income of atleast $10-$15 per hour i guess depending on the area of the country. total affect on business cost bases would be minimal, and gov would save money by getting better focussed school kids and more stable family backgrounds for the poor.

if they wont work and are lazy, they can build a hut as far as i care, if they work or are properly incapable of it they shoudl have a basic living.

i dont care whether you call it arbitrary or not. you have probably never met people like this.

Like I want to waste my time asking you questions if I wasn't reading what you said and trying to understand your argument. I just need more details because while your idea sounds nice and all(to some) it lacks the details of who and how much and etc.
The idea of people making more money is nice but why do they also then need gov't housing? Does the gov't provide them food and clothes too - even though they make $10-15/hr?
I'm not "against" the poor or helping those that CAN'T help themselves - I just don't believe the gov't should provide everything for everyone.

Now again - who will be living in the gov't housing? Is that determined by income? What income level would that be? How big/nice of place should the gov't provide? What incentive do the people who would live there have to leave gov't housing?

Lots of questions.... all I ask is for you to better define your opinion.

Oh, and I know alot of "poor" people. I have lived "poor" and decided to get out of a dead end situation and place. So while it was a nice try - your insinuation that I have never seen/met poor people - is 100% wrong - I lived among them.

CkG

obviosouly the government would look at an applicants income and decide whether cheap housing should be provided a typical case would be a single mother, a typical rejection would be a young single person on a low wage.

$10-$15 is enough to get by on IMHO.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: zillafurby

Originally posted by: ElFenix
*butts in with obligatory comment that raising someone's nominal wage does not change the real value of their labor and they will soon be forced back into the same buying power that they already have*

this is about distribution of gdp not the amount of it, go back to your books.

what the hell do you think i'm talking about? you just proved how little you know about economics

 

[przero]

zillafurby - How old are you? Ever heard of Communism? Ever think people don't won't to work? In my experience at least 80% of employees refuse overtime consistently and 65% avg. less than 34 hrs/week when 40+ hrs./wk are available. Where is the second parent in your presentation? Artificial insemination? And do you relaize the amount of workers making $40,000+ that WILL NOT purchase health insurance? Why should they, the rest of us pick up the tab!

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: zillafurby
for economic slavery, by putting too much responsibilty on the individual, because in any society you have some higher skilled and some lower skilled people and in america the low skilled effectively end up with lower disposable incomes whilst being fooled into being freedom and personal responsibility cheerleaders. whereas in societies with less fear and more even distribution you have a more human society, and less rejects going around with nothing to lose.

the kicker to your whole argument is 'disposable income' who cares how much they have as long as they can provide the necessities for themselves, right? as long as theyre not homless, nekked, and starving, it doesnt matter what frivolous things they can or cannot afford.

what did people in the 1800's do before industrialization? they worked long fvcking hours and had no concern, except that their family was provided for, it didnt include the newest horse carriage so they looked fashionable when they went to town.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Zephyr106

This is a democracy? Is it not?

Zephyr

it's a representative republic.

Not according to the CIA.

Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition

 

[n0cmonkey]

Private corporations and state governments should be allowed to purchase children from single parents.