From my cold dead hand
-
Con_Alma
Why do you want to take away the protections? Have you even read my posts? I clearly stated above that having safety nets in place are good thing.isadore;1150546 wrote:Ok, lets take away the protections for the old, the handicapped, the children. Let them be what you consider to be free. The effect of that action would not be freedom but unbelieveable suffering on a monumental scale that would make a lie of any claim to America being a humane nation.
I don't believe, however, that there would be suffering on a monumental scale. -
isadoreSuffering on a monumental scale. We have seen it during the Great Depression. Physical problems produced by malnutrtion at the time scarred 3 generations at the time. And people starved to death in America. The private charity system collapsed. At the start of our recent recession as unemployment increased, private contributions to charity decreased. And a cut back in our present government support system would cause untold suffering.
You seem to want to have it both ways condemning a system then saying how good it is. Starvation, loss of shelter or medical care do not increase freedom. -
Con_Alma
I can't find one program that I have condemned. You must be exaggerating for effect. How could an interpretation be one of condemning when I have stated such safety nets should be in place. In addition it is not starvation and lsoss of shelter that leads to freedom but rather the dependence of being fed and sheltered that lead to loss of freedom.isadore;1150578 wrote:...
You seem to want to have it both ways condemning a system then saying how good it is. Starvation, loss of shelter or medical care do not increase freedom.
There's a difference. -
Con_Alma
Comparing the great depression to the things available today is clearly an indication you are not reading what is posted. It's not an all or nothing option when it comes to government assistance like you seem to imply. solutions don't have to be feed everyone or don't feed them at all.isadore;1150578 wrote:Suffering on a monumental scale.We have seen it during the Great Depression.... -
Heretic
Lol. Neither party serves "real people". As things are today, Repubs want to put your money into the war machine to see what inferior country is next to launch full-scale operations into. Dems want to put your money into the poor machine to give everything under the sun to people who don't earn shit. Both need nuked. Anyone who truly thinks one side is better or more noble than the other in today's age is seriously delusional.isadore;1149887 wrote:The Republican Party is the party in service to the rich, always serving their interests. The Democrats serve the interests of the right kind people, the other 99% with the large majority of blacks and women. -
gutTake away the big stick and then foreign policy might actually matter. I like to pretend foreign policy matters, too, but I'm hard-pressed outside of the cold-war to think of any meaningful or lasting foreign policy accomplishments since WWII - all the treaties and the lot are largely ceremonial pretense. The stick has had a lot more influence, good and bad, than the carrot and the most certain way to change that dynamic is to continue leading the economy down the shitter.
-
gut
You can lump the vast majority of them into one of two groups. Not sure which came first, but it's essentially a struggle to see who can extract more value FROM (not for) their constituents at the expense of the other's. Throughout history, those who control capital or its allocation (be it the rich or govt) reap the power, wealth and influence it generates. Most of those in Washington do not have the talent to create that wealth for themselves, but they do have a talent for influence whereby they get elected into positions that enable them to leech power & wealth from those that have the actual talent to create it. The only true redistribution of wealth going on here is a transfer from the rich to the politicians, with a little "trickling down" to their govt minions (be it an all-expenses paid GSA junket or a secret service orgy).Heretic;1150784 wrote:Anyone who truly thinks one side is better or more noble than the other in today's age is seriously delusional. -
isadore
So you don’t condemn the programs you condemn the recipients. And who make up the bulk of the recipients: the aged, the handicapped and children. Wow yes we have made these people dependent by our programs. Lets get them all back on the job market, the damned parasites.Con_Alma;1150751 wrote:I can't find one program that I have condemned. You must be exaggerating for effect. How could an interpretation be one of condemning when I have stated such safety nets should be in place. In addition it is not starvation and lsoss of shelter that leads to freedom but rather the dependence of being fed and sheltered that lead to loss of freedom.
There's a difference. -
isadore
The fact it is not the Great Depression situation is because of the safety net that was established starting with the New Deal. The system whose recipients you condemn. No American should have to go hungry, unsheltered or without proper health care. Of course you see these folks as possible parasites.Con_Alma;1150757 wrote:Comparing the great depression to the things available today is clearly an indication you are not reading what is posted. It's not an all or nothing option when it comes to government assistance like you seem to imply. solutions don't have to be feed everyone or don't feed them at all. -
isadore
how to spot the truly delusional, those who write about "the war machine" and "the poor machine." The first found consistently among the ravings of the extreme left and the other with the extreme right. And then they coalesce together in the ravings of the Paulites.Heretic;1150784 wrote:Lol. Neither party serves "real people". As things are today, Repubs want to put your money into the war machine to see what inferior country is next to launch full-scale operations into. Dems want to put your money into the poor machine to give everything under the sun to people who don't earn ****. Both need nuked. Anyone who truly thinks one side is better or more noble than the other in today's age is seriously delusional. -
believer
Americans shouldn't have to go hungry, unsheltered, and unhealthy...but Americans also shouldn't expect those needs to be fulfilled by Big Government.isadore;1150984 wrote:The fact it is not the Great Depression situation is because of the safety net that was established starting with the New Deal. The system whose recipients you condemn. No American should have to go hungry, unsheltered or without proper health care. Of course you see these folks as possible parasites. -
Con_Alma
I haven't "condemned" anything or anybody. Why must you exaggerate?isadore;1150982 wrote:So you don’t condemn the programs you condemn the recipients. And who make up the bulk of the recipients: the aged, the handicapped and children. Wow yes we have made these people dependent by our programs. Lets get them all back on the job market, the damned parasites. -
Con_Alma
I condemn no one. The fact is that we have and would have nothing like the great depression because of the very safety net that I have already expressed should be and is in place.isadore;1150984 wrote:The fact it is not the Great Depression situation is because of the safety net that was established starting with the New Deal. The system whose recipients you condemn. No American should have to go hungry, unsheltered or without proper health care. Of course you see these folks as possible parasites.
Do you read the posts or just respond? -
Con_Alma
When they are provided by the government, their freedom continues to be eroded as they become dependent on those entitlemenst for survival.believer;1151288 wrote:Americans shouldn't have to go hungry, unsheltered, and unhealthy...but Americans also shouldn't expect those needs to be fulfilled by Big Government. -
pmoney25
According to isadore the only people who use these safety nets are old people, young kids and handicapped. There is absolutely no way to make these systems run more efficiently. The only answer to isadore is to spend more. -
isadore
of course the people should expect it, with an economy that is cyclical, with a government pledged to protect their general welfare, with no other institution capable of providing for those who are hungry, unsheltered and unhealthy.believer;1151288 wrote:Americans shouldn't have to go hungry, unsheltered, and unhealthy...but Americans also shouldn't expect those needs to be fulfilled by Big Government. -
isadore
that is a condemnation as you continue to want to have it both ways.Con_Alma;1151294 wrote:When they are provided by the government, their freedom continues to be eroded as they become dependent on those entitlemenst for survival. -
isadore
the old, the handicapped and the aged are a very large percentage of those protected by our social safety net. Of course we could save money on their backs, it might save you a few bucks and descrease the excess population.pmoney25;1151298 wrote:According to isadore the only people who use these safety nets are old people, young kids and handicapped. There is absolutely no way to make these systems run more efficiently. The only answer to isadore is to spend more. -
isadore
Yes I read your posts.Con_Alma;1151292 wrote:I condemn no one. The fact is that we have and would have nothing like the great depression because of the very safety net that I have already expressed should be and is in place.
Do you read the posts or just respond?Con_Alma wrote: I clearly stated above that having safety nets in place are good thing.
Then we get the condemnationCon_Alma wrote:I can't find one program that I have condemned.
Con_Alma wrote:I also believe the magnitude of government aid and the length of said aid that's provided creates dependency. That's not freedom.
How do you describe aid to aged, handicapped and childrenCon_Alma wrote:the dependence of being fed and sheltered that lead to loss of freedom.
But then you diminish the importance of the programsCon_Alma wrote:They are trapped and dependent on the government.
According to you if they did not have the programsCon_Alma wrote:I don't believe, however, that there would be suffering on a monumental scale.
　Con_Alma wrote:They wouldn't starve to death any more than those people not being fed by the government starve to death.
When in fact the government is the only institution that can provide the necessary to keep the needy healthy, housed and free from starvation. At times of greatest need such as the Depression other institutions have failed to provide for those in need. When the great recession hit charity contribution decreased as need increased. -
Al BundyI don't think you will find anyone who doesn't think that we shouldn't help those that can't work because of handicaps, the extremely old, or the extremely young.
We should also help people that have temporary difficult times because of things such as unemployment. We should not allow people to live off of the government their entire lives. There are many people who choose not to work because they would rather take handouts. I often see people on food stamps using a cell phone. People on food stamps and welfare should not have many of the extras that they have such as cell phones, cable, etc. -
Con_Alma
I describe it as meaningful government aid.isadore;1151336 wrote:...
How do you describe aid to aged, handicapped and children...
They...as in the aged, handicapped and children? You are simply incorrect. I have clearly professed my belief in a safety net. Nowhere have I stated the aged, handicapped and children shouldn't be provided for through government programs. Sorry. You are not clearly reading what's written.isadore;1151336 wrote:...According to you if they did not have the programs....
　 -
gut
That's like gubmit mantra - if a program is failing, it can only be because it's underfunded. The solution is always and everywhere to throw more money at it. And they don't even bother to collect the taxes to pay for it any more. And if you're not going to pay for it, then why limit your spending or have a budget in the first place? Welcome to liberal economics where money & finances are just a speed bump or distraction on their way to building the perfect utopia.pmoney25;1151298 wrote:According to isadore the only people who use these safety nets are old people, young kids and handicapped. There is absolutely no way to make these systems run more efficiently. The only answer to isadore is to spend more. -
FatHobbit
Unfortunately I don't think it's just the libs who play that way. It's EVERYONE.gut;1151646 wrote:Welcome to liberal economics where money & finances are just a speed bump or distraction on their way to building the perfect utopia. -
gut
True, to some extent. Certainly today I think the vote pandering has become so strong that Repubs are going along not to "buy votes" but more so they are afraid cuts will refund votes. I think this all does have it's roots back to about 2000 when Repubs and Dems came together in a bipartisna orgy of tax cuts and spending increases. The former is fixable, the latter is what has really spiraled out of control and entitlements are just so hard to undo (at least for career politicians).FatHobbit;1151723 wrote:Unfortunately I don't think it's just the libs who play that way. It's EVERYONE.
This really started getting out of control under Bush. You have the tax cuts probably bleeding off a few hundred billion a year, and then the wars. Then the budget ballons his last few years with the double-whammy of stimulus, bailouts and loss of revenues from job losses. But then, inexplicably, that jaw-dropping deficit has ballooned another $1T a year or so. And I keep asking the question "where is that money going"?
I guess the best way to describe it is Republicans have been bleeding us slowly, death by a thousand cuts (or lack thereof, being more appropriate). But Obama and the Dems have opened up a vein or two. At this point, it's a relatively small minority in Washington that still believes deficits matter. And today, as in right now, that might be true. But the debt it being piled so high that when we can't get cheap credit anymore and have to pay either much higher interest rates or inflation (or both), there will be no getting out from under it.
When rates get back up to 6-7% (normative levels, for the most part), the debt service alone is going to add another $400B or so to spending. So you can go raise rates on corporations and the rich, and in just a few years all that will do is cover the higher debt service, leaving a $1.5T hole that will mean either massive cuts or tax increases for the other 90%. -
isadore
No sir, you are practicing duplicity. You claim you support the programs then you claim they enslave people and that the recipients can survive without themCon_Alma;1151536 wrote:I describe it as meaningful government aid.
They...as in the aged, handicapped and children? You are simply incorrect. I have clearly professed my belief in a safety net. Nowhere have I stated the aged, handicapped and children shouldn't be provided for through government programs. Sorry. You are not clearly reading what's written.