Progressive Agenda

So I'm surfing news sites when I find a link to a Market Watch article about the coming Second Revolution. I'm sure I need not go into that right now, suffice it to say one is coming, despite the fact that the guy who wrote the article is himself a blithering idiot. Instead, I have here another manifesto in my growing collection of manifestos. Let's just say that the alarm bells should be ringing loudly over this because the progressives are in fact as violent and indiscriminate as this guy sounds - he posted it in full view of the public as a comment to the article.

I was ready to turn a flamethrower on you when I started to read this but in fact I agree with a lot of what you say...

But you leave out a couple of key points and get some things @#$%&!-backwards.

First off, you continue to play this "right wing potent anger left wing cowering pussywhip" meme at your peril. The left is just as angry as the right - and although you won't admit it, we're well-armed too. And yes, we will rise up and fight. We will burn and kill. And ponder this: We are by and large better educated than you and most of my fellow atheists are on the left. Do you want to face armed, highly educated men who have nothing to lose and no fear of any phony god?

The repigs will not retake the government - that is a lie the right-biased MSM, which is terrified of the neocon / zionist @#$%&! led by Rupert Murdoch, is feeding US just to roil the pot. They too have bought into the above defined meme, and they think they can discourage the left into not voting. They are wrong - it'll have the opposite effect, because we HATE republicans. I was a repub - I moved out when the religious right white trash @#$%&! typified by Palin moved in. I would rather see this nation reduced to a moonscape than ran by them.

If the repigs do steal power they won't have the chance to ruin US again with their Neanderthal policies. We'll take up arms against them. Your revolution won't wait a decade. They are not going to drag US back into the dark ages - and we will not tolerate having their filthy god - or any filthy god - pushed into our government.

As for economic policies, we don't think the government has gone far enough. We don't think Obama went far enough. We think government is the answer.

Here are a few government solution points:

First, the truly wealthy are pathetically undertaxed. We need a 90% tax on any income from any source that exceeds $1,000,000 and much higher taxes on anyone between $100,000 and $1,000,000. They have reaped most of the gains in the last 40 years and by and large have done comparatively nothing to earn it. The system is rigged. Taxation levels the playing field, and will provide income to lower everyone elses' taxes and provide services like education and healthcare for all.

Next, one of the major things wrong with the status quo is there are no death penalty offenses for financial crimes. Madoff should have been executed. So should have been every one of the CEOs and major execs of every one of the large financial corporations which went under or lost large sums of other people's money. Hang them. And while we're at it, the execs of BP should have been hanged too...

Corporatism in general should be drastically curtailed and corporate rights abolished. But the rest of US need to be freed from the regulatory yolk. It is ridiculous to hold ma & pa to the same standard as a mega corporation.

Example: I grow a significant amount of my own food, including eggs and beef. I may occasionally sell a surplus to friends. Someday I might even expand this. But if I do I risk very little and very few. A corporation can risk whole states at once. Yet they insist - and their bought off lackeys in the government insist that "fair" means the same regulations for all. Well, fair is where you go to look at livestock, and anyone with common sense should see the regulation should fit the scope of potential damage. Regulating the little guy to "big" standards just forces them out and gives the big guy more market and control.

Leave US alone. Regulate them right up to their eyes...

Next, globalism has got to go. And stuff your lies about what the Dems did. This goes clear back to the end of WWII and along the way we've been abused by CAFTA, NAFTA, WTO, and every President from Nixon to the shrub. We need protectionist tariffs NOW.

Frankly, I'm glad Bin Laden flattened the WTC. Most of the sheeple have swallowed the lie it was an American symbol. Bunk. It was a symbol of globalism and globalism / multinational corporatism is the enemy. Furthermore the US military - which is far more expensive than we can afford - is a tool of globalism. As far as I'm concerned, they are fair game, and terrorists can fly planes into the pentagon every other day. I'll run the camera.

American medicine costs too much. No kidding? This is partly the result of greedy corporatists and the government lassitude they have bought. But it is also a result of an out of control, for-profit educational system that is screwing the people.

The other day Faux News ran a story about someone who blogged that his $600,000 income wasn't enough. I'd put him in the better dead category except that he mentioned the $250,000 in student loans he and his wife - one a doctor, the other a lawyer - spent on their educations. This is among the greatest corruptions we have created. No one should have to pay for an education. We can spend half a $trillion a year butchering babies around the world but we can't pay for PhDs? Education - all of it you can possibly absorb - should be free for everybody, paid for by the government.

There is only one war that matters in the world today - the war for education. We're losing it because the greedy upperclass and the globalists have pushed the cost of education out of reach for too many. The rich are too selfish to care and the globalists want the US to spend and bleed itself to death protecting their juggernaut. In their eyes, our function is to be the foot on every neck.

I'm in education on the college level. I get American and foreign students, and "they" are so much more prepared to learn that "we" are. Furthermore, we cannot find enough American born teachers with acceptable credentials to do the teaching, so we are hiring more and more foreigners.

I also have huge student loans - I "went back" to school mid-life - and I will never be able to pay them back. Being in the middle of the under $100,000 group I simply don't make enough. And right now, I am seeing a huge influx into the classroom of laid-off midlifers who are borrowing $thousands to try to rebuild their lives. They have no choice. The phony service jobs the globalists conned US into swapping for real work are gone forever - and so are the real jobs, outsourced to the billions of slaves in Asia. Our citizens have to learn new careers or starve.

But even if they get new jobs - far from guaranteed - they won't make enough to pay off those loans. They will be slaves to the bankers.

On this point, I am with the rabid right: Hang the bankers and start over. But they don't go far enough: We should nationalize all banking and insurance activity. There should never again be a dime made privately in either activity.

We don't need less government. If anything, we need more of it. But what we really need is government re-directed. If you are a corporation the richer and more powerful you are the more you should be regulated. The commerce clause should be used to regulate big business - especially multinational business - to the point they can't install a toilet without a regulator watching.

Oh, but they will offshore, they will decamp? No they won't. We won't let them. We'll seize their assets and if necessary jail their execs.

And if the chicoms and the Saud object - if those who have reaped the profits of our being raped don't like it, well, then maybe the military is still has a use. Flatten them while we still can. No more Mr. Nice Uncle Sam.

But if you are a person, the government has no business looking into your body, monitoring your politics, tapping your phone, or policing your morals, marital arrangements, or anything else that doesn't affect other citizens in a palpable and significant way that actually costs society MONEY.

@#$%&! the evangelists. Nothing is more unAmerican than pushing religion.

These are the changes we really need, just for starters. If it takes a war to make it happen, bring it on!

.........................
RIP United States of America

July 1776 - November 2012.

       
« Warrantless
Helmet Cam »

Posted on Oct 3, 2010 1:03 pm by Samson in: | 129 comment(s) [Closed]
Comments
Alrighty then... He's clearly better educated than the rest of us, too bad he's let it all go to waste by fully taking every bit of propaganda straight to his heart and by not using it to ensure he'd run a spell check past what he was posting ... on the other hand, several of his "suggestions" are clearly self-serving, particularly about making education free and so on. He repeatedly says something to the effect of 'get the money to run the nation from them and let me keep my share because I'm greedy that way and hate others for being like me' - to paraphrase just a wee bit. ;) I suppose the scary part is that he's clearly aggressively violent and claiming to be heavily armed and more than ready to use his weapons against his own nation if they don't make sweeping changes that comply with his personal desires. Isn't that called blackmail?

I'm a little surprised to not see anything about Rahm Emanuel's resignation to go run for Mayor of Chicago here.

Had you caught that, now that Obama basically gotten his 'healthcare reform', Obama's started pushing for education reform?

       
Actually I believe what this guy is advocating is called sedition. Too bad we don't prosecute for that anymore because it would put an end to this type of thing quickly and cleanly. He is very clearly calling for the violent overthrow of the government.

Rahm Emanuel's resignation came as very little surprise to anyone. If anything, it happened later than most expected because he should have been brought down during the Blago thing. I suspect that may be the real reason he's out. There's a Chicago election lawyer who has already gone on record saying Rahm Emanuel can't qualify to run for mayor because he hasn't held residency in the city since he left for DC. If that's even remotely true, Rahm surely knew this ahead of time, so why even take the chance? The guy may be a total nutjob for the left-wing agenda, but he's not stupid.

Obama already has education reform. You are aware the Obamacare bill has provisions to take over the entire student loan industry, right?

       
Edited by Samson on Oct 3, 2010 2:42 pm
Well, it might qualify as sedition since it's a form of blackmail against the nation as a whole, I suppose.

Hmm, guess I hadn't paid enough attention to the Blago thing. :shrug:

Maybe so, but he's pushing for it vocally lately as a separate issue.

       
This guy is an idiot, 90% tax, what a dickwad with no idea, what is needed is FAIR and EQUATABLE taxation across the board period. While we might disagree on what is fair and equatable, 90% tax is certainly not fair on anyone at all, be they poor, who should be encoraged to strive for more or the rich who should not be looked at as a cash cow ready to be milked, as most of them have worked hard to get where they are today.

This guy is no progressive, it sounds to me like he is a COMMIE wanting some socialist utopia that just does not exist, unless you of course want to count China, which is hardly what most people think of when it comes to hard core communism.

Being that i am what you might call a "Progressive" i find this guy totally offensive to say the least and that he in no way speaks for anyone who might be a true progressive.

So he has a huge student loan, join the club, i owe about 40,000 on mine, stop being a whiner and draw up a budget and live within your means.

We should nationalize all banking and insurance activity.


We should shoot you for being a LOON. We do not need nationalzation of anything, we need to let those companies who fail do so, not pump tax payers money into them to prop them up. We should reward companies who do the right thing and punish those who take massive risks and fail.

We don't need less government. If anything, we need more of it.


Bullshit, what we need is for the regulators to do their jobs properly, to have propper regulation and safeguards and to have less red tape to navigate.

People like this made me angry, i just want to punch him in the head till all the shit falls out of it because people liek this get all the attention and make the REAL progressives look bad.

       
Wow, Fury, that comment of yours there almost sounded like a republican's perspective... I'm impressed. Honestly. No sarcasm at all.






I really liked these parts:
The_Fury said:

90% tax is certainly not fair on anyone at all, be they poor, who should be encoraged to strive for more or the rich who should not be looked at as a cash cow ready to be milked, as most of them have worked hard to get where they are today
and
The_Fury said:

stop being a whiner and draw up a budget and live within your means
and
The_Fury said:

We do not need nationalzation of anything, we need to let those companies who fail do so, not pump tax payers money into them to prop them up. We should reward companies who do the right thing and punish those who take massive risks and fail.
All of those were great statements which definitely don't sound like something a democrat would say at all, very conservative thinking.. :grinning:

       
Edited by Conner on Oct 3, 2010 10:26 pm
Wow...this guys wacko. Capitalism isn't perfect, but the way its whole system works ensures that society will always be moving forward. And the point aside; socialism as a society has failed. A third of Australia's tax dollars goes towards social security, and I can guarantee you that two thirds of the receivers don't deserve the money and should be told to fuck off and go find a job instead. How is that a sign of socialism functioning in society?

And as for 90% tax...if all he wants is free health care and education, there's plenty of countries that give you both of those for a hell of a lot less than 90% tax. And I bet even if you account for the fact that rich people pay for private health care and private education because the government systems are shithouse (maybe that word is to strong...how about not as good as the private stuff) in those countries, I'd take a fair bet that they are still not paying the equivalent of 90% tax. If you're going to complain about tax in the first place, why don't you complain about something legitimate (like big companies using tax havens) as opposed to this looney 90% TAX FOR ANYONE WHO EARNS MORE THAN $1,000,000...jesus christ.

In short...I see a dangerous hippie who is utterly out of touch with anything real and doesn't realize that the system he hates gave him everything he had.

       
prettyfly said:

A third of Australia's tax dollars goes towards social security, and I can guarantee you that two thirds of the receivers don't deserve the money and should be told to fuck off and go find a job instead.

Isn't y'all's social security set up like ours where what you get from it is determined by what you'd put into during your working years?

prettyfly said:

And as for 90% tax...(maybe that word is to strong...why don't you complain about something legitimate (like big companies using tax havens) as opposed to this looney 90% TAX FOR ANYONE WHO EARNS MORE THAN $1,000,000...

Well stated.
No, that word's not too strong, if we're being honest it might not be nearly strong enough depending on which of the countries that offer "free" health care/education we're discussing... Canada comes to mind, for example...
I'm not really opposed to big companies use of tax shelters, but if we're going to allow that, wouldn't it be easier and more fair to just eliminate some of the taxes to begin with so the shelters are less needed in the first place?

prettyfly said:

I see a dangerous hippie who is utterly out of touch with anything real and doesn't realize that the system he hates gave him everything he had.

Pretty much, though Samson is right that this guy probably deserves to be incarcerated, er, admitted.. to an asylum somewhere for his own safety and that of others. On the other hand, we let loons like a certain fellow of darker persuasion we all know run the country as a whole and even arm the guy by giving him full command of our entire military, why shouldn't we let a few post their rants to the internet too? Er, um, am I allowed to say that? :shrug:

       
Isn't y'all's social security set up like ours where what you get from it is determined by what you'd put into during your working years?


We call that a super fund. What I meant by social security is handouts you can qualify to get from the government if you are in certain situations, like being unemployed, injured and unable to work as a consequence, at uni/college without a job (really hard to get now) etc. Different countries, different terminology I guess :smile:

Actually, now that I think about it this guy makes Michael Moore look right wing.

       
Edited by prettyfly on Oct 3, 2010 11:20 pm
Well, I never expected a Tea Party-esque response to cross Fury's keyboard. Perhaps being in the real world and making real money at a real job is starting to have the normal impact on one's thinking toward the government and taxation :) What you're probably calling progressive is what is likely refereed to here as liberal - not militant but still crazy. What you just rattled off as a reaction doesn't fit a left-wing agenda at all. It's more in line with libertarian/conservative fiscal values.

I hate to say it though, but the guy who posted that manifesto as a comment is exactly what the TRUE progressives want and have always wanted since Woodrow Wilson's days. They're already agitating for revolution in Europe now that socialism has failed there. They've infiltrated numerous unions and other organizations here in the US, and they ARE openly advocating the very thing that guy's manifesto lays out. These are the guys behind thugs like the SEIU, the crooks running ACORN, and the guys now in charge of the White House.

Also, no matter what, you have to admit the pic I found is cool, in that eerie sort of way.

       
Edited by Samson on Oct 4, 2010 12:02 am
Wow, Fury, that comment of yours there almost sounded like a republican's perspective...


I dont know about it being all that concervative, mostly its a sane aprasial of how things should work. I might be liberal/progressive but i am in no way a socialist at all. I think mostly what we (Samson and Conner) disagree on the mechanics of HOW something should be fixed, not the framework by which things work. Capitalism and the free market are the only way to do things, until a better framework is devised, socialism has failed, unregulated capitalism has also been shown to fail us all as well, thank you GFC.

When i think of progressive, i think of things that are mostly social in nature, free schools, free healthcare, gay and lesbian rights and fair taxation for all people are the things that top my list. There is nothing progressive about a pure socialist adgenda, it did not work 50 years ago and it will not work now, its repressive.

Big government, small govermnent, who cares what the size of it is, as long as it is effective government, If it is ineffective, then get rid of it or fix it so it works.

As for our Social Security system, pretty much if you are unemployed for more than 12 weeks i think it is currently, you are elegable for unemployment payments, 200 a week or there abouts so you can look for work and eat. With 5% unemployment, i do not think that 50% of all our taxation goes into this, but the best figures i can find are that it is forcast in 2012 to cost 36 billion. Which is no where near 50%.

       
I said a third, not fifty percent. Still, I could have this figure wrong, I'll check.

       
Samson said:

Also, no matter what, you have to admit the pic I found is cool, in that eerie sort of way.

Agreeing with this is about the only comment I have. :lol:

       
prettyfly said:

What I meant by social security is handouts you can qualify to get from the government if you are in certain situations, like being unemployed, injured and unable to work as a consequence, at uni/college without a job (really hard to get now) etc. Different countries, different terminology I guess

Ah, here we've got disability and retirement wrapped together into Social Security and unemployment is handled separately with some states referring to it as Employment Insurance or Unemployment or various other titles. :shrug:

Samson said:

Well, I never expected a Tea Party-esque response to cross Fury's keyboard.

:lol: I know, right? :grinning:

Samson said:

I hate to say it though, but the guy who posted that manifesto as a comment is exactly what the TRUE progressives want and have always wanted since Woodrow Wilson's days. They're already agitating for revolution in Europe now that socialism has failed there. They've infiltrated numerous unions and other organizations here in the US, and they ARE openly advocating the very thing that guy's manifesto lays out. These are the guys behind thugs like the SEIU, the crooks running ACORN, and the guys now in charge of the White House.

Seriously? I hadn't thought that even they were quite that far gone. Or maybe I just hadn't realized that SEIU, ACORN, and our current administration were all "TRUE progressives" and wanted all the nonsense this guy spouted. ...has socialism failed even there? Seems to me we've got clear socialist measures still in place, largely by popular demand, in most parts of the world at this point.

The_Fury said:

I think mostly what we (Samson and Conner) disagree on the mechanics of HOW something should be fixed, not the framework by which things work.

You might be right about this, but usually you're arguing for measures we argue against as well. :shrug: ...Maybe it's just that you tend to argue some topics with us for the sake of argument?

The_Fury said:

When i think of progressive, i think of things that are mostly social in nature, free schools, free healthcare, gay and lesbian rights and fair taxation for all people are the things that top my list. There is nothing progressive about a pure socialist adgenda, it did not work 50 years ago and it will not work now, its repressive.

I think you may be thinking of progressive as the antonym of repressive rather than as a political position/party. I'm not opposed to gay/lesbian rights nor fair taxation, but I don't really think education or health care are things our government has business involved in beyond perhaps ensuring that a minimum standard is adhered to within both of those areas, but even there I'm not really sure it's our federal government's business.

The_Fury said:

As for our Social Security system, pretty much if you are unemployed for more than 12 weeks i think it is currently, you are elegable for unemployment payments, 200 a week or there abouts so you can look for work and eat. With 5% unemployment, i do not think that 50% of all our taxation goes into this, but the best figures i can find are that it is forcast in 2012 to cost 36 billion.

prettyfly said:

I said a third, not fifty percent. Still, I could have this figure wrong, I'll check.

Hmm, I think our unemployment system generally works the other way. If you've been fired or laid off (not if you were fired for cause or if you quit) after having been employed in two of the last four quarters then you probably qualify for unemployment. For example, the rules for Texas can be seen here, but how much unemployment you'll get paid is based on how much money you made during your employment but will be between $58 and $392 weekly and it only gets paid to you for the first year (plus up to 20 extra weeks due to the combination of two extensions granted by the feds.)
Here in Texas, unemployment's currently cited at 8.2% by the Texas Unemployment Benefits site I've been citing, but I have no idea what percentage of our taxes go towards it. On the other hand, prettyfly's right, he did say a third rather than half or 50%.

Hanaisse said:

Samson said:

Also, no matter what, you have to admit the pic I found is cool, in that eerie sort of way.

Agreeing with this is about the only comment I have. :lol:

Yes, it is a really cool picture in a Fallout-ish sort of fashion. ;)

       
I said a third, not fifty percent. Still, I could have this figure wrong, I'll check.


I stand corrected, you did say 1/3, which i think is still rather a high figure, the total budget has to be higher than 150 billion, the states alone receive 70 billion.

I have a question for all of you, what happens to those who are not employable? Now i am not talking about some bludger who is capeable of working and earning minimum wage but chooses to free load off the system, but those who, because of various circumstances are never going to be hired by anyone, not matter how much they try.

As an employer, i fear having unemployment levels of below 4 to 5%, most of those who remain are the shit of society who you would never employ in a fit. A couple of years back we needed to hire a new labourer, this was 2008 it think right at the height of the boom and unemployment was really low. We interviewed about 60 people who were sent via Job Agencies, most were drunks, ho-bo's, 3 toothed hill billies and the like, pretty much the dregs of society, who, are going to cost you too much long term in days off, accidents and just plain old stupidity, in the end we had to poach someone from anther firm.

So who should be responcible for these people? Does society have a responciblity to the dregs to look after them and help them become valued citizens who are capable of becomming employable?


See, this is where i start to get all socialist on you. Problems like this cannot be fixed via capitalism and the free market system, its plain and simple a market failure, and here i see it as the governments responcibility to provide funds and programs to help to make thse people valued members of society who are capable of contributing goods to the system, its either that, or we line them all up nazi style and shoot them in the head, until we create better ways to do things like gas chambers.

       
Edited by The_Fury on Oct 4, 2010 5:30 pm
Dregs, aka the terminally lazy. Well, honestly, let them wallow. They've survived this long without a job and for the most part without suckling the teet of the government, they can continue to do so. I have no sympathy for someone on the street who is living that way because they refuse to work. A lot of them are out there that don't need to be, but are just plain lazy.

If you're talking about the ones that are mentally unstable, they shouldn't be on the streets nor should they be getting hired. They should be in a hospital where they belong. The ones which are a true danger to themselves or others. The ones most lefties point to and cry about how capitalism hates the poor.

If you haven't caught it yet, there's a huge difference between personal irresponsibility and being genuinely unable to function.

       
The ones most lefties point to and cry about how capitalism hates the poor.


It does not hate them, its just that it alone cannot fix all the problems that people face, but iit is most certainly part of the solution.

If you haven't caught it yet, there's a huge difference between personal irresponsibility and being genuinely unable to function.


We all make bad decisions in life, some have much more profound effects on how our lives turn out, be it success or absolute failure. And no mater what, those dregs are going to have a cost to society attached to them, $50,000+ per year to keep one drug addict in jail for example, so whats is a better use of resources here, the 50K to jail them, or 10K or less for a social program that has a better chance of making them valued members of society who can then contribute rather than burdon the system?

Because no matter what, you and i as tax payers are paying for them in some way, so why not get the best bang for our bucks.

       
Edited by The_Fury on Oct 4, 2010 5:58 pm
I'm not paying for him if he's living in the streets. He's neither in jail nor leeching from welfare.

If you want to talk about paying to keep prisoners in prison, that's another issue. It has nothing to do with homeless on the street.

       
I'm not paying for him if he's living in the streets. He's neither in jail nor leeching from welfare.


But he is still costing you in higher police numbers, higher insurance costs due to crime, and health care when they have a crack overdose, lower land values in places they congagate and the list goes on, and im sure some smart peroon out there has done the research and can put a dollar value to it. My point however was not the specifics of one demographic, but that the dregs of society are already costing us, so should we not demand that the finacial burdon that is placed upon is used in ways that will enable these people to become contributors to society rather than a drain on common resources?

If the market cannot fix a problem, whose responcibility is it to try and correct it?

       
Edited by The_Fury on Oct 4, 2010 6:26 pm
If the market cannot correct the problem, it's incorrectable. History has already shown the government can't correct it, or the problem wouldn't exist.

       
If the market cannot correct the problem, it's incorrectable. History has already shown the government can't correct it, or the problem wouldn't exist.


I dont know about it being incorrectable, because i could point you to many social welfare programs that have positive outcomes by taking the unhirable and making them hireable, thus making them contributing members of society.

Isnt the whole point opf government to pick up the slack in the areas that the market fails?

       
Are we talking about Romulan Reeducation Centers here, Fury? Quick, Call the Tal Shiar!

Honestly, if we're talking about those who you wouldn't hire because they're ultimately unfit, and in some cases even drunk and such, maybe there is a field they belong in and the Job Agencies aren't even trying to figure out where they belong so they're being sent where they don't want to go. Maybe that's more a failing of the Job Agency than the individuals, maybe the individuals ought to speak up better at the Job Agency. Who knows? Either way, it's not the government's place to find a job for everyone. If we're talking about the folks who Samson refers to as "terminally lazy" there's probably nothing that can be done for them, they don't want to be helped and any help anyone tries to offer they'll find a way to sabotage anyway. If we're talking about those who aren't physically or mentally able to be employed, well, that's either a market failing or someone let them out of the ward unduly. Again, not really the government's business other than possibly as a matter of oversight, but even that's questionable. If we're talking about the homeless, well, that's a whole other ball of wax by itself. Because there are folks who are indigent by choice as a matter of lifestyle preference. (I know it sounds crazy, but I've actually met a few of them.) There are also folks who are homeless because they shouldn't have been let out of whatever facility they were in but were anyway and aren't really capable of fixing it themselves. There are also folks who are homeless because of some sort of catastrophe (personal or area wide) that was entirely beyond their control and they just didn't have the resources (money, family, etc) to help them recover in any other way. Of course, there are also homeless who have other reasons a bit less savory for being homeless. From my experiences working security I can tell you without a doubt that the homeless in general actually have a pretty damn rough life and are treated like crap in most places, but they're generally not getting government handouts at all because even the agencies that are established to help those in need won't help you without a permanent physical address and many places won't accept job applications without an address and a phone number and the shelters can't handle the potential capacity so they limit how many nights one can stay or visit for meals which means that most homeless folks have no choice but to remain indigent as they are forced to travel from city to city seeking temporary aide that's damn close to intentionally too temporary to really help them get back on their feet even if they want the help. This is not a government issue though, it's a problem with the marketplace. So, ultimately, if you really care enough to want to help, the real question is what are you willing to do to help? Not, what should the government do about it.

       
Damn, Fury, you and that timing of yours...

Yes, there are many social programs in place, but most of them don't work for the homeless and none of them can work for those who don't want the help, and, sadly, many of these programs are not manned entirely by folks who want to help so folks get mismanaged badly some times too.

As for the government being there to pick up the slack, no, that's one of those points we've been over before, particularly regarding the health care issues. So, you already know that neither Samson nor I feel that the government should be meddling in the affairs of individuals like that. If the market place is failing these folks, that's not the government's job, or even prerogative, to do anything about it.

       
Isnt the whole point opf government to pick up the slack in the areas that the market fails?


No. Because in this instance, the market hasn't failed. The individual has. The individual will continue to remain a failure even if the government spends thousands of dollars trying to rehabilitate them. Once off the government dole, these people go right back to being rejects from society. So it's best to just let them wallow in it if that's what they want, rather than spending government money on it.

As Conner points out, it's also not the government's job to play nanny/babysitter with our citizenry.

       
As Conner points out, it's also not the government's job to play nanny/babysitter with our citizenry.


Agreed 100%, but it is the role of government to improve the lot for all citizens, not just those who pay tax dollars, and as these very people are part of society, government should be doing what it can to help them.

I will also stress that i am talking about those that fall through the gaps, not some pot smoking hippy who wants to go surfing everyother day. There are many who dont want a job and just want a hand out, those types, i agree with both of you, let them rot in their own filth, but i am talking about those who try thier asses off trying to get a job, but because of whatever reason, they are unhireable, even in the most lowely of shit kickers jobs.

Honestly, if we're talking about those who you wouldn't hire because they're ultimately unfit, and in some cases even drunk and such, maybe there is a field they belong in and the Job Agencies aren't even trying to figure out where they belong so they're being sent where they don't want to go.


Thats kind of the ting here Conner, the ones i speak of desire to contribute, but because they do not measure up, or it would cost my time, energy and money, they get left behind. So do we do nothing for them? or should the government step in and assist them to come upto standard so they can be hired.

This is not a government issue though, it's a problem with the marketplace. So, ultimately, if you really care enough to want to help, the real question is what are you willing to do to help? Not, what should the government do about it.


Bussiness and the free market system is not designed to fix social problems, its role should be purely about making money and making jobs. There needs to be some other mechanism for fixing social problems. It seems rather pointless to use an axe when you need a specialist tool. Using the wrong tool for the wrong job is part of the reason why we have some of the problems we face and probably why many government attempts to correct things have failed.

Damn, Fury, you and that timing of yours...


Admit it, you love me :)

       
Edited by The_Fury on Oct 4, 2010 9:20 pm
Yes, Fury, we love ya' despite everything else at times. ;)

See, that's sort of the problem too, the general market place might be the ax, but that makes the government your sledge hammer. Neither is really appropriate for making these square pegs fit your round pigeon holes, but that ax is better at shaving the edges than the hammer is. ;)

Analogies aside, the fact is that business is about coming up with ways to provide a product or service while making a profit, so it's already used to coming up with new ways to make use of what's available, including the less desirable portions of society, while government is about dealing with external forces and major internal causes, not individuals.

A business run by someone who really wanted to see the problem resolved, or for the benefit of these types of people, would find a way to market something that could be used to fund their education and refinement so that they could become productive members of society, whereas a government's only real recourses with these people are to foist them onto poor fitting business relationships, exile them, or incarcerate them.

       
<< prev 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... next >>
Comments Closed
Comments for this entry have been closed.
Anonymous
Register

Forgot Password?

SuMoTuWeThFrSa
 1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31