Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There are still plenty of places in this world where people survive without these services. I mentioned Haiti and Somalia, there are many other places in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Don't think that the Quality of Life we enjoy in the U.S. is a benign accident. It takes deliberate effort, with an associated cost, to create a country where people thrive and prosper instead of just survive (your word).
More deflection.
Have you learned what a "transfer payment" is yet? That's the topic. Not Haiti, not Somalia, not associated costs......not anything other than taking my money and giving to others while they sit on their collective asses, make life bad decisions, make bad financial decisions, spit out babies while not being able to feed them, and then do so with impunity.
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,297 posts, read 14,248,850 times
Reputation: 8110
Quote:
Originally Posted by alphamale
People are responsible for their own children, right?
Who is more responsible for YOUR children? You or me?
"MORE" responsible is the key to this. Ultimate responsibility lies with the parent. But we all have some responsibility to chip in a little for the care of children who aren't fully supported by their parents' work, or who are orphans. Do you want them to grow up capable of being assets to society, or do you want them to grow up like the street children of thirdworld countries, brain damaged from malnutrition and glue-sniffing, already on their way to becoming career criminals?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smoke_Jaguar4
Alright, Betaboy, I look forward to your response. In the meantime, here are some more for you to chew on:
If you or your business uses the Internet, which was created from government research, then you are a recipient.
If you or your business has ever used GPS, which is operated by the Air Force, then you are a recipient.
If you or your business has ever used any form of wireless communication, including cell phones, radios, or TV, where signals are deconflicted by the FCC, then you are a recipient.
If you have ever travelled overseas on a U.S. passport with all the services and protections it entails, then you are a recipient.
If you have ever conducted business overseas based on U.S. treaties and open trade policies, then you are a recipient.
If you or your business has ever measured weight, time, or distance of an item, which are standards maintained by NIST, then you are a recipient.
If you have ever traded in futures, commodities, currencies, or bonds, then you are a recipient.
If you have ever lived in an area which recieved aid for an emergency such as hurricanes, tornados, earthquake, floods, or volcanos, then you are a recipient.
Bottom line: taxes are the cost of civilization. Before whining about being a "provider", take a look at the list above and see where you have benefited from public services. Of course, you are aways free to move to a garden spot like Haiti or Somalia where your 'freedom' is unimpeded by a barely functioning government.
In addition to this, if Alphamale (who claims never to have received help from the govt) has ever traveled on paved public roads, been covered by police and fire services, has been schooled, or has used any invention derived from public university research (such as modern vehicles and practically every high tech gadget from phones to synthetic fabrics) - then he has received help in his life from the govt. In fact if he is better off in any way than his equally intelligent and industrious ancestors from 10,000 years ago, it was mainly due to being in a society supported by some form of taxation.
Have you learned what a "transfer payment" is yet? That's the topic. Not haiti, not somalia, not associated costs......not anything other than taking my money and giving to others while they sit on their collective asses, make life bad decisions, make bad financial decisions, spit out babies while not being able to feed them, and then do so with impunity.
The key phrase is a transfer payment creates no output.
Reducing malnutrtion and because a WIC recipient can feed her children is an output. This also has a secondary effect on crime and medical costs.
Reduced elderly poverty and homelessness through the Social Security program is an output (the original purpose of the SS program).
Enhance earnings and economic activity from people who benefited from education grants is an output. One of the single most important decisions in the 20th Century was to give veterans returning from WWII access to college through the GI Bill. This created a new class of highly educated workers that has built the foundation of U.S. economic prosperity today.
I can go on and on, but I think you get the point. It seems that you would be content if the streets were lined with the bodies of those who could not fend for themselves. Hopefully you will never find yourself needing to recieve public assistance. There are a lot of white-collar professionals who have been on long-term unemployment insurance who probably used to agree with you.
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,297 posts, read 14,248,850 times
Reputation: 8110
Great points again, Jaguar.
It's also worth noting that welfare and Social Security payments aren't held fallow in savings and investments, but are spent rather quickly. A welfare recipient has to pay rent, buy food, and use paid health services - so the money isn't being sunk, never to be seen again. It goes to pay businesses and stimulate the economy, which is why one stimulus package sent money directly to such recipients.
Economic stimulation in general improves life for the donors as well as the recipients, as long as it's done wisely and in moderation. (I don't think any of us are in favor of the govt spending unlimited amounts, we all want it done efficiently).
It's also worth noting that welfare and Social Security payments aren't held fallow in savings and investments, but are spent rather quickly. A welfare recipient has to pay rent, buy food, and use paid health services - so the money isn't being sunk, never to be seen again. It goes to pay businesses and stimulate the economy, which is why one stimulus package sent money directly to such recipients.
Economic stimulation in general improves life for the donors as well as the recipients, as long as it's done wisely and in moderation. (I don't think any of us are in favor of the govt spending unlimited amounts, we all want it done efficiently).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smoke_Jaguar4
The key phrase is a transfer payment creates no output.
Reducing malnutrtion and because a WIC recipient can feed her children is an output. This also has a secondary effect on crime and medical costs.
Reduced elderly poverty and homelessness through the Social Security program is an output (the original purpose of the SS program).
Enhance earnings and economic activity from people who benefited from education grants is an output. One of the single most important decisions in the 20th Century was to give veterans returning from WWII access to college through the GI Bill. This created a new class of highly educated workers that has built the foundation of U.S. economic prosperity today.
I can go on and on, but I think you get the point. It seems that you would be content if the streets were lined with the bodies of those who could not fend for themselves. Hopefully you will never find yourself needing to recieve public assistance. There are a lot of white-collar professionals who have been on long-term unemployment insurance who probably used to agree with you.
Sorry, but this is more simple-mindedness.
What you're saying is that these "outputs" from WIC and other social safety nets provide more "output" to the economy then allowing me to keep my money and investing it into something with REAL output.....business expenditures and consumables production. You're saying that poor people can do more with my money than I can as an entrepreneur.
Which is exactly why you get this all wrong....and have from the very beginning. You believe that transfer payments are of more economic benefit than it would had it stayed in the hands of us that actually do the heavy lifting in this country through business investment and economic output.
Your whole philosophy is that of Nancy Pelosi's and those who similarly believe that Food Stamps are a stimulus. Unfortunately, you don't exhibit the ability to understand the fallacy of this way of thinking.
Location: Just transplanted to FL from the N GA mountains
3,997 posts, read 4,174,669 times
Reputation: 2678
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smoke_Jaguar4
I can go on and on, but I think you get the point. It seems that you would be content if the streets were lined with the bodies of those who could not fend for themselves. Hopefully you will never find yourself needing to recieve public assistance. There are a lot of white-collar professionals who have been on long-term unemployment insurance who probably used to agree with you.
While your theories sound good in principal, and are no doubt great ethically, it comes down to a few simple questions... Just how much do you think that people should pay? 50% - 75% - 100% of their earned income? Am I ultimately responsible for everything and everybody's needs in this whole country? And if so... am I responsible too for every illegal in this country? And since you take my cash so freely am I not able to voice my opinion over it's use?
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,297 posts, read 14,248,850 times
Reputation: 8110
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC
Sorry, but this is more simple-mindedness.
What you're saying is that these "outputs" from WIC and other social safety nets provide more "output" to the economy then allowing me to keep my money and investing it into something with REAL output.....business expenditures and consumables production. You're saying that poor people can do more with my money than I can as an entrepreneur.
Which is exactly why you get this all wrong....and have from the very beginning. You believe that transfer payments are of more economic benefit than it would had it stayed in the hands of us that actually do the heavy lifting in this country through business investment and economic output.
Your whole philosophy is that of Nancy Pelosi's and those who similarly believe that Food Stamps are a stimulus. Unfortunately, you don't exhibit the ability to understand the fallacy of this way of thinking.
I don't believe at all that paying for social services to promote the general welfare NECESSARILY benefits YOU better than investing your own way. I'm just saying it's not a total loss even to you. It's not money that is lost or sunk away in an account for long periods of time. What goes around comes around, and you can see that in countries which have no social services to speak of. They have far fewer very wealthy people than the countries which spend a healthy amount on the needy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
