20 Million Felons, 47 Million on SNAP, 13 Million on Welfare, 15 Million Unemployed

reply to post by kaylaluv


I get what your saying it takes a strong person to break the cycle. That doesnt make other people weak, but thats symantics i understand what your saying.

kaylaluv


Why not? The government represents all of us - not just those of us who are strong and successful.

Since when does representation mean welfare handouts?
It is not the Govt's job to "take care" of people.

kaylaluv

If we can find a way to help those who can't overcome their adverse situations, it will get them off of welfare, which is good for the whole country - including YOU! I say the government should put time and money into poor neighborhoods - it's a good long term investment.

No, because then the Govt, who is supposed to represent all of us (Your words) picks neighborhoods and groups of people to give money to.
The Govt was not designed to do such a thing.

kaylaluv

No, no it won't. Telling our fellow citizens that they are on their own, when they have absolutely nothing and can't figure out a way out of it - is NOT a solution to the problem. Look at other countries where people were starving and got no help - you think they just "found something to eat"? I don't think so.

I don't care about other countries.

It seems you think very lowly of people. That they can't make it without the Govt intervening.

People are free to succeed or fail on their own. Govt should not be propping them up.

onequestion
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

Its really hard to be in a tough community where there isn't economic prosperity. If you grow up your entire life and you see people making bad choices and you never glimpse prosperity then its hard for this person to gain perspective on their situation.

What you are really talking about is the societal issue of materialism. People are proud. The wealthy are more to blame for the poor choices of many people who grow up in poverty than those making the choices are - but only because the wealthy have subverted the free will of society. Not because of the pure reality of the wealthy having money and the poor not having money, no that is not it.

You see, materialism is necessary to the control scheme. People have to have a desire to consume more than they really need.

So, by the standards set by those who are born into prosperity, they are more to blame than the poor.

However, that is not the true standard. Retaining and exercising free will in a corrupt society is much closer to the standard.

For the love of money is the root of all evil. Not money, but the love of it.

onequestion
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

I get what your saying it takes a strong person to break the cycle. That doesnt make other people weak, but thats symantics i understand what your saying.

It does not take a strong nor a weak person to "break the cycle." There is really no cycle to be broken.

You are accepting an illusion as being reality by buying into that way of thought. That is the sin of society.

reply to post by FreeWillAnomaly


I should expand upon this by saying that this illusion (not the illusion of poverty being a cycle, but the illusion of what poverty actually is and what money actually is and the illusion of financial status) is why it is hard for poor people to survive in many places, and it is propagated by the wealthy for the sake of control. It is not a convenience statement.

That illusion IS what has been accepted by society, an illusion that it is, and that makes things very hard for poor people.

A person making it out of poverty has no stronger a mind than a person who succumbs to the streets. Our human judgments are based on illusory ideas and man-made concepts. "This happened *because* of this." People like to feel like we are in control of our reality, and there are those who prey on that fact to keep people in check. The truth is that each person's situation is as unique as their DNA (and in truth, even more so than that). Only God is all knowing. Don't judge people or God will judge you.

As for the individual, if the individual relinquishes control and realizes that they are not able to know the truth of a situation based on their perceptions - the individual is much better off.

reply to post by macman


I try not to get involved in these discussions but:

The wages are unfair not because of the market value of the workers, but because employers utilize game theory on the working class. Because employers have treated the working class unfairly, the middle class and the rich have to pay to subsidize the wages through literal wage subsidies and government assistance like food stamps. In the end, the wealthy don't even really pay the taxes that they do pay because they do not earn the money and even worse than that they rig the game.

So, in truth, if you have a problem with govt assistance - you have a problem with the unfair wages. Propagandists often try to find ways around this fact, but telling people: "let the poor suffer for their bad decisions" and "fair wages will promote mediocrity" doesn't work well when there is so much poverty and the middle class can feel the ice cracking under their feet. It is a terribly flawed piece of propaganda that will fail (and has been failing), and I am actually thankful for that.

Fair exchange of currency for services rendered. That is something you do not see (and never will, regrettably). Because people inherently like to take advantage of each other, steps must be taken to ensure that those who are taken advantage of have a safety net.

So, while people are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves in a fair market - the market is rigged. Not only are more regulations required, but government assistance is as well.

Anyways, no online debate will change anything and I don't feel like deciphering the intent of the propaganda between Republicans and Democrats right now. Go ahead and cherry pick a few sentences (I know you want to) and we can be done.

One thing is certain: the social engineering and perception management is going no where. Focus on retaining your free will, and you will benefit far more than online debate of which rich guy's propaganda sounds better.

reply to post by FreeWillAnomaly


Simply put...No.

Your retort is a long winded pitch at a living wage.

The market, pays what the market pays because it is driven by how much a consumer will pay for a widget and/or service.

This is basic economics.

You want pay someone more, if the company intake does not support it.

If you want people to spend more, they need more available cash. If you want them to have more available cash, please stop the Govt from robbing people's paychecks.

Very simply really.

Instead of only having say $3k a paycheck to spend, if the Govt would stop stealing from said paycheck, you would have $3500. That money would be spent, thus pushing forward with more companies selling a product, which in turn drives them to produce more, which causes them to hire more people.

reply to post by macman

Game Theory is simple economics and you discount it as if it is nonexistent. But if not for the utilization of Game Theory in favor of the wealthy and to the disadvantage of the workers and small business owners - we wouldn't even have had this discussion.

Anyways, I don't feel like debating propaganda. Even the term "living wage" has been associated with a form of propaganda. It makes things impossible to discuss. Everyone has had their perceptions toyed with by perception management gurus. They associate things that are not even associated with each other. Many even think to themselves "Oh, one of those types of people." Well, "those types of people" are an engineered type of people and most people are brainwashed.

For example: my "retort" was not a "long winded pitch about a living wage." It simply factored the lack therof into the logic, which is acceptable because there IS a lack thereof. However, I did not even say anything about a living wage. I would personally consider a living wage to be fair, though, so at least you

But it is all you took from all that text because your perceptions have been screwed with. Either that or you might even be one of the people who manages the perceptions of others, but I do doubt that for a few reasons.

reply to post by FreeWillAnomaly


Talking to "my fellow Americans" about politics is like talking to a bunch of robots incapable of computing patterns that fall outside of any known programs.

Best to get back to promoting thought and individual free will.

reply to post by FreeWillAnomaly


It is very simple.
I agree that the market is rigged. It is rigged in the favor of Bigger and more bloated Govt.

It is, however, not rigged just to keep the poor people down.

So, I agree to a point. Remove 99% of the Govt intrusion, and watch as the economy roars forward.

macman
reply to post by FreeWillAnomaly

 

It is very simple.
I agree that the market is rigged. It is rigged in the favor of Bigger and more bloated Govt.

It is, however, not rigged just to keep the poor people down.

So, I agree to a point. Remove 99% of the Govt intrusion, and watch as the economy roars forward.

The government has cooperated with the ruling class to keep the working class under control and on thin ice, poor people included. I don't know what down means. Are you aware that the ruling class instigated both Occupy and the Tea Party?

eta: It will not serve any worthwhile purpose to discuss politics. If you don't know yet, just go research it.

reply to post by FreeWillAnomaly


Ruling class. You mean big Govt types.

FreeWillAnomaly
reply to post by FreeWillAnomaly

 

Talking to "my fellow Americans" about politics is like talking to a bunch of robots incapable of computing patterns that fall outside of any known programs.

Best to get back to promoting thought and individual free will.

That is simply not fair to most people in the country. Most of your "fellow Americans" are fed up but have no idea how to go about changing things, and therefore are just frustrated with it all. You talk as though you are "above" everyone, and that may be why people aren't responding to you as much as you would like, or debating you as well as you would like...

Something to think about..

macman
It is not the Govt's job to "take care" of people.

The only point that I would take exception to of yours, and I will give my reason why.

If the government did not help those in need of it, there would be such a backlash in this country that we would never see the end of the looting the crime and the ransacking as people would return to base survival skills to get what they needed to survive, damn the consequences. So the Government, not wanting to see a breakdown of society, helps those who need it for a finite period of time and in theory helps them get back on their feet (yes I know that's kinda fallen apart but)

Most civilised societies on the Planet have some sort of social safety net for their citizens, this is a good thing, and while it needs to be tightened up a bit, it comes down to neighbors helping neighbors theory, and in inherently good for our nation as a whole.

NOW..... The flip side, it has gotten so out of control over the years that the abuses and fraud in the system NEED to be addressed before we have no more system to help those in need. We have seen what happens when that system breaks down (after Hurricane Sandy) in NYC where people after 4 days without power started to return to a violent and base nature...

(a contrary situation, in New England after Alfred [the October Nor'Easter in 2011] neighborhoods banded together to help each other, and those unwilling to pitch in were pretty much shunned and unable to partake of the shared resources, so not everyone returns to base violence.)

reply to post by vkey08


Yeah, don't buy into the whole "If Govt doesn't do it, a crime wave will ensue".

That idea means people, as a whole, can't sustain themselves. BS!!

Now, if it were to be cut tomorrow, people receiving welfare would be mad. But, that is what happens when you suckle at the Govt teat and they cut you off.

The end to this monstrous Govt welfare crap, to both people and companies needs to end. The Govt is quickly running out of other peoples money to give to others.

reply to post by macman


Explain bread lines and the great depression?

Why couldnt those morons just find decent jobs or start their own business?

onequestion
reply to post by macman

 

Explain bread lines and the great depression?

Why couldnt those morons just find decent jobs or start their own business?

Because the Govt continued to "help" and just made a bad situation, which would have corrected itself rather quickly if left to, and extended it.

It was a market crash, where Govt had a hand in a very large cookie jar.

reply to post by macman


Problem is we've seen it happen, we've seen the looting and violence start after only 4 days of being unable to get needed supplies. Again I also said it's not as big a problem in rural America where people seem to have a sense of survival and helping each other..

But in the bigger cities, that survival instinct has shown itself to be dangerous... and downright violent.

Also, most nations, have a system in place ot help those in need, I don' tunderstand why you think that is such a bad bad thing, it needs fixing of course we all agree on that, but a safety net is not inherently bad..

reply to post by vkey08


Why is it bad???
Because those "in need" become slaves to the Govt. Basically like feeding wild animals. They loose the ability to hunt and sustain for themselves.


Looting may happen, but once some looters are meet with force, it would stop.

And to allow a country to be held hostage with the threat of looting, is maddening. That is mob rule and is not what the country was designed as.

Maybe those cities need to experience something like this, to see just how dependent they are on Nanny Govt.

reply to post by macman


So you are saying that if a family is really in need because of the economy or whatever reason, that we as a nation should not help them? That we should let people die because of no fault of their own? (I'm not talking about the people that abuse the system, I'm talking about a family that may have fallen upon hard times due to illness/medical issues or layoffs etc)

That's pretty cold and cruel... I'm sorry but that goes against everything I believe in...


As far as letting the cities experience this, it happened, what part of that didn't you get, right after Sandy it happened.. It was a mess to the point that force wasn't working there were just TOO MANY people..