Articles
   
       
       
Pics/Video
   
       
       
Shop
Search
 
 
 
 
 
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WAKE WORLD HOME
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > Non-Wakeboarding Discussion

Share 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old    "G" (grant_west)      Join Date: Jun 2005       01-03-2012, 1:40 PM Reply   
Got this e-mail, Said it was from 1949 News paper, Don't know if it is or not but I think the words are fitting
Attached Images
 
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       01-03-2012, 1:59 PM Reply   
So there aren't any Republicans on welfare? I didn't know they asked your political affiliation when you applied.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       01-03-2012, 2:17 PM Reply   
Don't worry son... In a couple of decades computers will do all the work and we'll all live on easy street.
Old    SamIngram            01-03-2012, 2:44 PM Reply   
We have gone over this before... If you want to pick a fight, I am your huckleberry...

The article is from 1949, and therefore the poem itself is from 1949 or earlier, not after...

In 1949 Harry S. Truman was president, a Democrat. He served as Roosevelt's 3rd VP and replaced FDR when he died while still in term. We all know that the SOB FDR instituted the New Deal. The new deal IS the definition of the welfare state. At that time in history the Republicans were still against the welfare state, hence the poem getting introduced into the record. The poem was in response to Truman's "Pie Speech" which includes this:

The policies we advocate are based on these convictions.

We maintain that farmers, like businessmen, should receive a fair price for the products they sell.

We maintain that workers are entitled to good wages and to equality of bargaining power with their employers.

We believe that cooperatives and small business should have a fair opportunity to achieve success, and should not be smothered by monopolies.

We hold that our great natural resources should be protected and developed for the benefit of all our people, and not exploited for private greed.

We believe that old people and the disabled should have an assured income to keep them from being dependent on charity.

We believe that families should have protection against loss of income resulting from accident, illness, or unemployment.

We hold that our citizens should have decent housing at prices they can afford to pay.

We believe in assuring educational opportunities for all our young people in order that we may have an enlightened citizenry.

We believe in better health and medical care for everyone–not for just a few.

We hold that all Americans are entitled to equal rights and equal opportunities under the law, and to equal participation in our national life, free from fear and discrimination.

Therefore, It is my opinion that your comment does nothing but try to pick a fight since it has absolutely nothing to do with the original post... Since about 1993 the Republicans have furthered the welfare state though, and as a result, in combination with bad democrat policy, and policy in general MOST ALL OF US ARE GOING TO BE ON WELFARE!

BTW, the poem is by Robert Edgar Burns. I haven't been able to verify that it is the same Burns who wrote the poem, but that is what I am told...

Jeremy, I think you fail to recognize that it is not you against me, not the Left versus the Right, but the State versus Us.

As Tytler wrote,

"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence:

"From bondage to spiritual faith;
from spiritual faith to great courage;
from courage to liberty;
from liberty to abundance;
from abundance to selfishness;
from selfishness to apathy;
from apathy to dependence;
from dependency back again into bondage."

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury.

"From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising them the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."

I say that we are well on our way to a dictatorship...
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       01-03-2012, 4:50 PM Reply   
Sam maybe it is us against the state. But look it up, people have been saying "we are well on our way to a dictatorship..." for decades now. I just don't buy into the chicken little outlook.

No one is getting rich off welfare (don't post a few stories of the minute number of people that have extorted the system for substantial amounts, it does not represent the vast majority). It seems that many people believe that going on welfare amounts to early retirement at Club Med. If you are that envious, quit your job, give up everything you own, and join them. That's the true beauty of our country, you are free to do what you want.
Old    SamIngram            01-03-2012, 5:09 PM Reply   
This is my persona favorite welfare state story...

Beck Explodes Over Audio of Single Mother With 15 Kids Demanding Someone ‘Pay’ & ‘Be Held Accountable’
Old    Flight007 (poser007)      Join Date: Nov 2004       01-03-2012, 5:54 PM Reply   
You have got to be kidding me??? Somebody needs to be held accountable for these kids? Lol actually I'm laughing but it isn't funny. Sadly this is happening all over the place. I know some times people need help, but you can't just help them forever. A few years ago I was on vacation in Ixtapa Mexico. When I came home I found out my older brother and his girl friend were in my house because they were evicted from their apartment. I asked how they got inside and they said my Dad let them in because he had the key. They told me they would only be there for about a month and they would be out as soon as they found another place.

They had 2 dogs and asked if they could bring their dogs in the house, I said absolutely not. Since I was in outside sales at the time I was gone most of the day, When I would come home I could smell the dogs were inside. It all came to a halt one day about 8 months later, family or not I kicked them both out. Their dogs had ruined my 4 year old carpet, My house smelled like pee, the moral of the story is, if you give an inch they will take a mile. That was in 2007 him and his girl friend are curently living with my parents. People who dont want to work or who are lazy bring this on themselves. I understand sometimes people need a hand up but if people arent willing to help themselves then they will end up in the street, it's nobodys fault but their own.
Old    Ron T (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       01-03-2012, 6:25 PM Reply   
I saw this qoute on anoher web page, "The problems we face today exist because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living."
Old    Ron T (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       01-03-2012, 6:29 PM Reply   
Sorry for the previous typos. I meant--I saw this quote on another web page,
"The problems we face today exist because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living."
Old    "G" (grant_west)      Join Date: Jun 2005       01-03-2012, 8:26 PM Reply   
^^^^^^^How True^^^^^^^
another quote that keeps comming to mind is this, you know there is a problem When the Public till becomes a public troth,

Guess what People. When the goverment offers 2 years of Un-employment "Guess how long its gonna take for 99% of america to get a job!" If you guessed 2 years then your right,
Our goverment is Failing us, Where are the safe gaurd's from people taking advantage. Its just sick. My Father told me "Son If I was ever to go on Un employment I would be looked at as a Failure" He said I never took a day of un employment and Never would. He told me this to let me know Failure is not a option, In a round about way he let me know if I ever went on un employment I was a dirt bag in his eye's. He said things like Son you don't like your job, Then quit, But don't quit before you have another job lined up. Parent's You wanna be Super Dad or Super Mom. Teach your kids to Not accept this kind of B.S let them know its NOT ok to take hand outs and Let them Know "A MAN" can always find work. It seems like kids today they don't have skill to do much but man handle a X box or computer. Bottom line if you wanna work its out there. You just got to get off your ass to go and find it.
Old    Ifishok™ (ifishok)      Join Date: Mar 2002       01-04-2012, 4:26 AM Reply   
I think people should have to work for their welfare, I'm sure cities, towns and states could put these people to work, mowing the interstates, picking up trash, etc. The things cities and towns can't afford to do anymore because of budget cuts. If the person can't work due to physical health problems, then they could do data entry jobs, childcare etc. for those working for the welfare. I'm sure there's a lot of work for the welfare/unemployed folks to do to help out cities/towns and states with budget cuts. Make them do the dirty work so they don't get lazy as so many are these days. I'm pretty sure most of the working for welfare people would want to get off welfare as soon as possible if they had to pick up trash, or they could refuse the welfare and be bums. Also drug testing is a good idea too for the welfare folks, but that just my opinion.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       01-04-2012, 4:37 AM Reply   
^I agree with community improvement projects for welfare recipients that are currently unemployed, but physically able to work. But I don't think drug testing "welfare folks" is, economically, a good idea. FL initiated testing last year and less than 2% failed. Doesn't seem effective to me.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       01-04-2012, 4:46 AM Reply   
"Guess what People. When the goverment offers 2 years of Un-employment "Guess how long its gonna take for 99% of america to get a job!" If you guessed 2 years then your right,"

I don't get this statement. If you are saying that 99% of the country has no desire to better their situation, we are doomed.

I would say your statement is just some sheet you like to spurt around your friends in an attempt to show how intelligent you are. I mean do you think they give you 1,000.00 a week for unemployment? If I'm not mistaken, they give you 275.00 a week. Could you live on that? That's about minimum wage for a 40-hr week. I think you are sick in the head if you think Joe Blow, who just got laid off from a 800.00 a week job, will just sit around for two years and not look for another job.
Old    Jason G (jason_ssr)      Join Date: Apr 2001       01-04-2012, 5:10 AM Reply   
In order for freedom to mean anything, it has to be a two way street. If you want the freedom to gain everything, you must also have the freedom to lose everything. If you want the freedom to succeed by the merrits of your effort, you must also have the freedom to fail by those same merrits. Failure is the great motivator. What we do as a society is we remove failure from the equation. If you cannot fail, then why put any effort into success? There is no motivation. Now, you and I are motivated to simply keep the standard of living we are acustom to or grew up with. However, what if all youve known is the welfare lifestyle? Its easy, its comfortable and you are used to it. Why do anything else? We are several generations into welfare and its now just an acceptable means of income. All living things rise to the occasion when their life is on the line. The freedom to save and maintain your own life must be tempered and motivated by the freedom to lose it.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       01-04-2012, 5:45 AM Reply   
I came from a single-parent home. My mom struggled to get by, and me and my brothers and sisters didn't just want to get by, so we worked to be in better situations. I have worked in several inner-city schools, and the majority of the students want better than what their parents have. Now some fail, but some do break the cycle. To imply that your parents are on welfare means you will be on welfare, is a bit closed-minded.

As I posted earlier, I support requiring recipients of welfare, that are currently out of work, to partake in community improvement projects, i.e. trash pickup, painting, mowing grass, etc.
Old    Jason G (jason_ssr)      Join Date: Apr 2001       01-04-2012, 7:08 AM Reply   
Thats my point, she took care of you, but she STRUGGLED and you witnessed it. That struggle motivated you to make decisions so you didnt have to struggle like she did.

Now what if it wasnt a struggle? What if it was easy. What if she just stayed home and did nothing but enjoy the day? Would you have been equally inspired? Sure, all kids want better. Heck my parents did very well and I still wanted better. But when I didnt make it in sports, I settled into the same lifestyle my parents had. Just a regular 40hr a week job working for the man. Its not the mansions and fancy cars I had hoped for as a kid, but its a nice home in a nice neighborhood and a very comfortable life. Its comfortable because thats how I grew up. There are people that grew up far more lavish than I who would not be comfortable in my shoes. Did I fail? In some eyes I did, but in my mind I didnt. Its all about perspective. Now put yourself in the situation of a child of a welfare home. He is used to living in a low income apartment. Its all he has ever known. If he tries at doing better than his folks and joins the workforce, but just doesnt like the struggle, he can go back to the same lifestyle he grew up with and it doesnt seem like a failure. It seems normal.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       01-04-2012, 8:33 AM Reply   
I really don't think our freedom is in jeopardy because of poor people. It's human nature to manipulate and step on other people to climb to the top. That is where most oppression comes from.
Old    Big D (bigdtx)      Join Date: Feb 2005       01-04-2012, 9:31 AM Reply   
If you hate the welfare state move to India. You'll have to constantly fight off beggars and hopefully the sight of people eating out of the garbage doesn't bother you but hey - that's the live the chose. Otherwise they'd be a CEO right?
Old    Paul (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       01-04-2012, 9:47 AM Reply   
" But I don't think drug testing "welfare folks" is, economically, a good idea. FL initiated testing last year and less than 2% failed. Doesn't seem effective to me. "

Is it possible that it worked and people cleaned themselves up so they could continue to recieve checks? They knew it was coming in advance correct? If that is the case, then I would say its a victory. Hard to prove though.
Old    SamIngram            01-04-2012, 10:03 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
I really don't think our freedom is in jeopardy because of poor people. It's human nature to manipulate and step on other people to climb to the top. That is where most oppression comes from.
NO! Oppression comes from people who decide that they can make better decisions regarding my life than I can and those who decide to let them. All you have to do study history, poor people is the result, not the cause.

Progressivism is the cause!

“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of “liberalism,” they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.” - No one knows who actually said it, but I think it is true. Norman Thomas didn't actually say it though...

If you are one of the naive people who think that the government can solve the problems that the government created, you are the problem. Instead of these people pushing their BS ideals on me I wish they would actually take the time to read a book, The Road to Serfdom would be a good start. I don't need a nanny state to take care of me.
Old    Ifishok™ (ifishok)      Join Date: Mar 2002       01-04-2012, 10:19 AM Reply   
Also, people on unemployment should pay back the system, if you draw two years of unemployment then you need to pay it back in full, not all at once, but over time, just like a 401k loan. People need motivation to get back to work. My bother in-law drew all the unemployment he could before returning to work, I would say he's a lazy deadbeat bum. If he had to pay it all back, I'm sure he would have returned to work sooner.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       01-04-2012, 10:23 AM Reply   
Sorry Sam, but I don't agree with you. Poor people aren't just the ones deciding that they can make better decisions than you. Everyone thinks they can make better decisions than you. That's not a dig against you. It's human nature for everyone to believe they know best. The only people who can turn that into oppression are the one's with access to power and influence.

Govt has it's purpose and it's flaws. Just like capitalism. Just like socialism. If you are naive enough to only find fault with one, then I suggest you take off your blinders.

Capitalists feed off the weakness of the human flesh. Should we be free to create soft drinks and market them? Sure. But soft drinks serve no benefit to mankind other than to make us weak and sickly. But to capitalists they are a lucrative venture. The list goes on and on. But poor food is a drug that's destroying this country financially.

80% of govt subsidies go to the producers of corn, wheat, and rice, which is turned into low nutritional quality, high calorie food products. 1% goes to producers of fruits and vegetables. Poor people didn't vote this into existence. Influential capitalists did. The govt sucks because by nature people suck. We evolved to beat our fellow man down and step on him. All the while we rationalize that someone else is at fault for the society that we created.

That "average age" of civilization is predictable because humans are predictable. The delusional is that only lazy poor people are responsible. The "hard working" capitalists are the one's with the power to create the monster that exists in every human. Poor people are sheep.
Old    SamIngram            01-04-2012, 10:26 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by ifishok View Post
Also, people on unemployment should pay back the system, if you draw two years of unemployment then you need to pay it back in full, not all at once, but over time, just like a 401k loan. People need motivation to get back to work. My bother in-law drew all the unemployment he could before returning to work, I would say he's a lazy deadbeat bum. If he had to pay it all back, I'm sure he would have returned to work sooner.
Theoretically it was already paid for through taxing his previous wages up to about $7,000... Research the Federal Unemployment Tax Act... Just more money that is stolen from me that I will never see... so much for no taxation without representation...
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       01-04-2012, 12:01 PM Reply   
"“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of “liberalism,” they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.” - No one knows who actually said it, but I think it is true."

That is just your opinion Sam. How can you say it is true, if it hasn't happened yet? Again, more flawed logic. Since you are infamous for posting quotes, how about this one?

"A life lived in fear, is a life half-lived"
Old    SamIngram            01-04-2012, 12:20 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wake77 View Post
"“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of “liberalism,” they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.” - No one knows who actually said it, but I think it is true."

That is just your opinion Sam. How can you say it is true, if it hasn't happened yet? Again, more flawed logic. Since you are infamous for posting quotes, how about this one?

"A life lived in fear, is a life half-lived"
First, I don't live in fear, PERIOD.

Second, yes it is happening, and it is not my opinion, it is fact. The adoption of Obamacare is the adoption of socialism. The adoption of the idea of social justice, or the idea that a law applies more or less to one segment of the population than others is socialism. The adoption of the idea that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation is the adoption of socialism. The fact that we had over 40,000 new laws added with the new year represents the decline of liberty.

Jeremy,
You are constantly arguing that tenants of socialism are left up to opinion. You proclaim that it is my opinion that socialism is being instituted, and that liberty is being taken away from me, and not fact, and you are dead wrong. Socialism, and its tenants, are definable and are not opinion. Every example of socialism throughout history has the same basic traits - you can not argue that fact just because you support them.

IMO you are the perfect example of the statement, "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of “liberalism,” they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program." You seem to support every fragment, but not the label.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       01-04-2012, 12:48 PM Reply   
^Sam, say I read a few books on Da Vinci, does that make me an art expert? You come on this forum, you list a few quotes from some people you admire, you give us a couple of books you found interesting, perhaps they fit your style of thinking to a T, but it doesn't come across as someone that is an expert, you just come across as someone that is probably an expert at writing book reports.

"First, I don't live in fear, PERIOD."

Maybe you think not, but when you come on here, "Oh my, the big bad socialists are taking over, and it's some master plot to enslave us all; blah, blah, blah, puke", it kind of says you do.
Old    SamIngram            01-04-2012, 1:03 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wake77 View Post
^Sam, say I read a few books on Da Vinci, does that make me an art expert? You come on this forum, you list a few quotes from some people you admire, you give us a couple of books you found interesting, perhaps they fit your style of thinking to a T, but it doesn't come across as someone that is an expert, you just come across as someone that is probably an expert at writing book reports.

"First, I don't live in fear, PERIOD."

Maybe you think not, but when you come on here, "Oh my, the big bad socialists are taking over, and it's some master plot to enslave us all; blah, blah, blah, puke", it kind of says you do.
Again, you are trying to debate what socialism is... you are the perfect example of my above statement. You are the problem, you don't understand, and you have no ability to critically examine the facts. You only have your opinion that everything is left up to interpretation and that nothing is a fact. By utilizing this methodology, in your mind, you are never wrong, and everyone else is.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       01-04-2012, 1:12 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamIngram View Post
First, I don't live in fear, PERIOD.

Second, yes it is happening, and it is not my opinion, it is fact. The adoption of Obamacare is the adoption of socialism.
This reminds of another quote... "Satan's greatest achievement is making the world believe that he doesn't exist".

Obamacare is the crown jewel of capitalism. It was negotiated and signed off by capitalists. It achieves the goal of steering more money to the healthcare industry. There is nothing about our healthcare system that is socialist. It's a huge capitalist scam on the public that has created a forced contribution to the industry under duress in cooperation with welfare that flows from the govt directly to the industry.

The solution is to transition by denying tax deductions for HI payments and instead provide only deductions for out of pocket expenses. Then hopefully remove the deductions completely. Of course HI companies would self destruct and the HC providers would go into a panic. But the end result would be true competition and transparency in pricing.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       01-04-2012, 1:22 PM Reply   
"You are the problem, you don't understand, and you have no ability to critically examine the facts. You only have your opinion that everything is left up to interpretation and that nothing is a fact. By utilizing this methodology, in your mind, you are never wrong, and everyone else is."

So because I don't fall into line with your style of thinking, I don't "have the ability to critically examine the facts"? Sam, all I have to do is turn on the news and I hear the same stuff you are spewing, it's coming out of the GOP's candidates mouths. Again, spouting off straw-men arguments does not make you an expert at deciphering information. There has not been one time that I can remember that you have posted anything of substance that is exclusively your ideas and not something I can find by listening to Glen Beck or surfing the internet. I mean what if I concluded my posts with something from Bill Maher or Keith Olberman, would you take me seriously? You cannot say that the US's current policies led us to socialism because it hasn't happened, it is merely your speculation.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       01-04-2012, 1:27 PM Reply   
"Is it possible that it worked and people cleaned themselves up so they could continue to recieve checks? They knew it was coming in advance correct? If that is the case, then I would say its a victory. Hard to prove though."

Maybe, but couldn't it also be true that maybe some of the stereotypes we like to believe are false?
Old    SamIngram            01-04-2012, 1:44 PM Reply   
Jeremy,
I don't need Glen Beck or the GOP to tell me anything. I can read history. IMO you have no idea what-so-ever what socialism is, or for that matter, what fascism is. I doubt you have read anything on Stalin, Marx, or for that matter Hitler's fascism. I doubt you have actually read anything, let alone understand it.

At least John Anderson suggests a logical argument and not just some BS circular discussion based on opinion. I can understand and even partially agree with his argument. I will counter that the "Capitalism" that he speaks of, is not the capitalism of the free market. It is instead the "Capitalism" of fascism, cronyism, and a system where the government picks the winners and losers. The democrats have even suggested that Obamacare is just a step towards a single-payer system.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       01-04-2012, 1:57 PM Reply   
"Pure" capitalism is a fantasy. It cannot exist because it's incompatible with human nature. Why should we argue about something that cannot be? You can argue that we should strive for "pure" capitalism. But then you have to first establish that pure capitalism is even desirable, which I doubt. Pure capitalism is freedom without responsibility. You are free to exploit the weakness of the flesh. Religion has been battling that for thousands of years for the good of society.

Pure capitalism is the right to produce and sell anything people want. If they don't want it you are free to convince them they want it. If it's bad for them you are free to make the product addictive. Then you are free to tell them they are responsible for their own failing. Looks like the biggest difference between pure capitalism and liberalism is that capitalists don't take any responsibility for profiting off of the damage it causes by citing a lack of personal responsibility on the victims.
Old    SamIngram            01-04-2012, 2:24 PM Reply   
I never mentioned "Pure Capitalism", let alone discussed or argued for it. Capitalism is very much like the political spectrum; on one end we have the Extreme Left or socialism, on the other end we have the Extreme Right or fascism. I would argue for something in the middle-right, or an Adam Smith - Invisible Hand version via the Wealth of Nations ANDMoral Sentiments... It is when politics sway to far in one direction where the real problems arise, I think history proves this, from Stalin and Marx to Hitler.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       01-04-2012, 2:47 PM Reply   
The problem is that as soon as you put restraints on it then you are subject to cronyism. Even a free market can be a threat to national security when it exports the domestic money supply. Anything that isn't sustainable is by definition a threat to national security since security is the continuing of a stable society/nation. It's too nebulous to talk about the free market or capitalism as if it were a utopian system because it isn't.

We live in a complex system that makes it difficult for everyone to grasp the interaction and ramifications of any particular policy. To paint things with a broad brush is a recipe for misrepresenting the truth.

Just the fact that we don't acknowledge the dangers of our food supply and eating habits to the public health, the need for increasing debt to maintain the deficit economy, and the rampant inflation of healthcare due to tax policy is evidence enough for me to see that public opinion is based more on self serving fantasy than fact. We are puppet mastered to fear upsetting the status quo.
Old    Big D (bigdtx)      Join Date: Feb 2005       01-04-2012, 3:09 PM Reply   
John why are you arguing with Sam? The guy is king of the trolls.

His "persona favorite welfare state story..." is something from Glenn Beck LOL
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       01-04-2012, 3:51 PM Reply   
"Capitalism is very much like the political spectrum; on one end we have the Extreme Left or socialism, on the other end we have the Extreme Right or fascism. I would argue for something in the middle-right"

So you want a system that is closer to fascist as opposed to socialist? But even in that argument, doesn't your system have some socialist underlying? If not, it would be strictly right, i.e. Solely Fascist. Sam, I have read plenty of books, again, it doesn't make you an expert.
Old    "G" (grant_west)      Join Date: Jun 2005       01-04-2012, 4:46 PM Reply   
I this what John said is right on
Quote:
I really don't think our freedom is in jeopardy because of poor people. It's human nature to manipulate and step on other people to climb to the top.
IF the goverment should do ONE thing right it should be to "protect our tax money" The goverment who takes our money BY force should not be so free when it comes to handing it out. All these social programs for the People that CONSTANTLY need a hand out or flat out SCAM the system. Illegals comming across the boarder getting free health care and other goverment TAX payer dollars. WHERE IS OUR GOVERMENT in stopping this kind of Theft.
Dane (dimond dad) said it a while back. The problem is That "it dosen't suck enough to fail" Example you decide to quit your job you get Un employment. You cant pay your rent the goverment will provide you with a house or $ for housing, You cant afford a phone Well the goverment can get you one of thoes also.
Try failure or not working in a country like Africa. Yea it SUCKs to be a homless person in a place like that.
Old    Jo Shmoe (joeshmoe)      Join Date: Jan 2003       01-04-2012, 7:04 PM Reply   
Hey Big "D", Sam is not a troll by definition, he types what he believes.
Sam said "First, I don't live in fear, PERIOD" , then why do you carry a gun everywhere you go Sam? You must fear something.

So, what's a welfare recipient taking home today $800.00 a month? less than minimum wage, this money is used to control the people who cannot work(or people who don't want to work). The latest figure to keep a person in prison I have heard of was $35,000, I think this figure is much higher, they just built a new jail in our state with a price tag of $80,000,000.00 I think it could hold 150 incarcerated individuals, much more costly! Once again education is the key!

There is nothing wrong with collecting unemployment for six months, puts more money into the system, but because of the the recession the benefits have been extended. I guess the economy is VERY FRAGILE, we have 8.6 unemployment, which means that 91.4 % of the people are employed or are not looking for a job. Wouldn't you think that 91.4 % employment would be enough to run the economy? guess not, we need about 15million or so more people working, and spending their money! This only shows how important the 99% are to the system or maybe we should call it the 95% because when unemployment gets down to 5% our economy will be on a roll.
Old    Jason G (jason_ssr)      Join Date: Apr 2001       01-05-2012, 5:45 AM Reply   
Joe, do people who carry homeowners insurance live in constant fear? No, they just know the improbable can drastically alter the course of their life were it to occur. They have no reason to experience fear as they have put the tools in place to mitigate any unfortunate incident outside of their control. The same is true for those who carry guns. Like homeowners insurance, guns are a rarely used policy kept by those who dont want to lose everything by some improbably event outside of their control. Is it foolish not to carry HOI?

All the socialist, communists, ditctatorship, etc governments of the past had one fatal flaw. The citizenry lost motivation because they could not break out of the mold that their governing body put them in. They couldnt live or die on their own accord\merrits. They were stuck in class systems that could not be broken. It wasnt anyones goal to thrive, it was everyones goal to maintain (rich maintaining wealth and poor maintaing life). That is where this little spin-off called America got its start. It was a place where every man controlled his own destiny. You could go there and become wealthy and powerful, or starve to death. It simply depended on your effort and luck. For many it was worth the risk to have that kind of opportunity. When you take from the rich and give it to the poor, everyone goes into maintenance mode again. The rich are trying to maintain their wealth, and the poor are trying to survive off the handout. There is no longer motivation and you are back to where you started.

The elephant in the room is that nobody wants to allow able bodied adults to suffer the ultimate consequence of their efforts. We are running a casino where all are welcome and nobody loses. Remind me what kind of profit this casino is currently running at?

I also find it funny that when you are poor and you strive to gain, you are "motivated". When you succeed, its relabelled "greed".
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       01-05-2012, 9:24 AM Reply   
In our earlier history it was more important to utilize the resources and grow the country. You could pollute and consume because the population was small and the country was huge. You can't operate on the same paradigm when the population is large, the resources are limited, and the pollution becomes significant because of scale. It doesn't matter whether you are poor or rich. Both will take the maximum advantage of the system. You can't have a crack in the sidewalk without being sued. Poor people didn't create that situation, but rich lawyers are telling them on TV to call.

Much of this country was built on the backs of people dieing while performing extremely dangerous jobs like building skyscrapers, dams, and bridges. While we still have dangerous jobs, that has changed quite a bit. Now we pay the price to enhance safety, but yet are plenty happy to allow other countries to kill their people with pollution and dangerous working conditions making crap we buy and hurting our ability to compete in manufacturing.

People getting lazy is part of our culture from top to bottom. You can't maintain huge disparities in wealth with a voting Democracy. It's unnatural for people to be satisfied being poor next to moderately wealthy people. That's why you need opportunities for people of all levels. This country is shutting down the opportunities by becoming a service oriented economy. IMO welfare only kills motivation for a small segment of the population who have no other options anyway. The flip side of the coin is that many essentials are inflated because of excessive consumption by those better off who frequently get pseudo welfare in the form of tax breaks to steer their money where the wealthy and influential want it to go. Blaming the poor is a red herring so that you don't use your intellect to look at the big picture.
Old    Jason G (jason_ssr)      Join Date: Apr 2001       01-05-2012, 2:41 PM Reply   
I dont blame the poor, I blame us all for going against the fundamental premise on which the US was founded upon that many died to create. Righting the ship is more about an attitude than about recovering dollars. Taxing foreign product to death in order to bring back manufacturing would also have a negative short term affect on the economy, but that doesnt mean its not the right thing to do. We do need to do it. Is it the path to riches? Not initially, and maybe not even long term, but it gives us something greate,r and that is removing that foreign dependence and the outflow of cash. Doing what is right in the spirit in which this country was founded IS the correct course regardless of immediate hardship, or lack of immediate gain.

We need to have the attitude that it is wrong to take from those who earn and give to those who are able but do not. We have to believe it is wrong to allow companies to move manufacturing overseas because it is cheaper. We have to believe fixing these wrongs is important to do on principle alone, regardless of impact positive or negative.

The truth is some abled bodied people just do not have the will to sustain themselves without the handout. We should respect that decision. No, recovering their $287 a week isnt going to fix the deficit, but it does show the principle of our free society that every able person pulls their own weight. I believe it would serve as a wakeup call for most.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       01-05-2012, 3:55 PM Reply   
We aren't going against the fundamental principle this country was built on. We are facing the inevitable problem of balancing freedom and responsibility against human nature. The founders of the country had the luxury of giving people freedom without responsibility because it was a massive country that needed to be tamed and built. We don't live in that world anymore.

What needs to be tamed but cannot is the human spirit of cooperation and wanting what's best for society. That means sacrifice. People don't like to sacrifice. They like to twist and interpret reality to their advantage. Singling out taking (i.e taxes) and giving (i.e welfare) is an example or twisting reality. You don't want to have people take from you, then advocate responsibility for everyone, including yourself not just others. I've given examples many times.

Last edited by fly135; 01-05-2012 at 3:57 PM.
Old    Jason G (jason_ssr)      Join Date: Apr 2001       01-05-2012, 6:47 PM Reply   
Then what we disagree on is whether the survival of those who are able, but choose not to sustain themselves, should be a responsibility forced onto those who do. I do not believe it is. You obviously do. I believe that kind of behavior by the government is what the colonists were trying to get away from. They were being forced to hold up a society of non-contributors who were just born into a better class.

How is that twisting reality? It it not true that my taxes are taken from me forcibly? Is it not given way to the poor in the form of welfare? How is that twisted? Its the definition of socialism, but you dont want to call it that.

The truth about human nature is we are simply creatures of opportunity. We find the easiest way to achieve our minimum requirements. While each persons minimum requirements are different we all go about the equation the same way. We balance effort with result. The welfare system in many cases meets the minimum requirements while yielding the greatest income to effort ratio. That option is unhealthy for the well-being of the society in more ways than strictly monetary.
Old    Nick911            01-05-2012, 7:23 PM Reply   
The more money you take from the wealthy to feed into social programs, the less ability wealthy people have to make other people wealthy.

Cut corporate tax and capital gains tax to zero. Cut all income tax across the board by at least 25%.

Cut social spending by at least 50%.

Economy will be back in shape in 12 months due to unprecedented hiring and spending.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       01-05-2012, 7:24 PM Reply   
You've misunderstood my post. It isn't about being responsible for the survival of others. It's about being responsible for yourself and your obligation to society. It's a debatable issue of morals. You seem to operate on the basic principle that if I make money then I'm entited to have whaever it will buy with no obligation to anyone else. That's a highly debateable point.

You seem to equate money with a moral right. Others might think that the resources of the planet belong to everyone equally as a basic premise. Those with little money and means may not be able to acquire their share, but that doesn't give you the right to as much as you can acquire. Libya is a good example. Other nations used Qaddafi as an intermediary to take oil from the people of Libya. They lost the resources and suffered the environmental damage but did not share in the proceeds. While might makes right, you cannot force people to change their moral values with force.

Americans want "safe" health care so they created laws that limit access to medical care because of the increased costs. If you create a healthcare system that excludes the ability of people of little means then you become responsible for their healthcare. If their were fewer rules protecting the "standard" then a poor person could get access to less costly help. But that cuts into profit.

When we buy products from other counties and export our money with a deficit we are hurting the economy. The more you make the more the penalty you pay for these trangressions against the nation. When you want tax breaks for health insurance, geting a mortgage, or funding a pension you are getting welfare from the govt.

You obligation to society is debateable but you came into this world with a history of mankind creating a gift for future generations. You cannot boil this down to a simple argument of I should keep what I have and not be forced to help anyone else. It's a fuzzy argument with plenty of examples of why it's wrong.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       01-05-2012, 7:26 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick911 View Post
The more money you take from the wealthy to feed into social programs, the less ability wealthy people have to make other people wealthy.

Cut corporate tax and capital gains tax to zero. Cut all income tax across the board by at least 25%.

Cut social spending by at least 50%.

Economy will be back in shape in 12 months due to unprecedented hiring and spending.
IMO this is delusional.
Old    Jason G (jason_ssr)      Join Date: Apr 2001       01-05-2012, 7:51 PM Reply   
Healthcare is a service, not a right. While i agree tort reform is in order, I do not think you can recategorize healthcare into a right simply because the service becomes expensive. I believe issues like this will cycle to where it needs to be naturally. People want healthcare. When people want something, the laws do not stop it from happening. It goes black market until that market is so large that the laws adjust to account for it. Examples are prohibition, abortion, and soon the war on drugs. Yes its a painfully slow process, but its better than creating entitlements.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       01-06-2012, 5:51 AM Reply   
"Healthcare is a service, not a right."

I just can't agree with this argument. People without the ability to get healthcare, affects all of us. I mean, do you want a nation, where we are plagued by infectious diseases like some third-world country? If you think this will only affect the people without insurance, you are sadly mistaken.

"I believe issues like this will cycle to where it needs to be naturally."

Do you have any evidence that will support this belief? I see the costs on a continuous rise with no indication of any sort of price drop.

"The more money you take from the wealthy to feed into social programs, the less ability wealthy people have to make other people wealthy."

Another strawman argument. Have you ever checked to see how many tax dollars go to social programs? Like John said, your argument is absurd.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       01-06-2012, 8:01 AM Reply   
Healthcare is more than a service. You are confusing the right to healthcare with an obligation to provide healthcare services. The govt puts up many barriers to access to heathcare. And that implies an obligation to those who cannot overcome those barriers.

I find it interesting that you are tying our rights to the apathy and misinformed nature of the public. If you want to make that argument, the public also agrees that the govt is obligated to make sure we have access to healthcare even if we can't afford it. The public is far less apathetic about wanting healthcare than it is about the govt actions that inflate healthcare costs.
Old    "G" (grant_west)      Join Date: Jun 2005       01-06-2012, 9:33 AM Reply   
John: you said "the goverment put up many barriers to access to health care"
Sorry brother. You are Very Wrong! Mabey your talking about access to health care to people like you and me. Simple Fact If you walk into any hospital in urgent need of health care "They Cant Refuse To Treat You"
Another Fact if your sick and want health care your gonna get it. It might not be as good or you wont get service right away like if you had insurance but trust me you will get it no matter who you are and what your sickness is, Ask any Nurse how many of their patents are with out insurance.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       01-06-2012, 10:11 AM Reply   
Grant, that's an example of society fullfilling it's obligation to help the needy. I understand that fully. I am speaking about the heathcare being strictly controlled by the govt and laws. Given the hypothetical situation that people like Jason are suggesting where we don't provide healthcare to the needy, then the barriers are large.

If you are going to create a 3rd world in the US then you need to relax the laws and allow 3rd world freedoms for HCpractitioners. I.E. anyone who claims that they can help someone else is allowed to do so, rather than be jailed for practicing medicine without a license. IMO our 1st world HC is overly regulated. An egregious example is the FDA telling Diamond Walnuts that it's nuts are illegal drugs under the interpretation of the law if they claim walnuts contribute to the health of your heart.

I know someone is going to argue that we can't just allow people to claim anything they want. But that is a response that doesn't adequately analyse the pros and cons of the breadth of current regulation. It's a knee jerk reaction of fear of what may be if the govt doesn't maintain strict control to keep us safe.
Old    SamIngram            01-06-2012, 10:21 AM Reply   
Yes, the government has put up many barriers to access to healthcare! They have done this through the consequences of the very laws they make to "better" the system and protect us.

First, lets talk about this article...
Here we have an illegal from Mexico spending a year in a US hospital... for free..

Second, let's talk about this article.
Anyone hear of a mutual-aid society? No? Why not? The government basically shut them down... The Shriner's Foundation, Prudential and Metropolitan Life, and Catholic hospitals are basically what we have left...

If we leave it up to the government to take care of our healthcare system and provide healthcare because it is a right, isn't that same government able to tell you what you eat, smoke and drink, what you should weigh, what your life is worth?

My buddy has a blown-out knee. He has VA insurance. They say that since the knee is okay to walk on it is not a priority and that they will not do the surgery until next year. He can walk on it, but not wakeboard, hike, snowboard, or continue to serve his country.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       01-06-2012, 11:34 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamIngram View Post
"The first major blow against fraternalism occurred when the American Medical Association gained control of the licensing of medical schools. In 1912, a number of state medical boards formed the Federation of State Medical Boards, which accepted the AMA's ratings of medical schools as authoritative. The AMA quickly rated many schools as "unacceptable." Consequentially, the number of medical schools in America dropped from 166 in 1904 to 81 in 1918, a 51 percent drop.[18] The increased price of medical services made it impractical for many lodges to retain the services of a doctor. Medical boards also threatened many doctors with being stripped of their licenses if they practiced lodge medicine."

This is representative of the infringement of our right to health care. I can't think of any right more important than the right to treat one's health as one chooses. And the freedom to associate with anyone who offers a heath care service as one chooses. But that isn't the case. You are only allowed to get heath care from govt authorized providers. And the side effect is an obligation of the govt to provide healthcare services. This slippery slope has created a financial crisis as medicaid and even more so medicare are a significant drain on govt costs that must be remedied by taxes and/or increased debt.

Healthcare laws directly represent the govt forcing it's version of the truth on the people. Free speech and healthcare don't mix in the govt's eyes.
Old    Jo Shmoe (joeshmoe)      Join Date: Jan 2003       01-06-2012, 1:46 PM Reply   
"Joe, do people who carry homeowners insurance live in constant fear?"
No, they have insurance, they don't have to fear, and I have life insurance so I don't have to worry about my family if I die.
Jason, do you carry a gun because your afraid someone is going to steel the 10 bucks out of your pocket?
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       01-06-2012, 4:31 PM Reply   
"Example you decide to quit your job you get Un employment."

Uhhhhhh, I don't think you can get unemployment if you quit a job.
Old    Jason G (jason_ssr)      Join Date: Apr 2001       01-06-2012, 4:58 PM Reply   
Quote:
Jason, do you carry a gun because your afraid someone is going to steel the 10 bucks out of your pocket?
Nope, its simple supplimental policy that potentially yields a better result for the family than the life insurance for relatively low additional cost. Like you life insurance, you know its there, but hardly think about it. And, like you said, you dont fear because you have the policies protection.

So, lets say your an average guy, and you have a 25yr term policy for $1mm, your paying about $30\mo for the first 10yrs or so. Then it begins to balloon exponentially and becomes unaffordable as the term approaches. In the event you have an altercation with a criminal who takes your life, your spouse gets $1mm up until the point the term expires or you cant afford it after it starts ballooning.

A CHL costs about $125 and a cheap carry gun costs about $375. So your all in $500. Over the same 25yr period its costing you an average of $1.60 a month. So, for $1.60 a month you add the option to potentially walk away from the same altercation above. In this case your spouse get her husband back rather than the $1mm. This policy also continues to cover you, even after the 25yr life policy expires.

Which would your family rather have, $1mm or their husband\father? Is it worth the extra $1.60 a month for that possibility?
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       01-07-2012, 11:03 AM Reply   
So you think that getting killed by a violent criminal is the only way, or even the most likely way to die?
Old    Jo Shmoe (joeshmoe)      Join Date: Jan 2003       01-07-2012, 3:29 PM Reply   
Jason, I am not going to die because of an altercation where I do not have a gun to protect myself. I would have to go back about thirty years or so since the last time someone was shot in my town and that was a domestic fight. Over one million people die in the the United States each year due to heart failure and another million die due to cancer, pick your poison, but that's how your going to go, so you better get some life insurance for your family, a gun is no match for the way most people die in the U.S. Also my insurance doesn't balloon and both my kids will be through college by the time it expires.
Old    Jason G (jason_ssr)      Join Date: Apr 2001       01-08-2012, 9:05 AM Reply   
John, what did I say to imply that I believed it was the only way to die or it's likely? Insurance companies don't stay in business insuring against the likely. It's not likely at all, and it doesn't even guarantee success, it's only buying yourself an opportunity in the event the circumstance occurs. IMO, its worth that $1.60.

Joe, I didn't think mine did either. Better double-check. So it hasnt happened in 30 years, does that mean it isn't worth the $1.60? I would hate to be the guy whose death resets the clock. I understand, I live in Dallas and do not carry the coastal flood supplement on my HOI. But if it was only $1.60 I would, LOL!

Reply
Share 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:10 AM.

Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
Wake World Home

 

© 2012 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us