Gather 'Round Ye Socialists and Justify Your Means!

Originally posted by Sobieski II
What is RM's proposal for American society? The infallibility of capitalism?
Click to expand...

Here's my proposal:

If someone can't support themselves, too bad. Get a job. If you have a job, get another one or get some education. If you can't afford an education, save for it. If you can't save, then just work. If you can't work, don't expect my help.
 
That which you subsidize you will have more of. Was true 2000 years ago and remains true today. Pay people for not working and they will continue to not work.
 
Originally posted by rmsharpe
I get it from reality. Does anyone remember what welfare was like before?

"No job? No problem! Here's the check."

"We're giving you an apartment, but there's only one condition: you can't pee in the elevator. Psst, even if you do, we won't do anything about it."

You'd really love a thief if he could break into people's houses, steal stuff, give it to you, and not face any consequences, right? Welcome to the Democratic party.
Click to expand...

Wasn't it Clinton who reformed welfare in accordance with fixing up these problems? Or was he just an exception to your rule?
 
Originally posted by rmsharpe

Dictators do this to a degree - create a class of people that love their leader and make sure it is big enough to keep them in power and put down the people that hate him - the people that seek individual achievement.
Click to expand...

Aren't the Republicans doing that right this moment?
"...creat[ing] a class of people that love their leader and make sure it is big enough to keep them in power and put down the people that hate him..."
 
Originally posted by Norlamand
That which you subsidize you will have more of. Was true 2000 years ago and remains true today. Pay people for not working and they will continue to not work.
Click to expand...

Then the reverse should be true: pay people for working and they will continue to work. But then, obviously, some people are fired, or layed off, or what-have-you.
 
Originally posted by rmsharpe


Here's my proposal:

If someone can't support themselves, too bad. Get a job. If you have a job, get another one or get some education. If you can't afford an education, save for it. If you can't save, then just work. If you can't work, don't expect my help.
Click to expand...

What is RM's solution to land ownership, and property rights? Give it to the ancestors of those who were violent enough to aquire it from the previous occupants? How can a mining company own a mountain?
 
Originally posted by Benderino


Then the reverse should be true: pay people for working and they will continue to work. But then, obviously, some people are fired, or layed off, or what-have-you.
Click to expand...

Yes, but in the reverse example you cite there is a degree of productivity that is lacking in my example. Paying people for doing something makes more sense than paying them for nothing. Unless, of course, you're a Marx fan.
 
Originally posted by Norlamand


Yes, but in the reverse example you cite there is a degree of productivity that is lacking in my example. Paying people for doing something makes more sense than paying them for nothing. Unless, of course, you're a Marx fan.
Click to expand...

Which I'm not, don't get me wrong (quite the opposite, the man was on crack). The thing is, though, that everyone falls on bad times, and so deserves a outstretched hand at times. Of course, dependency isn't good, but I've heard that most recipients get it very quickly until they find a new job (say within 6 months--tops).

Maybe I'm a little confused. Do unemployment benefits fit in with your definition of welfare? Or are they generally considered separate? Just wondering. :confused:
 
Here is my opinion. Everyone is a thief, and spends their philosophical life explaining how their thievery is good, and other's is evil.
 
"Wasn't it Clinton who reformed welfare in accordance with fixing up these problems? Or was he just an exception to your rule?"

Oh, the welfare bill he vetoed?

"Aren't the Republicans doing that right this moment?
'...creat[ing] a class of people that love their leader and make sure it is big enough to keep them in power and put down the people that hate him...' "

Every political party has done that since the beginning of time. It's better to be in power than to not be in power, right? Of course, do you have proof that the Republicans are doing so?

"But then, obviously, some people are fired, or layed off, or what-have-you."

And they will have saved enough to get through these hard times while finding a job (or having lower paying job in the meantime).

There are better ways than sitting on your ass in front of a computer screen calling for revolution.
 
Originally posted by Benderino


Which I'm not, don't get me wrong (quite the opposite, the man was on crack). The thing is, though, that everyone falls on bad times, and so deserves a outstretched hand at times. Of course, dependency isn't good, but I've heard that most recipients get it very quickly until they find a new job (say within 6 months--tops).

Maybe I'm a little confused. Do unemployment benefits fit in with your definition of welfare? Or are they generally considered separate? Just wondering. :confused:
Click to expand...

I am fully in support of a system of unemployment benefits and benefits to families that cannot provide for their children in an adequate manner. The question for me revolves more around the limits on the benefits. Short term benefits for 6-12 months (with appropriate job training if needed) are more than reasonable. Making a career out of garnering government handouts isn't. The same goes for having more kids while on government assistance.
 
Originally posted by covok48
"Wasn't it Clinton who reformed welfare in accordance with fixing up these problems? Or was he just an exception to your rule?"

Oh, the welfare bill he vetoed?

"Aren't the Republicans doing that right this moment?
'...creat[ing] a class of people that love their leader and make sure it is big enough to keep them in power and put down the people that hate him...' "

Every political party has done that since the beginning of time. It's better to be in power than to not be in power, right? Of course, do you have proof that the Republicans are doing so?

"But then, obviously, some people are fired, or layed off, or what-have-you."

And they will have saved enough to get through these hard times while finding a job (or having lower paying job in the meantime).

There are better ways than sitting on your ass in front of a computer screen calling for revolution.
Click to expand...

Owch! I never did that. Find once when I did that. If you'd taken the time to see everything I post on this site, you'll find that's not the kind of person I am. Look at my sig, for God's sake!

Anyway, I don't know what veto instance you are talking about. I just know he reformed the welfare system.

Secondly, I know every political party does that and has done that from the beginning of time. It was Rm who made the claim first, if you'll be so kind to look back a few more posts (and I'm called lazy). I was merely responding to him and making it clear that all groups do that. I never said the Dems didn't, did I?

Why do I need proof, you just admitted that everybody does this. We are in agreemance here, my friend.
 
Originally posted by Norlamand


I am fully in support of a system of unemployment benefits and benefits to families that cannot provide for their children in an adequate manner. The question for me revolves more around the limits on the benefits. Short term benefits for 6-12 months (with appropriate job training if needed) are more than reasonable. Making a career out of garnering government handouts isn't. The same goes for having more kids while on government assistance.
Click to expand...

Now that I totally agree with. It just seemed like you wanted to abolish the whole thing altogether (but I just misunderstood). Yeah, people who have more children while on welfare, are a problem. And it should be coupled with job training, when applicable. Short term help is encouraged, but long term is not so good.
 
I've read all the posts. And don't take offense to the last statement. That was aimed primarily towards those on this board who call for such a socialist revolution.

Clinton by no means reformed the welfare system. He did everything he did to fight it. The 1996 welfare reform worked and he has now taken the credit for it.

The other points I agree with. My apologies for sounding harsh.
 
The creation of the dependency class is only of the Democrats' making.

If you think you need the government to intervene in your daily lives, who are you going to vote for? Are you going to vote for those that are against the nanny state?

Now, I'm not defending big social spending here by any means. If it were all up to me, you'd have a federal budget less than 500 billion dollars per year and a Constitutional amendment limiting any level of taxes that can be levied on an individual.
 
The "job-training" that some of you talk about is just a joke. People take meaningless courses that they do NOT INTEND to get them a job, they (the unemployed) only take these courses to keep getting the unemployment check. Furthermore, these courses are paid for by the state, so that means just more expenses. But no problemo, lets just raise taxes (or as smart politicians in Norway figured out: Add numerous levies to subtly take more money from the people).

Welfare in my country is to good to pass up, myself I am planning to become unemployed, why? Lots of free time, not a care in the world, and lastly: I would get as much from the state as if I worked 5 days a week at a low-paying job, e.g. at McDonalds.

In this welfare state I live in, you can also get alot of expenses covered by the state, but it is just too much paper-work, so most people don't bother. But why don't let the people keep most of their money so they wouldn't have to do lots of paper-work to get them back
 
Originally posted by rmsharpe

If you think you need the government to intervene in your daily lives, who are you going to vote for? Are you going to vote for those that are against the nanny state?
Click to expand...

But what's the alternative?.... a party that will tell you what morals you should have, what substanced you can put in your body etc...

Sounds like your seeking the libertarian party not the GOP.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom