Remove All Social Safety Nets

a reply to: James1982

...or you amputate the diseased limb to save the body.

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
I loosely agree with the OP. We have become a society that loves to put bandaids on symptoms without ever solving the problem itself. Just like our medical system...we give people a pill to cure the sniffles but leave the virus behind.

For example...lets say I have cancer and demand that everyone be taxed to whatever extent is required to hire the greatest minds, create the greatest labs and cure my cancer. It sounds noble...doesn't it? If the cost of that effort to everyone were a huge percentage of their income and forced them into poverty...is it still a good idea? I feel we are doing this exact same thing when our government tries to redistribute wealth or otherwise "help" what can't be cured. Eventually, we will be able to do neither help nor cure.

If we cure your cancer, then we have cured cancer.

I would spend money on that.

The stories I could tell you of people I have known that have played the system and bettered their lives more than myself who has had the same job for 18 years and am very good at it not to mention, paid well. I have to say, putting into the system for 27 years and if all of sudden I really needed help (something I have never needed), damn straight I better get it. It already pisses me off to know I won't see a red cent of social security when I'm of age of 72 or some crap.
That attitude is much different then the people who are "career parasites". The have a feeling of being owed it. Where did I see the women that had like 16 kids from something like 6 different fathers who were all in jail and they were cutting back her assistance. She said, and I quote, "who gunna take care of my babies, somebody gotta take care of my babies." Of course she didn't work, the American people did that for her. I guess that, "takes a village to pay for other bad choices" errr something along those lines.
So I see your point but I can't quite blanket the whole populous whit dumping all government help, after all, it really should belong TO THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE PUT INTO IT.

a reply to: James1982

Where in the world have you been the last few years? Repubs are not saying everything is fine. It was better during Bush term, but sane people are saying that the unemployment level is the highest since the Great Depression. It's never been a real recover, Repubs have been saying. Repubs have been saying that this is the Food Stamp President, there are more people on food stamps than ever...and why? Because this admin's policies are terrible and set the stage for poverty and hardship.
Cloward and Piven strategy.... overwhelm the system. Did you know that Frances Fox Piven and Richard Cloward came up with the strategy of overwhelming the system because they believed that the SAFETY NET in place stopped real Progress of socialism? www.discoverthenetworks.org...
While many Republicans decry socialism, they do not advocate removing all safety nets. The real key is not to apply bandaids or remove them but address the real causes behind the need for them.

a reply to: James1982

I understand what you are advocating, but I believe you would very quickly see a slave class developed. Those who have the resources would pick and choose from the healthiest of the resourceless and offer to provide for them in return for servitude. Not only that, but you would also see near or complete anarchy, with the top 2 or 3 percent hiring and arming a midclass group to protect them. Rapid degeneration of all civilised behavior and rampant murder, rape, and every other type of violent crime as people struggle to survive.

I'd hate to rain on a good doom parade, but here we go.

The welfare state is the product of blood, sweat and tears of the lower class. Every time they fought, marched, and died they threatened the elite. When real change looked inevitable the elite would provide the solution that would mollify the mob, split the group and end the danger to their perch within society. The welfare state is not a golden meal ticket, its a compromise to keep the peace. This compromise has its uses though. ITs used to generate a revnue stream for elites though taxation and its used as a red button issue used to split the electorate, just saying the word creates the other and like Pavlov's dog, it sets the slightly better off slaves from the welfare recipients.

This brings us to the second point. That the welfare state is a promise not a guarantee. Many programs are false promises that do not deliver. But the promises are held out by the elite. Pay your taxes and there is a safety net. But when something happens in your life and you are at your weakest, then they pull the rug out from under you and realize that you paid your taxes on a false promise. This has happened to individuals all the time, but it will soon happen on a mass scale to the boomers who have paid taxes into social security but will likely see the collapse of that system when the petro dollar fails and latest wall street bubble implodes causing an inflationary depression. You see, social security is completely solvent and always has been solvent, except for the fact that the elite have siphoned off the social security taxes for pet projects, pork and tax cuts. The elite have replaced the money with IOU's that will never be paid, if you include the government IOU's in social security then social security is completely solvent. The reason the IOU's will never be paid is that Social security is a false promise held out to permit the elite to skim tax revenue. Some call it a ponzi scheme, but in reality its a skimming scheme for the elite.

Third, what will happen if all handouts stop? It would be the removal of everything that quiets the mob. There will be blood, death, mayhem. The social unrest will make Arab spring look tame. The elite will never do this intentionally as it would be a direct threat to them. If they got rid of the welfare state everything would collapse. People would not longer have money for food and gas. The entire economy would cascade into collapse with the loss of money from welfare spenders. Stores would see revenue declines, they would lay people off and the decline in the consumer market would cause and irreversible death spiral for the entire market. Everyone would slide into the same proverbial boat and it would be all of us versus the elite. They will never ever do this intentionally. So you see, ending welfare will not slide you up, you will never be an elite, or raise your position by cutting out those lower than you and if any thing like this happens you will in fact slide down like everyone else. Sorry to burst the illusion that the elite have built for you but you don't live on an island, however, as a consolation I'd like to welcome you to the masses.

a reply to: EnigmaAgent

Helping hands should not last for years.

originally posted by: VforVendettea
a reply to: EnigmaAgent

Helping hands should not last for years.

You're right.

5 years is all that paraplegic guy should get, right? Blind kid? Nah, he shouldn't get too much help. Schizophrenic woman? She only needs a couple of years to become a healthy person.

By doing what you want, would be in a sense making it where only the strong survive. The weak shall perish comes to mind here. As a race we pretend to be too civilized to allow that type of scenario to happen. It would not be long before a pocket of humans demanded somebody do something for the helpless ones that are either too old/weak or even poor to defend then selves. It would turn to planet wide anarchy.

a reply to: gamesmaster63

I believe you would very quickly see a slave class developed. Those who have the resources would pick and choose from the healthiest of the resourceless

What do you mean, they are already the slave class. Putting the band aid on doesn't really remove that, it just makes it a bit less uncomfortable. The Elites already pick and choose who they want to represent their NWO. They like younger, fresh faces who have been indoctrinated into their false philosophy and ideology and place them in the forefront of the media and education and give them good salaries to promote the ideology.
I was just watching CNN and that is exactly what I saw, the fresh young ideological faces promoting CNN's worldview of how we must have immigration reform(which really means amnesty but it's just another example of people manpulating "stupid voters).
You know what is really interesting is that there is the concept of social Darwinism. The Elites love it as the concept of natural culling of unhealthy and poor(after all they want to depopulate the planet down to 500 million). Thomas Malthus developed the idea in tandem with Darwin. But the Elites use this for some purposes and use the masses of people for other purposes. While wanting to depopulate the planet through Agenda 21 policies, they use socialistic means to prop up peoples whom they want to use in their agenda. Take immigration for example. The administration purposely drew these classes of people into the States and disappeared them into the cities. I personally know of someone who said her church group said they were asked to have their church members adopt these illegals and the gov would give them $6000 dollars a month. This is a true story. In anyone knew where I live, one would have to wonder why draw these people way up into the mountains in a largely unpopulated area? For one, they want to turn this state from red to blue. It's always about an agenda and a game plan.

a reply to: AgentShillington

5 years is all that paraplegic guy should get, right? Blind kid? Nah, he shouldn't get too much help. Schizophrenic woman? She only needs a couple of years to become a healthy person.

I do not believe we should remove the "safety net" but I also do not believe we should go full Nanny State either. At what point does it go from safety net to nanny state? I believe the current admin is doing this now with programs like ACA and Net Neutrality and immigration reform and Urban renewal(Agenda 21).

But look at how Agenda 21 while serving the Progressive and corporate interests uses Social Darwinism to push out the udesirables who don't serve their plan

•Private property rights suffer with redevelopment and UN Agenda 21 because there is no level playing field with some insiders receiving government subsidies while the small owners and businesses are labeled blighted and removed or starved out.

www.postsustainabilityinstitute.org...

They will do this right at the same time they are promoting net neutrality as a way to supposedly keep the playing field level for all users on the Internet. Are they really interested in a true level playing field or is there something more nefarious going on?

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

I wasn't talking to you, so your reply to me doesn't actually mean anything. Just like other threads in which we have interacted, you don't seem capable of understanding context or intent.

a reply to: dieseldyk

the government IOU's in social security then social security is completely solvent. The reason the IOU's will never be paid is that Social security is a false promise held out to permit the elite to skim tax revenue. Some call it a ponzi scheme

Yes! Your whole post is a laser-like analysis of the true nature of the Elite's plans and agendas. Well spoken. It must be noted, however, that Cloward and Piven wanted to remove the Safety Net because they want full on Nanny State Socialism, that is the government takes care of us cradle to grave, but what do we end up with? Programs like SS, Net Neutrality(more gov control of the Internet), ACA, etc. These programs expand the Nanny State to such a degree that it no longer is a mere safety net for individuals who are in a bad place, it becomes the entire social and economic structure of the society.

originally posted by: AgentShillington
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

I wasn't talking to you, so your reply to me doesn't actually mean anything. Just like other threads in which we have interacted, you don't seem capable of understanding context or intent.

Oh WELL EXCUSE me for having the gall to even talk to you. I am suddenly reminded of our dear leader's upraised chin to the sky.

I understand the content perfectly well here and in all the other threads. You just don't like what I have to say. But that is alright, we both have a right to our opinions. This reminds me a bit of the popular guy on the playground telling the kid with the glasses to get off the playground you don't belong in our club.
I have a very subtle hint for you, some of the most individualistic people are the ones spurned by the popular kids but are the ones who have the more futuristic views.
Aquarius Rising my friend, sees ahead at least a few feet in front of the boat.

a reply to: AgentShillington

I wasn't talking to you, so your reply to me doesn't actually mean anything.

See, this kind of dismissal is a deterrent to open dialogue. My comment means nothing to you because you don't agree with my outlook. I don't fit into your cookie cutter ideas. Perhaps I have the deeper understanding of the content here. I have already discussed Social Darwinism, Thomas Malthus, and the Cloward-Piven strategy in relation to the Safety Net of social programs.
In fact, I have directly discussed exactly the content here.
What have you contributed to this discussion?

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
See, this kind of dismissal is a deterrent to open dialogue. My comment means nothing to you because you don't agree with my outlook. I don't fit into your cookie cutter ideas.

Jesus Christ, it wasn't a dismissal of your outlook, it was a definitive statement.

Your reply doesn't mean anything to me because your reply wasn't apropos to the context of the flow of conversation. It would be like me asking my friend what he wanted for lunch and then you replying that you had already eaten. It doesn't mean anything.

a reply to: odaeio

All labour is of the same value, and should be treated as such. "Money" should simply be tied to labour - not gold or anything else - just human labour, so if someone does an hours "work", everyone knows exactly what that hour is worth. All pricing would reflect this.

Woops that sounds a little bit Marxist to me. So an hour's labor should be exactly the same no matter what the job. Shoveling pig dirt should be exactly the same cost as a neurosurgeon and then everyone will be happily serving society and everyone get paid exactly the same..... wow perfect answer to societies needs, although who in the heck would ever shovel pig dirt then?

originally posted by: AgentShillington
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

I wasn't talking to you, so your reply to me doesn't actually mean anything. Just like other threads in which we have interacted, you don't seem capable of understanding context or intent.

Jesus Christ, it wasn't a dismissal of your outlook, it was a definitive statement.

Oh criminy! Get off your freakin high horse!

2nd line

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

originally posted by: AgentShillington
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

I wasn't talking to you, so your reply to me doesn't actually mean anything. Just like other threads in which we have interacted, you don't seem capable of understanding context or intent.

Oh WELL EXCUSE me for having the gall to even talk to you. I am suddenly reminded of our dear leader's upraised chin to the sky.

I understand the content perfectly well here and in all the other threads. You just don't like what I have to say. But that is alright, we both have a right to our opinions. This reminds me a bit of the popular guy on the playground telling the kid with the glasses to get off the playground you don't belong in our club.
I have a very subtle hint for you, some of the most individualistic people are the ones spurned by the popular kids but are the ones who have the more futuristic views.
Aquarius Rising my friend, sees ahead at least a few feet in front of the boat.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: AgentShillington

I wasn't talking to you, so your reply to me doesn't actually mean anything.

See, this kind of dismissal is a deterrent to open dialogue. My comment means nothing to you because you don't agree with my outlook. I don't fit into your cookie cutter ideas. Perhaps I have the deeper understanding of the content here. I have already discussed Social Darwinism, Thomas Malthus, and the Cloward-Piven strategy in relation to the Safety Net of social programs.
In fact, I have directly discussed exactly the content here.
What have you contributed to this discussion?

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

originally posted by: AgentShillington
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

I wasn't talking to you, so your reply to me doesn't actually mean anything. Just like other threads in which we have interacted, you don't seem capable of understanding context or intent.

Oh criminy! Get off your freakin high horse!

2nd line

Seriously? How many times are you going to continue to reply to that message? When is this kind of # considered abusive?

James I think I understand some of your ideas, and especially that the working poor are doing hard and dirty jobs with very little to show for it. Yes, these jobs are necessary for society as we know it today. I was in a group discussion Thursday night with some people and although we were discussing astrology(you will maybe see the connection) the discussion went around how the town was built on agriculture as the basis for survival and economic means, and the local government has eschewed any alternative means of building wealth. This is evidenced by the fact that any new business or group coming into the area is immediately turned away and most of the townspeople are either government workers or living on government subsidy of some kind. Almost all of the businesses here are tiny individual small businesses, with larger corporations or development having been turned away. They have a sustainability group called Western Sustainability Exchange which runs the local "buy local" Farmer's Market which has become deeply entrenched in all local enterprise with the Agenda 21 model.
Some of us have tried to engage with local leadership but all attempts at real free enterprise and wealth building have been downgraded. The town is replete with artists, painters, and the like, but industry is not welcome. It's a paradise for either wealthy artists who obviously have some other form of subsistence, or for people who work for government. I'll give you a hint, a famous actress lives in our midst and is very active in the local politics pushing a Progressive agenda.
I have been inside the homes of the townspeople here, and as shockingly poor this area is, almost everyone has a big screen tv.
This is also known as a railroad town, and while the railroads initially built the town, the RR Unions are gone and replace by police, firefighter, and teachers unions.
So what does all this mean? While agriculture and ranching is still the main subsistence of rural people here, almost all industry which could serve as a way to import more jobs and higher pay is being turned away, people are on government subsistence or working govt jobs, which actually pay higher than the private sector, and it is still one of the poorest towns anywhere, and yet this town is being considered a model for Agenda 21.
This is not a metropolis, People here consider themselves preserving the pristine beauty of nature and yet it's one of the poorest places in the country.
People living on SS, Medicare, and VA pensions cannot support the growing budget of the local government, and yet this is the model the leadership here seem to favor.
I must include the county in this as well, because the same people who were in the city commission are now county commissioners and are involved in getting grants for things like bike trails. Since when did people living on SS and Medicare need bike trails for 60 miles down the highway?