Board index › General Discussion › News and Current Events

Interesting New York Times Article concerning Entitlements

Page 2 of 4 [ 54 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Apple_in_my_Eye
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,420
Location: in my brain

10 Dec 2012, 5:09 pm

Regarding joining the military, the poor who have paid attention to the news (or have friends or relatives serving) has heard about people being "stop-lossed" and redeployed 5 or more times. And those who start losing it due to that are sent back into combat with bottles of Prozac. (You can't join if you're dependent on medication, but once you're in it's a different story, apparently.) People n the military this last decade are getting screwed that way, so who would volunteer for that? And it's not like the 1980's where the worst would be being sent to fight in Grenada.



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

10 Dec 2012, 6:08 pm

What's the alternative? I suggest that it's a system of Guaranteed Annual Income.

Replace all of the income support programs: employment insurance, welfare, social security--the whole lot of them, with a straightforward commitment that every, single citizen and permanent resident. Whether you achieve that with transfers that are then clawed back from earnings, or through negative income tax, you can manifestly simplify the bureaucracy that exists to administer programs; eliminate the incentives to dependency; and create a system in which it never hurts a person to earn an extra dollar.


_________________
--James


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

10 Dec 2012, 6:12 pm

xenon13 wrote:



No, it's an indictment of right wing conservative poverty trap means testing racket for any help combined with ultra-low wages in the name of the Holy Job Creators... thanks to the Right, the effective marginal tax rate for the working poor is astronomical. Any money they make is immediately negated meaning they gain nothing. The Right believe in poverty wage jobs because profits are more important and the workers are just peons who are getting what they deserve. They claim in fact that unemployment is created by people being paid too much... in fact, they support a massive reserve army of labour to keep those wages down. What kind of opportunities do they have in Appalachia anyway? They do have the largest supplies of the USA's preeminent energy resource but do the people there get any of that? No, of course not. So many people over there end up in the military because there are no other alternatives.


What do you propose. Have the government run the economy? That is certain path to ruination.

ruveyn



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,011
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

11 Dec 2012, 12:28 am

ruveyn wrote:
Marybird wrote:
What is the alternative then. Do we let them starve?



See to it that everyone who can works for his bread. If some jobs have to be created, then create real one. The streets, the parks and the playgrounds need cleaning.

No one will starve. Everyone will work, one way or another except the few true disability cases. They will be supported too.

If everyone who can works, then people will stop believing in The Free Lunch. There is no such thing.

ruveyn


Considering the size of the population I think it's safe to say there are more than a few true disability cases...but then maybe your definition of a disability differs from what is considered a disability when it comes to things like SSI or SSDI. When it comes to that its defined as an inability to get or hold a job due to a physical or mental 'disability' and there is a list of all the conditions that are considered 'disablities' that can potentially prevent one from being or remaining employed.


_________________
We won't go back.


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

11 Dec 2012, 8:25 am

Sweetleaf wrote:

Considering the size of the population I think it's safe to say there are more than a few true disability cases..


I am going by percentages. My guess is that more than 90 percent of the population under age 80 and over age 12 is fit for some kind of work. Most will be employed in the private sector (which is the way it should be). Some will be provided with jobs of "last resort" by the government or charitable organizations. But one thing for sure. Anyone who -can- work will work for his bread. If we have to carry ten percent of the population, so be it. I want to see the "99" busy (so to speak) and the "1) who cannot be busy, cared for.

ruveyn



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

11 Dec 2012, 8:55 am

To what end? The supply of labour outstrips demand. Do you propose making it illegal to be unemployed?



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

11 Dec 2012, 11:25 am

Quote:
Do you propose making it illegal to be unemployed?


Be just like Barack forcing people to buy health insurance......


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,749
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

11 Dec 2012, 11:45 am

Raptor wrote:
Quote:
Do you propose making it illegal to be unemployed?


Be just like Barack forcing people to buy health insurance......


That was originally the Republican plan.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

11 Dec 2012, 12:35 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Quote:
Do you propose making it illegal to be unemployed?


Be just like Barack forcing people to buy health insurance......


That was originally the Republican plan.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Originally?
I guess they came to their senses ........


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

11 Dec 2012, 1:11 pm

Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Quote:
Do you propose making it illegal to be unemployed?


Be just like Barack forcing people to buy health insurance......


That was originally the Republican plan.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Originally?
I guess they came to their senses ........


Nah. They just like to play the crybaby.



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

11 Dec 2012, 1:31 pm

ArrantPariah wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Quote:
Do you propose making it illegal to be unemployed?


Be just like Barack forcing people to buy health insurance......


That was originally the Republican plan.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Originally?
I guess they came to their senses ........


Nah. They just like to play the crybaby.


The term "bleeding heart liberals" would indicate otherwise.....


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,749
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

11 Dec 2012, 2:07 pm

Raptor wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Quote:
Do you propose making it illegal to be unemployed?


Be just like Barack forcing people to buy health insurance......


That was originally the Republican plan.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Originally?
I guess they came to their senses ........


Nah. They just like to play the crybaby.


The term "bleeding heart liberals" would indicate otherwise.....


Nah, that just means liberals actually care about other human beings.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

11 Dec 2012, 2:20 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Quote:
Do you propose making it illegal to be unemployed?


Be just like Barack forcing people to buy health insurance......


That was originally the Republican plan.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Originally?
I guess they came to their senses ........


Nah. They just like to play the crybaby.


The term "bleeding heart liberals" would indicate otherwise.....


Nah, that just means liberals actually care about other human beings.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Uh huh. Well we cold hearted conservatives focus on the overall wellbeing of the herd and not so much the individual cow. What's good for the herd is good for the cow.


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,011
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

11 Dec 2012, 2:50 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:

Considering the size of the population I think it's safe to say there are more than a few true disability cases..


I am going by percentages. My guess is that more than 90 percent of the population under age 80 and over age 12 is fit for some kind of work. Most will be employed in the private sector (which is the way it should be). Some will be provided with jobs of "last resort" by the government or charitable organizations. But one thing for sure. Anyone who -can- work will work for his bread. If we have to carry ten percent of the population, so be it. I want to see the "99" busy (so to speak) and the "1) who cannot be busy, cared for.

ruveyn


I think your guess is probably a little off, but I don't know...that's just m y guess. Also though are you suggesting we start having 12 year olds employed? How are they going to manage to do their schoolwork and work at the same time?


_________________
We won't go back.


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

11 Dec 2012, 2:51 pm

The Good Intentions of many Liberals have been paving the Road To Hell for the less well off. Out of the Goodness of Their Hearts. they have destroyed the initiative of many and turned them into Welfare Bums.

There are better ways of helping the well off. Seeing to it that they do useful and productive work for the help that get is a good start. The Lesson is clear. There is no such thing as a Free Lunch. Hand up beats Hand Out each and every time.

And as for providing housing, no more of this quasi-socialist art Decco hideous housing which goes to rot and ruin within five years. How about a deal whereby the people who receive housing "pay" for it by doing some of the cleaning and maintaining. This is part of a long term deal leading to legal and outright ownership of the housing. If the person being helped keeps up the housing he gets in in ten or fifteen years as an earned piece of property, not some pink stinko liberal disposal dump for the underclass.

ruveyn



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,011
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

11 Dec 2012, 2:55 pm

Raptor wrote:
Uh huh. Well we cold hearted conservatives focus on the overall wellbeing of the herd and not so much the individual cow. What's good for the herd is good for the cow.


Not necessarily.


_________________
We won't go back.