Thread: The world I would love to live in.

Well Gugi it just doesn't make sense to continue here. There is this faction that feels they are right and there is no way of even considering their stand to be anything but the gospel ultimate truth. It's what's wrong with the country today.

The usual story. Folks in need just need to beg for assistance.

I find it funny how they love to talk about redistribution to wealth the poor and middle from the wealthy as akin to being a member of the nazi party but when it works the other way and the wealth is taken from the poor and middle and redistributed to the wealthy, well...that's OK just good business I guess.

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

Well Gugi it just doesn't make sense to continue here. There is this faction that feels they are right and there is no way of even considering their stand to be anything but the gospel ultimate truth. It's what's wrong with the country today.

The usual story. Folks in need just need to beg for assistance.

I find it funny how they love to talk about redistribution to wealth the poor and middle from the wealthy as akin to being a member of the nazi party but when it works the other way and the wealth is taken from the poor and middle and redistributed to the wealthy, well...that's OK just good business I guess.

Wealth taken from the poor and redistributed to the wealthy. Wait.... if the poor had enough wealth to take, to make any difference to the wealthy, then then the poor wouldn't be poor, and there would be no need for the poor to depend on public assistance...

Redistribution akin to "Being a member of the Nazi Party"... one of the most ignorant comments I've yet read. Yes, redistribution is immoral, but comparing it to the horrors committed by the Nazi's? Really? That kind of stinkin' thinkin' is really "what's wrong with the country today."

I just dont know how it went from feeding the starving during the depression to providing the lazy with cell phones, hud housing, food stamps, welfare checks, free health insurance, large tax refund checks (explain how you refund something that was never given)

I was raised by a single mother of 3 who made minimum wage and never asked for assistance, even after losing 5 jobs when just about every single factory job in our county closed their doors one by one and moved to Mexico after the NAFTA agreement went into effect. Sure we get supposedly cheaper products, but at what cost?

I myself dropped out of college while on the deans list with a full ride to a very good college because I had a child and wife to support and refused to accept support from the government. Why? Because I had too much integrity, and the ability to support my family by working. It was my choice to begin a family while in college rather than wait, so it was my RESPONSIBILITY to support them, not the tax payers who pay taxes.

I am glad we support the people who cannot survive without assistance, the afflicted, the elderly, the disabled, the mentally and physically handicapped, the families of vetrans who have given all for us to have what we have, among others. But for those people who lack the integrity to even attempt to earn a wage and suck the lifeblood out of their own country when they have the ability to earn their own way I have no respect, what have they done to deserve full support from those of us who give up our time with our families to earn a living?

The world I would love to live in would have the integrity to help our neighbors who need help, assist those who are trying to better themselves, and refuse to give full support to those people capable of supporting themselves.

Originally Posted by DennisBarberShop

I am glad we support the people who cannot survive without assistance, the afflicted, the elderly, the disabled, the mentally and physically handicapped, the families of vetrans who have given all for us to have what we have, among others. But for those people who lack the integrity to even attempt to earn a wage and suck the lifeblood out of their own country when they have the ability to earn their own way I have no respect, what have they done to deserve full support from those of us who give up our time with our families to earn a living?

I don't know who are these people that are just mooching off the good honest ones. I know two guys on public assistance. One of them worked for many years at a hedge fund relatively low on the pole with mid 6-figure salary, he didn't like the job any more, wanted to spend some time off with their new twins; part of leaving was a non-compete. Owns two houses and a comfortable portfolio of assets. He is taking the $400/week not because he can't live without it but because he can have it - after all he's contributed a lot to the unemployment insurance fund while employed.

The other guy is disabled - missing half a lung after surviving a cancer - he has no skills worth paying for. Nominally he's a carpenter but he does shoddy work, cheats his employer in any way he thinks he'd get away with, wants to be paid under the table - in other words he can get short term work until his employers find out he is not worth employing. He is completely supported by the government (federal/state/local) - for his housing, for his groceries, for his health care. He has an old prescription for controlled drugs which he doesn't need, but he drives in his old state of residence every month to fill it up (probably because he can't get another doctor to issue it again); I suspect he then resells them illegally for a good profit. He smokes 2 packs a day, drinks beer and smokes marijuana while driving his beat up car. Has some assets in the form of silver/gold coins.
He is also firmly convinced that this country is gone down the drain because of the liberals, the blacks, the mexicans, the gays, the white trash, the jews, the banks, the big corporations, and the government - according to him every single one of these groups being absolutely dishonest and lacking the integrity good americans like him have.

I hear that minimum wage is a terrible idea because flipping burgers is not worth more than say 50c/hour and therefore paying somebody $10 for that job makes no sense. But the burger joint shouldn't close doors either - as long as the wages at the bottom are low the compensation at the top can be high, the burgers cheap enough that people buy them and the whole thing is profitable. Now the people at the bottom may not be able to live at those wages, but that's somebody else's concern. Usually they get welfare from the taxes, but that's often seen as redistributive and wrong; they could turn to crime, but that's also wrong.
They really ought to figure out a way to live at those wages, pay some tax (even if it's just a cent so that they have a skin in the game), and improve their skills so that they could move to a better paying job. Wouldn't that be a great world to live in?

I think it's a free country and everybody gets to make their choices and live with the consequences. I'd rather pay 15k/year to support a deadbeat to talk BS all day long instead of 15k to keep him in prison. Because the first option would allow the prison guards to get off the government's teat and do something more productive in their lives than keeping people incarcerated.

Originally Posted by honedright

Wealth taken from the poor and redistributed to the wealthy. Wait.... if the poor had enough wealth to take, to make any difference to the wealthy, then then the poor wouldn't be poor, and there would be no need for the poor to depend on public assistance...

Redistribution akin to "Being a member of the Nazi Party"... one of the most ignorant comments I've yet read. Yes, redistribution is immoral, but comparing it to the horrors committed by the Nazi's? Really? That kind of stinkin' thinkin' is really "what's wrong with the country today."

Every time a company moves production to Asia and U.S employees are out on the street that's a redistribution of wealth to the wealthy. Every time you hear about privatization in the public sector that's taking good pay and benefits away from middle class folks and replacing them with folks poorly paid and with no benefits and the wealth is redistributed to the company owners and shareholders. There is no savings to the Govt until maybe 30 years later. When people would rather work without a Union to represent them it usually means poorer wages and benefits and that money that would have gone to the workers goes guess where.

Originally Posted by honedright

"So how do you propose that these in need are assisted then?" - Just like any problem, first we have to discover the cause of the problem then decide on the cure.

So in Australia your natural right to defend your life, life itself being a natural right worth defending, has been infringed upon by your government by means that I'm not allowed to discuss on SRP. Do you not find that policy abhorrent? Do you think a government that thinks so little of it's citizens to relegate them to the status of helpless and dependent victims is part of an ideal society?

Sorry, what? I am neither helpless nor dependant nor a victim. I don't feel a pressing need to possess a firearm, which is what I assume you mean, and I don't really want to live somewhere where I do.

Originally Posted by edhewitt

Sorry, what? I am neither helpless nor dependant nor a victim. I don't feel a pressing need to possess a firearm, which is what I assume you mean, and I don't really want to live somewhere where I do.

Whether you feel the need or not, whether you live where you do or don't, doesn't matter because you've been told you can't. If you find that acceptable, less power to you, mate.

Originally Posted by gugi

I've read the US Constitution, a couple of times actually, and it always seemed to me that the 'the country was founded in such a great document before it was sent down the drain' crowd has been busier parroting political spin than reading a very short text.

The constitution is just the basic framework for setting up the government. Virtually all of it deals with the top structure and responsibilities of the three government branches. As far as I can tell that's still pretty much the same.
Then it proscribes a process for how everything else is to be set up i.e. bills are approved by majority in Congress and signed by the President, after which they are laws. When there is a question or dispute, there is the supreme court established by the Constitution without any specifics to for example the number of its members (and any other courts the Congress may choose to establish) to settle what's right and what's wrong.

In my opinion anybody who thinks the skeleton of government from the US Constitution can be a functioning body is developmentally stuck in pre-teen years. The truth is that US has never ever had a government like that, before or after the Constitution.

US is what it is today because of the Constitution and because of the way people have voted. If you don't like the country as it is today you've got to change at least one of these two.

Gugi, you are wrong. Even a pre-teen can see through your Emperors New Clothes "anybody who thinks government from the Constitution can be a functioning body is developmentally stuck" fallacy. The Constitution is not a just framework or skeleton that can be changed and molded at will, decorated with whatever seems popular at the time. I'm sure that you'd like it to be, and would also like others to believe it is, but it is not.

I already explained in detail the reasoning for this statement - the fact that the Constitution doesn't establish any laws, or government agencies, defense force, court system and instead only deals with the general structure of the government responsible to create those. This means exactly that - it's a framework to set up and run a government not a closed dogma.
Since you seem to accept the legitimacy of military, please tell me what are the numbers of airplanes, satelites, tanks, ships, ICBMs, pistols, rifles, ammunition, or enlisted soldiers, captains, generals, administrative assistants, etc. that US should have according to the constitution.

However, I do understand the clumsy switcharoo you're trying to pull - attach a new statement you disagree with to mine, and then proceed to dismiss the combination. If you want to talk about the changeability just bring it up and make an argument which is rooted in facts and not just a dismissive assertion.

I'm more than happy to address your issue that it can not be changed and molded at will, even though it seems trivial and obvious - Article V states exactly the opposite of your assertion in plain 18th century English:

Article. V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Notice the third word - whenever - it can't be any more flexible than that.

the world I would want to live in was the Midwest-west around 1800 ...hunt , trap , fish , grow , and trade for everything I need .. walk endless with the only fear I have is a big bear , and the only shave that would bother me would be a scalping ..lol.. prospecting for gold that would be plentiful , discovering prehistoric finds , no politics or restrictions , no judgment by looks but by character and actions , just living off the land as a loner , family or group , no drama , no phones , no time to worry about other then seasons ....just so much to see that is untouched or ruined by the modern day