You must be a young fella as this reminds me of a talk I had with my teenage son.
I like to think I am young for 49. Why is it, liberals always begin a debate by hurling out a backhanded slap or insult first? Is that in the Pinhead Debate Manual? Sounds like your teenage son might have more sense than you.
You see, there are resorts around the world one can visit but people are advised not to leave the resort area. Why? Because the general population is poor. Very poor. While the governments in question harshly punish muggers, as the government does not want tourism to decline, the muggers are willing to take the chance because they are poor. Poor, as in living in shacks and lacking food. That type of poor. They see the tourist as being rich even though the tourist may have saved for years to be able to afford that vacation. To the mugger the tourist is wealthy. Imagine booking a week at Disney World in Orlando and the travel agent telling you it's not safe to leave the Disney grounds.
Yes, that is a terrible thing... but here's the deal, we've been pumping trillions of our tax dollars into helping the poor, community revitalization, empowerment zones, subsidized housing, food stamps, WIC, etc. We've been doing this since the days of FDR, and still, we have these dangers in resort areas. Still, there are people who are very poor, and there are people who will commit crime. And we can pump trillions more... we can double it, triple it, or quadruple it, and guess fucking what? People will STILL be poor, and people will STILL commit crime.
As for the war on poverty a good analogy would be the war in Iraq. Never do enough to end it. Just keep it dragging on.
WTF? No, the war in Iraq is a military operation, one in which, we are currently in the 'wrap-up' phase, and not 'dragging on' at all. Poverty is a fact of life, and it doesn't matter how much money we throw at the problem, we will still have poverty.
One of the problems with welfare is, it doesn't encourage prosperity. If you are getting welfare, you mustn't earn any income, it will render you ineligible for assistance. Welfare reform worked well because it made actually getting a job and working, a viable and attractive option to those on welfare.
We continually hear about the great loss of wealth recently. How much wealth did the single mom or the guy on disability payments lose?
That's the good thing about being poor in this economy!
The so-called war on poverty can be won and the best place to start is to have universal medicare. Big step in the right direction.
No, the war on poverty can't ever be won. No matter what we do, even if we took ALL the money from the rich and gave it to the poor, within 6 months, we would again have poverty. Some people are motivated to make money, others are not so motivated. Some people are wise with their investments, others are stupid. Some people can come to this country with the clothes on their back, and work hard to make something of themselves, and eventually amass a fortune... other people can win the lottery and end up destitute in a few years.
Universal health care will result in doing ONE thing, it will diminish the level of medical care in America. It will not magically solve any problems, it will not eliminate sickness or poverty, it will simply be another burden added to those who are productive members of society.
There are things that the average, normal person would consider a benefit to society. One obvious example is building a highway straight and not having to go around a person's piece of land. Less initial expense. Less chance of an accident occurring on a bend. Less chance of a person driving off the road in a storm.
What is "average" and "normal?" Doesn't this depend on perspective and opinion as well? Who decides what is "average" or "normal", you? What if the highway needs to be built straight through an endangered red-crested woodchuck's habitat? Is what is best for "normal average" people considered, or do we have to spend millions to build the highway around the habitat?
Eliminating that bend in the road will benefit the hundreds of thousands of people who will travel that highway but no doubt the land owner will rant and rave about the government "stealing" his land and not being adequately compensated.
Exactly... so you just proved my point! Every "benefit" you find for some, comes at a disadvantage to others. The laws regarding public easements have been around for a long time, so this is not something that isn't currently being done.
Nothing like a little bit of truth thrown in amongst the lies/distortions to make it sound good.
I know that is a liberal strategy, but nothing I have stated is untrue.
First of all the reason people are driving 62 Buicks is due to embargo/trade sanctions.
No, the reason is, that's what is available to them in Cuba. If this Communist Socialist redistribution of wealth idea you have was such a good one, they would be driving 2009 Lexus. They would also not be fashioning boats from old tires and such, so they could hopefully float to Miami and start a new life.
Second, social programs is not socialism anymore than saying because a person can not advertise a home remedy (snake oil) as a cure for cancer means the US is not a capitalist country.
Socialist redistribution of wealth, IS SOCIALISM! It is the basic argument and premise behind Marxism and Communism, and it has failed in every large scale industrialized nation it has ever been tried in. Inevitably, it perverts itself into tyranny and oppression of the people, as a means to control them. Once this happens, US soldiers are burdened with having to 'liberate' the people again, at a great cost in blood and treasure. As I said, this has happened at least twice in Europe, a couple of times in Asia, and apparently, is headed in that direction here in America!
Like any other form of government it all depends on who is in charge. You'd think that after 8 years of Bush I wouldn't have to explain that!
Bravo! Beautifully constructed liberal posting! Start off with a petty insult, spew a bunch of liberal nonsense, pull at the heart strings a little, and then end up with an attack of Bush! I swear, if this were the Pinhead Debate Olympics, you would be poised for a 9.9 from the judges... you really stuck that landing!
No, it doesn't matter who is in charge, socialism and communism always ultimately fails. Lenin, Marx, Hitler, Mussolini, Khrushchev, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Ill, Castro... doesn't matter who was the leader, the ideology failed. Meanwhile, we have Obama, Bush, Carter, Hoover... doesn't matter who... Capitalism and free markets continue to foster wealth and prosperity, as well as the military might to save the world from Communism over and over again.
If a person makes "X" amount of dollars they have the money to pay. That's why payroll taxes are deducted before the person gets their check because most people are greedy. They will use the money for other things and then claim they can't afford to pay taxes.
Just because you make X amount, doesn't mean you have the money to pay. You have assumed that people who make more money, have money they can afford to pay in extra taxation, but that isn't always the case. Maybe it's a guy working 80 hrs a week at two jobs, to pay off his gambling debts, or child support? Maybe it's a single mom working night and day to put her three daughter's through college? Just maybe, they worked their butts off in school to learn something that happens to be rewarded well financially, and now they are realizing the benefits of that hard work, and slowly getting their student loan paid off? So you can't just assume that because someone makes more money, they can afford to pay more taxes.
The same applies to property tax. If they had the money to buy the property then they had the money. This isn't rocket science. Complaining about property tax is like saying why expect someone to pay $3.00/gal for gas after they just blew $40,000 on a Hummer. How unfair!
And again, that is not always the case. What if the land was inherited? What if they are a young struggling couple with a few kids, who found a good deal on a foreclosure, and can now afford this property... but the tax is based on the value, so they can't really afford it? No, this isn't rocket science, it's really quite simple, almost nothing "universally" applies to individuals.
No one is saying spread all the wealth. Again, you take it to the extreme. No one is saying interfere with people's lifestyle. Simply look after those in need.
Yes, you are saying spread all the wealth! You are saying it's not such a dirty word! We should do this more! And YES you do want to interfere with people's lifestyle, you seek to take from those who live comfortable lifestyles and give to those who you perceive to have less comfortable lifestyles. You do this based on a hopelessly stereotyped view of society, which mostly doesn't apply in the real world.
And YOU are the one being "extreme" if you want to make an argument that WE don't do our share to help those in need! I challenge you to find an example of
just one country who has given more to those in need.
No one is being punished. We have the resources to feed everyone. No one has to go without food because someone else is eating. That's the difference between now and any other time in history.
I'm sorry, but we don't have the resources to feed everyone for free. Nonetheless, we haven't had a person in America to involuntarily starve to death in... decades. Almost every community in America has some resource available to care for the needs of the indigent.
Machines and other technology enable us to feed and house people relatively easily. Just look at all the new homes that were built over the last decade. Nobody lost sleep or missed a meal or suffered by building those homes. They could just as easily been building low income homes for the poor.
Yeah, but low income people have no money, so those building the homes would not have been rewarded for their efforts. Do you believe this may have effected their motivation to build all those homes? You see, in a capitalist society, someone has to PAY for those homes, in order for us to have people making more than they deserve to have, so you can take it away from them. It's a vicious cycle.
What you're advocating sounds like it's fine for someone to go hungry if another can buy a sail boat or it's fine for someone to be homeless if another can take a world cruise.
Those who are buying a sailboat, are providing an income to those who build the sailboat, the guy who sold the sailboat and his sailboat dealership, and will also pay a good chunk to the state and local government in the form of licensing, registration, taxing and fees. Much of that money will be used to buy food for those in need. Someone who takes a world cruise, has realized a dream, an accomplishment in life. The Homeless haven't even accomplished rudimentary housing in the most benevolent society on the planet!
Expecting those who can afford to, to help the ones who are less fortunate, is not punishing anyone. You have a strange definition of punishment.
Yes, it's punishing those of us who don't conform to your stereotypes, whom you've determined can afford things based on what they make, what they have or what they accomplish in life.
Helping someone "less fortunate" is also subjective. What I perceive as helping, you may not... and what you see as helping, I see as detrimental.
