This is the last time I'm going to say it.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Hefficide

 

I don't I call that trading one master for another.

Still, it's stating preference for one over the other.

Not really considering 47% of Americans have zeo tax liabiilties, and are drawing more in benefits that they return in to that system.

We've argued this before and you know that what you are saying is not accurate. Everyone pays taxes - just not Federal taxes. The only people I can think of who might escape all taxation would be maybe rich televangelists in a state such as Texas... where there is no state tax, where their wealth leaves them able to take advantage of loopholes, and where they get exemption from sales taxes.

Even the people at the very bottom, those totally dependent upon social programs, are paying back into the system on some level.

But - in my original post I said "corporations" - not people.

Between Social Security,Medicare,Medicaid,free homes,free education($1 Trillion in Student loan debt) and the rest of those social engineering programs that create debt all for naught.

We the people are the biggest welfare recipients in this country, and it is nothing but the redistribution of wealth to so they can go out and buy more corporate products.

I'm lost as to how you figure student load debt is a free education. It's debt. Our entire banking system is built upon the idea of debt and interest.

Social programs and "redistribution of wealth" are not the same thing at all. If a day comes where the Government seizes everything, from absolutely everyone and then disperses it back out in equal parcels? Then you'll have a point.

Me neither I am a follower of people stepping up to the task of paying their own way of life I absolutely reject any and all those who purport changing the environment to suit the individual.

Because that is what we have here reverse darwinism at work insert label of choice(communist,socialists,marxists) trying to social engineer the environment that creates stagnation, nay regressive policies that created the largest dependency based society the world has ever seen.

So the argument is who pays for it to what we really has is one big arse zoo that would perish if something ever happened to the care takers.

Funny thing here is those same people say 'Don't feed the animals' or turn around and practice the opposite in real life.

So why do people not support that for animals and reject the same rationale for civilization?

Makes no sense to me.

Funny thing about those who insist they adhere to social Darwinism... they always except them and theirs from consideration. I've yet to meet a social Darwinist who claimed to have told his or her own parent that they should die rather than collect their Social Security or Medicare. In fact all those I have known said that they and theirs deserve those things because they "contributed and earned".

Truth is the majority of people do. Sure a percentage take advantage. Funny when the poor do it - it's an outrage. But when a corporation does it? It's considered good business.

Are there social engineering aspects here? Sure. Are they universal? No. The reason these programs exist is that helping those in need is infinitely preferable to letting "Darwinism" work it all out. It's the reason why we don't live in steel fortresses, having to shoot looters day and night. Looters who would be simply trying to survive. Even cavemen understood these concepts. Mutual necessity and personal necessity are both relevant concerns.

reply to post by Hefficide

We've argued this before and you know that what you are saying is not accurate. Everyone pays taxes - just not Federal taxes. The only people I can think of who might escape all taxation would be maybe rich televangelists in a state such as Texas... where there is no state tax, where their wealth leaves them able to take advantage of loopholes, and where they get exemption from sales taxes.

Yeah it is accurate simple fact that income tax(they are not paying) offsets some of,but not all of the debt they are incur for those social programs, and injects new wealth in to that system.

Either 1 of 2 things need to happen:

Shrink the programs or make them start paying for the services rendered.

I'm lost as to how you figure student load debt is a free education. It's debt. Our entire banking system is built upon the idea of debt and interest.

Need a job to pay back loans, and how many students are also receiving other government benefits at the same time?

No job No paybacks.

Social programs and "redistribution of wealth" are not the same thing at all. I

Sure they are take from the haves give to the have nots that violates civil rights and property rights.

I've yet to meet a social Darwinist who claimed to have told his or her own parent that they should die rather than collect their Social Security or Medicare.

That is a strawman we both know that I expect better.

Truth is the majority of people do. Sure a percentage take advantage. Funny when the poor do it - it's an outrage. But when a corporation does it? It's considered good business.

The majority ARE NOT paying for the services rendered that created debt, and a burden on others:

See this debt?

See the promises made that can not be kept right now?

And they want to add more programs and more debt on to us?

The actual liabilities of the federal government—including Social Security, Medicare, and federal employees' future retirement benefits—already exceed $86.8 trillion, or 550% of GDP. For the year ending Dec. 31, 2011, the annual accrued expense of Medicare and Social Security was $7 trillion. Nothing like that figure is used in calculating the deficit. In reality, the reported budget deficit is less than one-fifth of the more accurate figure.

online.wsj.com...

Tell me again how people are getting the shaft ?

The American republic has endured for well over two centuries, but over the past 50 years, the apparatus of American governance has undergone a radical transformation. In some basic respects—its scale, its preoccupations, even many of its purposes—the U.S. government today would be scarcely recognizable to Franklin D. Roosevelt, much less to Abraham Lincoln or Thomas Jefferson.

It wouldn't.

In 2010 alone, government at all levels oversaw a transfer of over $2.2 trillion in money, goods and services. The burden of these entitlements came to slightly more than $7,200 for every person in America. Scaled against a notional family of four, the average entitlements burden for that year alone approached $29,000.

The majority of current government spending over 2 trillion dollars that was 2010 it's 2013 which is considerably more.

online.wsj.com...

And here:

www.usdebtclock.org...

Funny how household assets are almost 7 times that of corporate.

So who is looting who?

Does the state only exist to pay for the individuals existence?

Yes?
No?
Maybe?
Some of the time?
Some of the time that gets turn in to all of the time?

reply to post by neo96


I can't get to all of my reply at the moment, but I will address one aspect before I forget... From the article that you sourced:

Poverty- or income-related entitlements—transfers of money, goods or services, including health-care services—accounted for over $650 billion in government outlays in 2010. Between 1960 and 2010, inflation-adjusted transfers for these objectives increased by over 30-fold, or by over 7% a year. Significantly, however, income and benefit transfers associated with traditional safety-net programs comprised only about a third of entitlements granted on income status, with two-thirds of those allocations absorbed by the health-care guarantees offered through the Medicaid program.

For their part, entitlements for older Americans—Medicare, Social Security and other pension payments—worked out to even more by 2010, about $1.2 trillion. In real terms, these transfers multiplied by a factor of about 12 over that period—or an average growth of more than 5% a year. But in purely arithmetic terms, the most astonishing growth of entitlements has been for health-care guarantees based on claims of age (Medicare) or income (Medicaid). Until the mid-1960s, no such entitlements existed; by 2010, these two programs were absorbing more than $900 billion annually.

Source

Obviously this clearly demonstrates that the issue is not with a culture bent on entitlement or a free ride. It's simply that the Baby Boomers have reached retirement age and have placed a temporary burden upon the system by virtue of their sheer numbers. A temporary anomaly. A skewed data set and interpretation.

A quick look to a nation like Sweden should give even the most right wing of members a pause for thought. Sweden had a marginally higher tax rate than we do and yet they have socialized medicine, much more comprehensive public welfare and unemployment benefits, and free education.

It's all a game here. The US Government is the biggest employer in the world and we, the taxpayers, are supplying their wages. Outside of the military - many of these civil servants ( think the DMV or folks at the VA ) have high wages, great benefits... and little to no fear of losing their jobs. Next time you wait in line for six hours to renew your license while dealing with an obnoxious clerk? Blame her for Americas budgetary woes more than the poor unwed mother down the street who can't find a way to get work and daycare both.

I'll return to this, probably in the morning, to address the rest of your post.

reply to post by Hefficide

Obviously this clearly demonstrates that the issue is not with a culture bent on entitlement or a free ride. It's simply that the Baby Boomers have reached retirement age and have placed a temporary burden upon the system by virtue of their sheer numbers. A temporary anomaly. A skewed data set and interpretation.

Thought the opposite how just how flawed, communist,socialist,marxist ideology truly is as those program come from their 'best wishes'.

A quick look to a nation like Sweden should give even the most right wing of members a pause for thought. Sweden had a marginally higher tax rate than we do and yet they have socialized medicine, much more comprehensive public welfare and unemployment benefits, and free education.

Yeah alrightie Medicare and Medicaid are 'socialized' medicine' that isn't all it's cracked up to be.

Nothing is free sooner or later someone is going to have to pay the piper

It's all a game here. The US Government is the biggest employer in the world and we, the taxpayers, are supplying their wages.

True 100 million Americans on food aid, not counting other programs.

I'll return to this, probably in the morning, to address the rest of your post.

I am a vampire so morning not so good for me laters though Mr. Hefff

reply to post by beezzer

Does it matter?

Yes, it matters.

If you go to the doctor, and you have say, cancer. Does it help you in any way if the doctor treats you for the stroke he misdiagnoses you with?

The first step in finding a solution to the problem is correctly identifying the problem. In this case we can call Republicans one thing, Democrats another, and yet, in the end they all really are Corporate Oligarchs. Obama is too.

Knowing is half the battle (G.I. JOE!)

But seriously, if you know what you are dealing with, the solution often presents itself.

reply to post by Hefficide

This differentiation is actually very important and speaks directly to a propaganda psy-op that has been played upon the American people for well over 50 years... The Red Menace.

Precisely!

reply to post by _BoneZ_

Although there may be some truth in your statement, it's not completely accurate. The president is a PR figure for the military industrial complex, which actually runs the country at present.

Here is an alphabetical list of companies in the military industrial complex.

Yes, the president as commander in Chief is a PR figure for the mIlitary industrial complex, but that's not really a conspiracy it's more of a job requirement.

reply to post by FlyersFan

Obama is all over the boards .. he doesn't know what he is. Sometimes he's a corporate stooge (obamacare) ... sometimes he's a socialist (spread the wealth) ... whatever, the bottom line is he's unqualified for the job he's in and he's not in it for the benefit of America.

Spread the wealth, hmm let's look at that.

See most of the time, people who talk about Obama's redistribution idea they are harping on food stamps (part of the farm bill) In reality, if you look at the back of a food stamp card, you will see that those accounts go through JP Morgan Chase bank.

Yes, Obamacare is a prime example of how our government as a whole is a Corporate Oligarchy (remember, Obama didn't write Obamacare, it was done in the House, went back and forth between the house and the senate before being all ironed out with each and then when it passed both, it went to the president to sign)

And for the record, Obama is quite qualified for the job as POTUS.

There is a very clear set of criteria a person must pass in order to be the President of the United States:

It's laid out in Article II Section 1 of the United States Constitution:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

No other qualifications exist constitutionally for the job. And Obama (despite what the birthers falsely believe) is completely qualified for the Position of POTUS.

reply to post by Phoenix267

Yes, I understand what you're saying. But I feel they use the words to invoke angry emotions rather than rational thought. Anything to make the opposing party look bad.

Except to anyone with a functioning brain can comprehend the difference and therefore their attempt at inciting angry emotion instead of showing reality only really works to weaken their argument and position.

reply to post by playernumber13

President Obama doesn't care what we think. It's obvious he won't be impeached and if the pressure gets too high he'll find a scapegoat and then take a vacation.

He actually hasn't done anything to be impeached for.

Article II Section 4:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

He has to actually commit a crime himself, or take a bribe, or commit treason (Article III Section III) or actual crime.

There is a reason that Presidents have cabinets and staff it's for plausible deniability. "I didn't do that, it was my (henchmen) who did that and they just quit.

Understand now?

reply to post by HauntWok


I am from Ukraine, trust me, I know my communism, brother...though I've never claimed Obama to be communist, you should not make assumptions that you are more informed than anyone else when it comes to political parties.

reply to post by U4ea82

you should not make assumptions that you are more informed than anyone else when it comes to political parties.

Oh no, I'm not the foremost expert on everything ever (yet ) But I can say for certain that Obama is definitely not a Communist, or a Socialist, or a Fascist, or anything else but a Corporate Oligarch.

People often use that term, without having any idea what it really means. The Cold War gave Americans the "Red Scare" and they are trying to use this on this President when it doesn't really apply.

If they truly looked at what these terms mean, they would see the motivation behind these political leaders and see the direction this country truly is headed in. It's still not good, but it's different from the socialist nightmare that some would have us believe.

reply to post by HauntWok


I get what you are saying now. I still have problems with translation at times. My apologies.