Poverty and accountability

[SeVeR]

I don't disagree with your post NBV, although i don't think Astro said a society isn't made of individuals.

 

What makes a good society is being greater than the sum of it's individuals. Hence Astro's sarcasm when replying to you with "A society is just the individuals in it and nothing else "

[PaRa$iTe]

The phrase "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts" always bugged me. It can mean so many different things. Now, if you mean that specialized people, who by themselves would be worthless, can act together as a group and actually do something, I agree. If you're implying that society is more IMPORTANT than the people in it (long live It's A Great Thing To Die For Your Homeland Even If It's A Dictatorship And Everyone Hates It) then I disagree. Society is what happens when you put a lot of people together in a certain place under certain cir!@#$%^&*stances. No more, no less. If the people in it die - so long, society. Edited July 30, 2008 by PaRa$iTe

[darkhosis]

I support food stamps, but limiting the food you can buy to healthy foods, poor and fat should not be synonymous. I support stronger regulations on monetary possessions if you're on welfare. If you drive a Cadillac, have a 52 HD plasma TV, Xbox 360, PS3 and more games than Wal-Mart but are collecting welfare, you shouldn't be collecting. If you have no recorded income, social workers should investigate how you got those possessions. I support increasing the number of social workers, as there are not enough, but also implementing government funded programs to allow low income individuals to train for social work positions.

At the parole office I report to in Athens, I've had all my office visits at 4 PM for the last few months... anyhow... this is when they also bring in people for the "financial class" that haven't been paying their parole fees. The parole fee for *most* people is $18 a month (those that don't have to pay res!@#$%^&*ution)... when I drive into that parking lot, I see all kinds of new SUVs/trucks/what have you, some with fancy !@#$%^&* rims and !@#$%^&*.. yet these people can't afford $18 a month? ok.... I wouldn't be too shocked if at least half those folks were on welfare, food stamps, housing !@#$%^&*istance, or something else..

 

For the food stamps part & health foods... well, poor and fat is synonymous partly because healthy food ain't cheap.. I used to live off these cheap !@#$%^&* 79 cent microwave pizzas when I was in college (totinos?? theyre probably $1 or so by now).. that's a huge meal for the price, it'll also turn you into one fat mother!@#$%^&*er. Let's not forget the ramen noodles (10 for $1!), patio burritos, hamburger helper, various canned nastiness, and all that other !@#$%^&*. now try to fill yourself up on healthy food with the meager food stamps that you get. unless they've increased the amt a lot then you're pretty stretched.. i know because my mother was on and off food stamps when me and my brother were growing up.

[PaRa$iTe]

Yup. Partially because removing unhealthy components, or cooking in such a way that there are none, is expensive; partially because eating healthy food is a trend, and the people who do are willing to pay lots for it.

[Aileron]

You know SeVeR, in a socialist world, everyone would live in one common building, would feel free to take whatever they want from their neighbors, wouldn't work a day in their lives, would never educate themselves, would never make themselves smarter, stronger, or tougher, and probably would die around age 30 at weight 700 lbs.

 

The reason we have guns is because someone mined steel, gathered wood, and crafted it into a firearm. The reason we have supermarkets is because farmers have sowed, grown, reaped, and sold crops to the supermarket. The reason we have flags is because someone somewhere sewed them. Society wouldn't exist without people working for it, and those people need to be rewarded, and since people are not immortal, it helps to reward those people's progeny.

 

 

I'll admit a problem with anything goes capitalism is that it is a lot like anarchy; Companies can become powerful enough to take the free market out of the free market, much like how in anarchy people could oppress their neighbors to make it effectively a different form of government.

 

However, socialism has the problem in that it encourages people to form neat communal relationships which are dependent upon a handful of people to function, ripe pickings for that handful to take over.

 

 

I think we should get rid of welfare almost entirely. Franklin Roosevelt had a better idea. Instead of putting the people on welfare, create some agency of marginal usefulness and give the people jobs. What happens is you give those people work ethic and job experience, and they suddenly have means and desire to get better jobs. If we're going to give them money anyway, why don't we get something out of it?

[FMBI]

I'm not going to miss you when you go away.

 

That was the dumbest post I have ever seen.

 

In socialism, contrary to popular idiocy, people would have to work, and, furthermore, you're a lot more likely to enjoy yourself if you're under "market socialism," in which you can compete to get the best goods, but you can also opt out if you don't like the system and go do your own thing. Contrast that with "libertarianism" which is nothing more than a justification of current American economic theory - eventually the top 1% will own 99% of the wealth, rather than the 39% they have now.

 

I'm glad you finally figured out that the free market doesn't always work, but you still seem to believe socialism inevitably leads to dictatorship. Which, I suppose, is a logical !@#$%^&*umption, if you have absolutely no background in world history, and thus don't realize that the US and Britain overthrew or weakened any left-leaning governments which could have possibly interfered with them (Guyana, N!@#$%^&*erian Egypt, Chile, 1953 Iran) - thus, the remaining socialistic governments tended to be run by complete incompetents like Mugabe or Kaunda. Using this kind of evidence, you could say that nuclear weapons are harmless because they've only been used twice.

 

Also - no, people would not be obese under socialism, because (all other things being equal) the more egalitarian a population is in earnings and living standards, the healthier it is. Besides, socialism, while not perfect, is more accepting of entropy, and accepts that infinite waste is not possible. While it's still heavily consumption-oriented, it is less obsessed than capitalism with using up as many resources as fast as possible.

 

Lastly, the CCC would be a great thing to revive today, as it could build long-range rail networks (allowing the US to survive $5 gas in a few years - if we don't get that, then the trucking networks will shut down, and anyone living in the southwest or California is going to starve), repair some of the existing infrastructure (a report just came out that put the bill at $1.6 trillion), and help with urban planning and conservation of resources. However, it wouldn't happen, because it's still a "socialist" measure, and any time there are at least 41 Republicans in the Senate, it's not going to get anywhere.

Edited July 31, 2008 by Finland My BorgInvasion

[PaRa$iTe]

The whole POINT with socialism is that the people who actually work should end up with the money, rather than the sexy butt who's telling them to work.

 

I'm not quite sure what Franklin Roosevelt proposed, but it sounds similar to what I thought of yesterday. That is - when people who're unemployed register for welfare, they are also given a random job somewhere instantly. There's always some job that needs to be done. If the government doesn't have any free spots, they could just give them to the highest bidder ;P Of course, for this to be at all reasonable, the amount of money recieved on welfare should definitely be increased. This may sound costly but isn't, really; free workers should at least partially compensate for the increased expenses. People who're unable to work for one reason or another shouldn't be denied the money, though.

[SeVeR]

You seem to have socialism confused with a dictatorship.

[NBVegita]

The whole POINT with socialism is that the people who actually work should end up with the money, rather than the sexy butt who's telling them to work.

 

There is a reason why managers are paid more than regular employees (for the most part)

[FMBI]

There is a reason managers are payed more, but the reason is often inflated to pointlessness. There is absolutely no reason why such drastic manager-worker income disparities should exist. In Japan, the top executives make only a fraction of what American executives do, and they often make better long-term choices. In the special case of the US (which is usually a special case... some would call it a "basket case" ), that argument is nullified, because the pay is so unfair*.

 

 

*Yes, pay is unfair when it fails to keep pace with productivity growth, inflation, or basic living needs. Keep in mind that the vast majority of the country (around 90%) has been in a "recession" for decades.

[NBVegita]

The problem is that your exectives pay is voted on by the people who own the company.

 

So you're going to tell the major share holders they're not allowed to control their company?

 

Not saying that I don't believe they get paid a lot, but if they're making the shareholders company wealthy, then I guess its up to the shareholders to decide, not me.