Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment Benefits, etc. etc.
I wonder how this compares with the UK and other countries?
Number of the Week: Half of U.S. Lives in Household Getting Benefits - Real Time Economics - WSJ
One Half of U.S. Households Getting Benefits
One Half of U.S. Households Getting Benefits
I wonder how many people are collecting benefits that didn't actually pay into them. By the time I can retire, my lifetime's worth of payment into Social Security will probably no longer exist.
One Half of U.S. Households Getting Benefits
With increased government spending comes the need to pay for it, and if taxes aren’t going to increase that means deficits. Nearly three-quarters of Americans blame the U.S. budget deficit on spending too much money on federal programs, according to a Gallup poll last year, but when the conversation turns to which programs to cut, the majorities are harder to find. For example, 56% of respondents oppose making significant changes to Social Security or Medicare.
Cost of War to the United States | COSTOFWAR.COM
Cost of War to the United States | COSTOFWAR.COM
One Half of U.S. Households Getting Benefits
K.Snyder;1394430 wrote: Cost of War to the United States | COSTOFWAR.COM
That tells you the monetary price, the actual cost is much more.
That tells you the monetary price, the actual cost is much more.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
One Half of U.S. Households Getting Benefits
I have been receiving Social Security for 15 years (since age 62) for which I contributed since I was age 14. My employer during those years also contributed on my behalf as required. The amount is insufficient to live on by it's self (was never mean't to be) and fortunately for me is supplemented with other private pension and savings/investment. I have already received way more than I and my various employers ever paid in on my behalf. Had all contributions from all Amercans been properly invested as was originally intended instead of borrowed and mis managed the Social Security System would be solvent and healthy.
One Half of U.S. Households Getting Benefits
Bruv;1394432 wrote: That tells you the monetary price, the actual cost is much more.
No doubt about that.
No doubt about that.
One Half of U.S. Households Getting Benefits
To have a shot at the percentage of people in the UK on some sort of benefit, including medical treatment, pensions, unemployment, rent or rate subsidy and child allowance, I would hazard a guess close to if not exceeding 80%
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
One Half of U.S. Households Getting Benefits
Lon;1394433 wrote: I have been receiving Social Security for 15 years (since age 62) for which I contributed since I was age 14. My employer during those years also contributed on my behalf as required. The amount is insufficient to live on by it's self (was never mean't to be) and fortunately for me is supplemented with other private pension and savings/investment. I have already received way more than I and my various employers ever paid in on my behalf. Had all contributions from all Amercans been properly invested as was originally intended instead of borrowed and mis managed the Social Security System would be solvent and healthy.I think you're right about the SS fund, but you're being too modest when you say "fortunately for me is supplemented with other private pension and savings/investment." You earned that money, either through negotiation or wise/savvy investment. It's not like you woke up and found it in the middle of the kitchen table.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
One Half of U.S. Households Getting Benefits
Lon;1394424 wrote: Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment Benefits, etc. etc.
I wonder how this compares with the UK and other countries?
Number of the Week: Half of U.S. Lives in Household Getting Benefits - Real Time Economics - WSJ
Politicians give and give and give a little more to ensure reelection, but when we find ourselves overextended (ha ha) it will be very similar to Greece ... except there won't be anyone left to bail us out.
I wonder how this compares with the UK and other countries?
Number of the Week: Half of U.S. Lives in Household Getting Benefits - Real Time Economics - WSJ
Politicians give and give and give a little more to ensure reelection, but when we find ourselves overextended (ha ha) it will be very similar to Greece ... except there won't be anyone left to bail us out.
One Half of U.S. Households Getting Benefits
Equal political voice and democratically responsive government are widely cherished American ideals. Indeed, the United States is vigorously promoting democracy abroad. Yet, what is happening to democracy at home? Our country’s ideals of equal citizenship and responsive government may be under growing threat in an era of persistent and rising inequalities. Disparities of income, wealth, and access to opportunity are growing more sharply in the United States than in many other nations, and gaps between races and ethnic groups persist. Progress toward realizing American ideals of democracy may have stalled, and in some arenas reversed.
[...]
Citizens with lower or moderate incomes speak with a whisper that is lost on the ears of inattentive government officials, while the advantaged roar with a clarity and consistency that policy-makers readily hear and routinely follow.
[...]
Contemporary Political Parties Exacerbate Inequalities
Most interest groups are the tool of the few who want to press for particular benefits and breaks. Political parties, on the other hand, are the vehicle for reaching the broad public and mobilizing them into politics. Indeed, the United States invented political parties in the 19th century in order to mobilize ordinary citizens, and succeeded in ushering a far higher proportion of eligible voters to the polls than go today.
The problem today is that this mechanism for a broad and inclusive democracy—political parties—caters to some of the same narrow segments of American society that also disproportionately deploy interest groups on their behalf. Advantage begets additional advantage.
Both of the major political parties intensify the skewed participation in U.S. politics by targeting many of their resources on recruiting those who are already the most privileged and involved. Democrats and Republicans alike have become highly dependent on campaign contributors and activists, and have gotten used to competing for just over half of a shrinking universe of voters. What is more, political parties ignore parts of the electorate that have not turned out at high rates in past elections.
[...]
Political voice is also unequal because Americans who are very active in politics often have more intense or extreme views than average citizens who participate less or only sporadically. Extreme partisans and fringe activists have become more prominent in U.S. politics in recent times and may have significant consequences for American governance. The intense and unrelenting expression of “extreme voices” (combined with the proliferation of interest groups speaking for very specialized constituencies) makes it harder for government to work out broad compromises or to respond to average citizens who have more ambiguous or middle-of-the-road opinions about a range of important matters, ranging from abortion to tax cuts.
Generations of reformers have understood a simple truth: What government officials hear influences what they do. What citizens do — or don’t do — in politics affects what happens in the halls of government. Because government officials today hear more clearly and more often from privileged and highly active citizens, policy-makers are unlikely to respond readily to the concerns of the majority. The skew in political participation toward the advantaged generates policies tilted toward maintaining the status quo and continuing to reward the organized and already well-off.
www.apsanet.org/imgtest/taskforcereport.pdf
[...]
Citizens with lower or moderate incomes speak with a whisper that is lost on the ears of inattentive government officials, while the advantaged roar with a clarity and consistency that policy-makers readily hear and routinely follow.
[...]
Contemporary Political Parties Exacerbate Inequalities
Most interest groups are the tool of the few who want to press for particular benefits and breaks. Political parties, on the other hand, are the vehicle for reaching the broad public and mobilizing them into politics. Indeed, the United States invented political parties in the 19th century in order to mobilize ordinary citizens, and succeeded in ushering a far higher proportion of eligible voters to the polls than go today.
The problem today is that this mechanism for a broad and inclusive democracy—political parties—caters to some of the same narrow segments of American society that also disproportionately deploy interest groups on their behalf. Advantage begets additional advantage.
Both of the major political parties intensify the skewed participation in U.S. politics by targeting many of their resources on recruiting those who are already the most privileged and involved. Democrats and Republicans alike have become highly dependent on campaign contributors and activists, and have gotten used to competing for just over half of a shrinking universe of voters. What is more, political parties ignore parts of the electorate that have not turned out at high rates in past elections.
[...]
Political voice is also unequal because Americans who are very active in politics often have more intense or extreme views than average citizens who participate less or only sporadically. Extreme partisans and fringe activists have become more prominent in U.S. politics in recent times and may have significant consequences for American governance. The intense and unrelenting expression of “extreme voices” (combined with the proliferation of interest groups speaking for very specialized constituencies) makes it harder for government to work out broad compromises or to respond to average citizens who have more ambiguous or middle-of-the-road opinions about a range of important matters, ranging from abortion to tax cuts.
Generations of reformers have understood a simple truth: What government officials hear influences what they do. What citizens do — or don’t do — in politics affects what happens in the halls of government. Because government officials today hear more clearly and more often from privileged and highly active citizens, policy-makers are unlikely to respond readily to the concerns of the majority. The skew in political participation toward the advantaged generates policies tilted toward maintaining the status quo and continuing to reward the organized and already well-off.
www.apsanet.org/imgtest/taskforcereport.pdf
One Half of U.S. Households Getting Benefits
Accountable;1394465 wrote: I think you're right about the SS fund, but you're being too modest when you say "fortunately for me is supplemented with other private pension and savings/investment." You earned that money, either through negotiation or wise/savvy investment. It's not like you woke up and found it in the middle of the kitchen table.Oftentimes we take for granted the fact that there is an awful lot of negotiation and guarantee provided by the government that ensures the solvency of pensions and the market in order to maintain confidence in them. As crazy as the market appears at times it's nothing considering that the market would have busted many times over if it weren't for the government and the fed and millions of people like Lon could have lost it all. Many people who depend on the backups Lon does are very "fortunate" indeed.
Another thought: What do you say for those who have "woke[n] up and found it on the kitchen table" as in those who are born into wealth or stumble upon it through no "work" of their own.
And while we're at it how do we like to define "work".
Another thought: What do you say for those who have "woke[n] up and found it on the kitchen table" as in those who are born into wealth or stumble upon it through no "work" of their own.
And while we're at it how do we like to define "work".
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,â€
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
One Half of U.S. Households Getting Benefits
posted by bruv
To have a shot at the percentage of people in the UK on some sort of benefit, including medical treatment, pensions, unemployment, rent or rate subsidy and child allowance, I would hazard a guess close to if not exceeding 80%
It's nowhere near that percentage. In the first place medicare and medecaid, if my understanding is correct is for those who cannot afford their own medical care. We have no such equivalent instead the NHS is funded through your national insurance stamp paid for by your employer of you have i'e are not self employed and in part by the government (who we finance as well) It is not free and is in no way comparable to the American system. Some people pay in far more than they get out some get more than they have paid in. Realistically would you like it to be you getting more out? You never all it takes is a bad car accident or something at least in the UK your insurance doesn't run out. It's something many people - especially americans - have difficulty grasping, that the government don't provide healthcare free, it's only free at the point of use. Someone who is ill is benefiting from us all being in to the welfare state. Quite frankly anyone who thinks it should be privatised (and i don't mean you bruv) is an idiot and I'll see you at the barricades. I was in casualty a couple of weeks ago - first time I have been in a hospital in decades - no one asked me if I had insurance.
Self employed people are not entitled to jobseekers allowance because they don't pay a full national insurance stamp - they may be eligible for income support depending on the circumstances. The state pension has also been pai for out opf national insurance - you get a full state pension if you have full national insurance contributions, married women receive credit through their husbands unless they have built up credit in their own right. Anyone with an occupational pension over and above their state pension has paid in to it along with their employer so they can hardly be classed as living on benefits. Many private sector schemes have had to close thanks to changes made by Gordon Brown in the taxation of such schemes resulting in thousands losing what would have been comfortable retirements. Public sector pensions are a whole issue on their own so I won't go there.
UK: long-term working-age recipients of out-of-work benefits - The Poverty Site
The sick and unemployed have not caused this crisis the bankers did. Next the bastards will be bringing back the workhouses.
You cannot make a reasonable comparison between the two america has no welfare state which is their loss.
To have a shot at the percentage of people in the UK on some sort of benefit, including medical treatment, pensions, unemployment, rent or rate subsidy and child allowance, I would hazard a guess close to if not exceeding 80%
It's nowhere near that percentage. In the first place medicare and medecaid, if my understanding is correct is for those who cannot afford their own medical care. We have no such equivalent instead the NHS is funded through your national insurance stamp paid for by your employer of you have i'e are not self employed and in part by the government (who we finance as well) It is not free and is in no way comparable to the American system. Some people pay in far more than they get out some get more than they have paid in. Realistically would you like it to be you getting more out? You never all it takes is a bad car accident or something at least in the UK your insurance doesn't run out. It's something many people - especially americans - have difficulty grasping, that the government don't provide healthcare free, it's only free at the point of use. Someone who is ill is benefiting from us all being in to the welfare state. Quite frankly anyone who thinks it should be privatised (and i don't mean you bruv) is an idiot and I'll see you at the barricades. I was in casualty a couple of weeks ago - first time I have been in a hospital in decades - no one asked me if I had insurance.
Self employed people are not entitled to jobseekers allowance because they don't pay a full national insurance stamp - they may be eligible for income support depending on the circumstances. The state pension has also been pai for out opf national insurance - you get a full state pension if you have full national insurance contributions, married women receive credit through their husbands unless they have built up credit in their own right. Anyone with an occupational pension over and above their state pension has paid in to it along with their employer so they can hardly be classed as living on benefits. Many private sector schemes have had to close thanks to changes made by Gordon Brown in the taxation of such schemes resulting in thousands losing what would have been comfortable retirements. Public sector pensions are a whole issue on their own so I won't go there.
UK: long-term working-age recipients of out-of-work benefits - The Poverty Site
The sick and unemployed have not caused this crisis the bankers did. Next the bastards will be bringing back the workhouses.
You cannot make a reasonable comparison between the two america has no welfare state which is their loss.
One Half of U.S. Households Getting Benefits
GMC said: "You cannot make a reasonable comparison between the two america has no welfare state which is their loss."
I wasn't looking for comparisons or who pays into what or how much, just what percentage of different countries populations receive ANY KIND of benefit that comes from ANY governmental source.
I wasn't looking for comparisons or who pays into what or how much, just what percentage of different countries populations receive ANY KIND of benefit that comes from ANY governmental source.
One Half of U.S. Households Getting Benefits
Lon;1394555 wrote: GMC said: "You cannot make a reasonable comparison between the two america has no welfare state which is their loss."
I wasn't looking for comparisons or who pays into what or how much, just what percentage of different countries populations receive ANY KIND of benefit that comes from ANY governmental source.
Then I would stick to what I said, while agreeing with GMC. Most if not all our Benefits are contributed to by Taxes or National Insurance rather than private insurance, which must be a more efficient way of doing it.
It is how you define benefit that differs, I see any UK Government payment or Health providers care as an earned benefit, others might see it as a handout.
I wasn't looking for comparisons or who pays into what or how much, just what percentage of different countries populations receive ANY KIND of benefit that comes from ANY governmental source.
Then I would stick to what I said, while agreeing with GMC. Most if not all our Benefits are contributed to by Taxes or National Insurance rather than private insurance, which must be a more efficient way of doing it.
It is how you define benefit that differs, I see any UK Government payment or Health providers care as an earned benefit, others might see it as a handout.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
One Half of U.S. Households Getting Benefits
Bruv;1394560 wrote: Then I would stick to what I said, while agreeing with GMC. Most if not all our Benefits are contributed to by Taxes or National Insurance rather than private insurance, which must be a more efficient way of doing it.
It is how you define benefit that differs, I see any UK Government payment or Health providers care as an earned benefit, others might see it as a handout.
There sure is a different mindset when it comes to BENEFITS. I receive for example a monthly annuity (income) for the rest of my life with 1/2 of the amount paid to my wife (upon my death) for the balance of her life. This is paid by a major insurance company and of course is non governmental. I receive this annuity because of money that I paid to the insurer many years back. I receive from the U.S. Government (Social Security) a monthly retirement benefit that will be paid to me for the rest of my life. I and past employers contributed to this account via payroll taxes. I receive a monthly benefit for the rest of my life from a private pension plan that was
funded with TAX DEDUCTIBLE contributions. Finally, I periodically (as needed) will withdraw either interest or dividends from PRIVATE savings/investments. Fully three fourths of my annual income comes from PRIVATE non Governmental sources.
I subscribed many years ago to the "THREE LEGGED STOOL" concept for retirement (Gov/Savings/Investment) and it worked for me because I had the self discipline to not spend everything that I earned and avoided unnecessary debt. For many years I felt that this is the ONLY way to go, but as I now am in my Golden Years I have come to realize that not every one is self disciplined and prefers to have someone else relieve them of the responsibility of providing for their retirement and other social needs. These needs can be paid for privately and more effectively if one is not taxed heavily, as is the case when government provides for these needs.
Bottom Line? Without some form of Mandatory Participation System, the needs of ALL citizens (and non citizens) cannot be provided for. AND I HATE WRITING THAT
It is how you define benefit that differs, I see any UK Government payment or Health providers care as an earned benefit, others might see it as a handout.
There sure is a different mindset when it comes to BENEFITS. I receive for example a monthly annuity (income) for the rest of my life with 1/2 of the amount paid to my wife (upon my death) for the balance of her life. This is paid by a major insurance company and of course is non governmental. I receive this annuity because of money that I paid to the insurer many years back. I receive from the U.S. Government (Social Security) a monthly retirement benefit that will be paid to me for the rest of my life. I and past employers contributed to this account via payroll taxes. I receive a monthly benefit for the rest of my life from a private pension plan that was
funded with TAX DEDUCTIBLE contributions. Finally, I periodically (as needed) will withdraw either interest or dividends from PRIVATE savings/investments. Fully three fourths of my annual income comes from PRIVATE non Governmental sources.
I subscribed many years ago to the "THREE LEGGED STOOL" concept for retirement (Gov/Savings/Investment) and it worked for me because I had the self discipline to not spend everything that I earned and avoided unnecessary debt. For many years I felt that this is the ONLY way to go, but as I now am in my Golden Years I have come to realize that not every one is self disciplined and prefers to have someone else relieve them of the responsibility of providing for their retirement and other social needs. These needs can be paid for privately and more effectively if one is not taxed heavily, as is the case when government provides for these needs.
Bottom Line? Without some form of Mandatory Participation System, the needs of ALL citizens (and non citizens) cannot be provided for. AND I HATE WRITING THAT
One Half of U.S. Households Getting Benefits
The Wall Street Journal would say this. Though Wall Street was singing a different tune when they were in the welfare line not too long ago, asking for a couple trillion dollars. 
One Half of U.S. Households Getting Benefits
Lon;1394582 wrote: There sure is a different mindset when it comes to BENEFITS. ........
These needs can be paid for privately and more effectively if one is not taxed heavily, as is the case when government provides for these needs.
Bottom Line? Without some form of Mandatory Participation System, the needs of ALL citizens (and non citizens) cannot be provided for. AND I HATE WRITING THAT
You have been in the fortunate position to have the ability to fund your retirement, not everybody can to the same standard.
What if the Tax is part of a scheme that provides exactly what the private insurers provide ?
Our system is mandatory in that all workers contribute by way of tax and National Insurance, taken at source from your wages before they see it.
These needs can be paid for privately and more effectively if one is not taxed heavily, as is the case when government provides for these needs.
Bottom Line? Without some form of Mandatory Participation System, the needs of ALL citizens (and non citizens) cannot be provided for. AND I HATE WRITING THAT
You have been in the fortunate position to have the ability to fund your retirement, not everybody can to the same standard.
What if the Tax is part of a scheme that provides exactly what the private insurers provide ?
Our system is mandatory in that all workers contribute by way of tax and National Insurance, taken at source from your wages before they see it.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
One Half of U.S. Households Getting Benefits
Lon;1394582 wrote: Bottom Line? Without some form of Mandatory Participation System, the needs of ALL citizens (and non citizens) cannot be provided for. AND I HATE WRITING THATWhy do you hate writing that? It's just the way it is, therefore we as a civilization should embrace what we know to be true and support it.
The easiest fix, that I can see, is for the top percentage of people to be taxed more(which is not much at all when we look at it in terms of life's necessities but the idea is not popular because we've aloud the top percentage of people to soak up as much as they can so that now they've become used to hoarding their billions).
Screaming human rights is an already lost argument because those that do have never understood the very basic definition of money.
The easiest fix, that I can see, is for the top percentage of people to be taxed more(which is not much at all when we look at it in terms of life's necessities but the idea is not popular because we've aloud the top percentage of people to soak up as much as they can so that now they've become used to hoarding their billions).
Screaming human rights is an already lost argument because those that do have never understood the very basic definition of money.
One Half of U.S. Households Getting Benefits
K.Snyder;1394609 wrote: Why do you hate writing that? It's just the way it is, therefore we as a civilization should embrace what we know to be true and support it.
The easiest fix, that I can see, is for the top percentage of people to be taxed more(which is not much at all when we look at it in terms of life's necessities but the idea is not popular because we've aloud the top percentage of people to soak up as much as they can so that now they've become used to hoarding their billions).
Screaming human rights is an already lost argument because those that do have never understood the very basic definition of money.
There are many things that I know to be true but don't support.
There are people who through no fault of their own are incapable of providing for themselves, and the needs of these people can and should be met by government. Then there is another segment of society who though quite capable of providing for themselves choose not to, and are quite content to let the government provide. This attitude may cause contentment for these individuals, but does little to build or strengthen character and places them in a position to be readily manipulated and controlled by government. And finally, we have the segment of society that likes the challenge of providing for themselves and looks to government to provide incentives to do just that, rather than creating restrictive barriers.
The easiest fix, that I can see, is for the top percentage of people to be taxed more(which is not much at all when we look at it in terms of life's necessities but the idea is not popular because we've aloud the top percentage of people to soak up as much as they can so that now they've become used to hoarding their billions).
Screaming human rights is an already lost argument because those that do have never understood the very basic definition of money.
There are many things that I know to be true but don't support.
There are people who through no fault of their own are incapable of providing for themselves, and the needs of these people can and should be met by government. Then there is another segment of society who though quite capable of providing for themselves choose not to, and are quite content to let the government provide. This attitude may cause contentment for these individuals, but does little to build or strengthen character and places them in a position to be readily manipulated and controlled by government. And finally, we have the segment of society that likes the challenge of providing for themselves and looks to government to provide incentives to do just that, rather than creating restrictive barriers.
One Half of U.S. Households Getting Benefits
Lon;1394631 wrote: There are many things that I know to be true but don't support.
There are people who through no fault of their own are incapable of providing for themselves, and the needs of these people can and should be met by government. Then there is another segment of society who though quite capable of providing for themselves choose not to, and are quite content to let the government provide. This attitude may cause contentment for these individuals, but does little to build or strengthen character and places them in a position to be readily manipulated and controlled by government. And finally, we have the segment of society that likes the challenge of providing for themselves and looks to government to provide incentives to do just that, rather than creating restrictive barriers.What I don't get is why capitalists need to know everything about a person in order to decided whether or not they deserve what they have. Why is it important for you to know if a person has earned the money they possess according to your standards? Ever hear of privacy and being nonjudgmental?
The more the affluent accuses those with less of, the more they project.
There are people who through no fault of their own are incapable of providing for themselves, and the needs of these people can and should be met by government. Then there is another segment of society who though quite capable of providing for themselves choose not to, and are quite content to let the government provide. This attitude may cause contentment for these individuals, but does little to build or strengthen character and places them in a position to be readily manipulated and controlled by government. And finally, we have the segment of society that likes the challenge of providing for themselves and looks to government to provide incentives to do just that, rather than creating restrictive barriers.What I don't get is why capitalists need to know everything about a person in order to decided whether or not they deserve what they have. Why is it important for you to know if a person has earned the money they possess according to your standards? Ever hear of privacy and being nonjudgmental?
The more the affluent accuses those with less of, the more they project.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,â€
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
One Half of U.S. Households Getting Benefits
Funny, I usually notice that it's the anti-capitalists that are always delving into such matters, screaming about the wealth gap without ever once asking the question if the "poorer" people make enough to take care of themselves. This Unicef report I'm discussing in another forum is a good example:
http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/rc10_eng.pdf
It uses median income levels to define poverty. Someone else's income does not determine whether I am in poverty.
http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/rc10_eng.pdf
It uses median income levels to define poverty. Someone else's income does not determine whether I am in poverty.
One Half of U.S. Households Getting Benefits
Accountable;1394696 wrote: Funny, I usually notice that it's the anti-capitalists that are always delving into such matters, screaming about the wealth gapRather extreme rhetoric. Accountable;1394696 wrote: without ever once asking the question if the "poorer" people make enough to take care of themselves.How would you know? Extreme rhetoric again.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,â€
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
One Half of U.S. Households Getting Benefits
The hoarders among us can have all the money they desire for all I care provided they cease their whining and chip in in an effort to ensure all are housed; clothed; fed; and have access to general care using a formula that address their excess accumulated money along with basic contributions.
"Poverty" is a capitalistic distraction of the issue.
"Poverty" is a capitalistic distraction of the issue.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,â€
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
One Half of U.S. Households Getting Benefits
Lon;1394631 wrote: Then there is another segment of society who though quite capable of providing for themselves choose not to, and are quite content to let the government provide. This attitude may cause contentment for these individuals, but does little to build or strengthen character and places them in a position to be readily manipulated and controlled by government. I think this quoted portion is exactly why people fail to see what's happening. Firstly it's argumentative to suggest there is an agreed upon definition of "providing for themselves". It can be anything from subsistence to being able to comfortably afford a "Jaguar" for example...I think that with the freedom for one to choose their options, such as the example given, you'll find that people will genuinely use their time doing what it is they have an interest in, which would not only mean employment but a better quality product coming from fields of work in which people take pride in partaking...
I'd much rather live on the edge of subsistence than to be stupid enough to buy a Jaguar, which was voted one of the most unreliable automobiles of 2012 by this source Jaguar XF and XJ
When it comes to reliability, you would almost think that price should affect quality. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Two cars that were determined to be the most unreliable cars by Consumer Reports (as reported in LA times), were two models from Jaguar – the XF (worst) and the XJ (second worst). The Least Reliable Cars of 2012 | Prime Rates The moral of the story is that the wealthiest people in this country, and others, want the rest of the world to remain in the lower tier of the totem pole. It's our obligation to defend the rights of people, which is to have equal shares of all commodities produced.
Besides, the proportion of people that fail to "succeed" is the failure of the education system and therefore should be reimbursed for their time we've wasted as a society.
I'd much rather live on the edge of subsistence than to be stupid enough to buy a Jaguar, which was voted one of the most unreliable automobiles of 2012 by this source Jaguar XF and XJ
When it comes to reliability, you would almost think that price should affect quality. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Two cars that were determined to be the most unreliable cars by Consumer Reports (as reported in LA times), were two models from Jaguar – the XF (worst) and the XJ (second worst). The Least Reliable Cars of 2012 | Prime Rates The moral of the story is that the wealthiest people in this country, and others, want the rest of the world to remain in the lower tier of the totem pole. It's our obligation to defend the rights of people, which is to have equal shares of all commodities produced.
Besides, the proportion of people that fail to "succeed" is the failure of the education system and therefore should be reimbursed for their time we've wasted as a society.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
One Half of U.S. Households Getting Benefits
Ahso!;1394700 wrote: The hoarders among us can have all the money they desire for all I care provided they cease their whining and chip in in an effort to ensure all are housed; clothed; fed; and have access to general care using a formula that address their excess accumulated money along with basic contributions.
"Poverty" is a capitalistic distraction of the issue.
Extreme rhetoric. Stop projecting.
"Poverty" is a capitalistic distraction of the issue.
Extreme rhetoric. Stop projecting.
One Half of U.S. Households Getting Benefits
Accountable;1394789 wrote: Extreme rhetoric. Stop projecting. ;)Weak!
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,â€
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
One Half of U.S. Households Getting Benefits
Ahso!;1394700 wrote: "Poverty" is a capitalistic distraction of the issue.
Could you clarify? Are you saying Unicef is a capitalistic organization?
I think we agree that "poverty" is just a hot-button word that's really meaningless in developed nations. Am I right?
Could you clarify? Are you saying Unicef is a capitalistic organization?
I think we agree that "poverty" is just a hot-button word that's really meaningless in developed nations. Am I right?
One Half of U.S. Households Getting Benefits
Accountable;1394792 wrote: Could you clarify? Are you saying Unicef is a capitalistic organization?
I think we agree that "poverty" is just a hot-button word that's really meaningless in developed nations. Am I right?We might agree. UNICEF (which I've contributed to for years) is an organization which must beg capitalism for funds. It's how the system works, not how it should work.
I think we agree that "poverty" is just a hot-button word that's really meaningless in developed nations. Am I right?We might agree. UNICEF (which I've contributed to for years) is an organization which must beg capitalism for funds. It's how the system works, not how it should work.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,â€
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
One Half of U.S. Households Getting Benefits
I don't understand the rationale behind taxing one party to give money to another party that doesn't need it ... simply because the first party has more than the second party.
One Half of U.S. Households Getting Benefits
On a purely free market, despite how much a person manages to save up, a retiree would quickly be stripped of all wealth after they lose their private health insurance and have to pay for the first medical emergency out of pocket.
One Half of U.S. Households Getting Benefits
Accountable;1394889 wrote: I don't understand the rationale behind taxing one party to give money to another party that doesn't need it ... simply because the first party has more than the second party.Why does the first party need the money?
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,â€
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
One Half of U.S. Households Getting Benefits
Ahso!;1394892 wrote: Why does the first party need the money?
I think it's safe to say that if one with less doesn't need it then the one with more doesn't need it , either. But the question is irrelevant. The money is property that the first party owns. There is no good reason to take her property.
I think it's safe to say that if one with less doesn't need it then the one with more doesn't need it , either. But the question is irrelevant. The money is property that the first party owns. There is no good reason to take her property.
One Half of U.S. Households Getting Benefits
Accountable;1394894 wrote: I think it's safe to say that if one with less doesn't need it then the one with more doesn't need it , either ... which makes the question irrelevant. The money is property that the first party owns. There is no good reason to take her property.I'd say that's as good of a definition of irony as I can think of. Money is just as much an invention as the suggestion it ever initially belonged to anyone.
One Half of U.S. Households Getting Benefits
Accountable;1394894 wrote: I think it's safe to say that if one with less doesn't need it then the one with more doesn't need it , either. But the question is irrelevant. The money is property that the first party owns. There is no good reason to take her property.Sure, theres good reason: survival of the whole instead of survival of the individual. It's about community and something larger than the self. It's funny, when it comes to patriotism that's good enough of a cause, but when it comes to money it's not good enough. "Money is the root of all evil" and the evil is self survival rather than group survival. Every species including humans know this instinctively, however, when that gray matter is added we get all confused about what's important.
Humor me would you. Why, if the money, property, whatever isn't needed, is it pursued?
Humor me would you. Why, if the money, property, whatever isn't needed, is it pursued?
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,â€
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
One Half of U.S. Households Getting Benefits
K.Snyder;1394895 wrote: I'd say that's as good of a definition of irony as I can think of. Money is just as much an invention as the suggestion it ever initially belonged to anyone.I've always thought money was strictly tender replacing the barter system but was never meant to be saved, which has led to hoarding. The idea was, to my understanding, that we used the monetary system as trade in order to assist in each other's survival, but it's turned into this ridiculous "look at me and how much money I've accumulated, I must be a good person because I'm a hard worker."
All about the self.
All about the self.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,â€
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
One Half of U.S. Households Getting Benefits
Ahso!;1394896 wrote: Humor me would you. Why, if the money, property, whatever isn't needed, is it pursued?Subconscious gratification as a result of feeling "superior" above thy neighbor which gives the false sense of immortality?
Just a stab
Just a stab
One Half of U.S. Households Getting Benefits
K.Snyder;1394899 wrote: Subconscious gratification as a result of feeling "superior" above thy neighbor which gives the false sense of immortality?
Just a stabOh I forgot that it's the sole response from those that have an inner feeling of helplessness
Just a stabOh I forgot that it's the sole response from those that have an inner feeling of helplessness
One Half of U.S. Households Getting Benefits
K.Snyder;1394899 wrote: Subconscious gratification as a result of feeling "superior" above thy neighbor which gives the false sense of immortality?
Just a stabIOW - fear!
Just a stabIOW - fear!
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,â€
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
One Half of U.S. Households Getting Benefits
Ahso!;1394896 wrote: Sure, theres good reason: survival of the whole instead of survival of the individual.No one is in danger of not surviving. If you disagree, please explain.
Ahso!;1394896 wrote: It's about community and something larger than the self. It's funny when it comes to patriotism that's good enough of a cause, but when it comes to money it's not good enough.I don't see the parallel. What in patriotism takes from one who has more and gives to another who has less but is not in need?
Ahso!;1394896 wrote: "Money is the root of all evil" and the evil is self survival rather than group survival."The love of money is the root of all evil." Get your quotes right. And again, no one's survival is at stake. Both parties in this scenario have at least as much as they need.
Ahso!;1394896 wrote: Every species, including humans know this instinctively, however when that gray matter is added we get all confused about what's important.
Humor me would you. Why, if the money, property, whatever isn't needed, why pursue it?Again, it's not relevant whether it is needed. It belongs to the one and not the other, and not the government. The owner has the right to decide what to do with it.
Ahso!;1394896 wrote: It's about community and something larger than the self. It's funny when it comes to patriotism that's good enough of a cause, but when it comes to money it's not good enough.I don't see the parallel. What in patriotism takes from one who has more and gives to another who has less but is not in need?
Ahso!;1394896 wrote: "Money is the root of all evil" and the evil is self survival rather than group survival."The love of money is the root of all evil." Get your quotes right. And again, no one's survival is at stake. Both parties in this scenario have at least as much as they need.
Ahso!;1394896 wrote: Every species, including humans know this instinctively, however when that gray matter is added we get all confused about what's important.
Humor me would you. Why, if the money, property, whatever isn't needed, why pursue it?Again, it's not relevant whether it is needed. It belongs to the one and not the other, and not the government. The owner has the right to decide what to do with it.
One Half of U.S. Households Getting Benefits
Accountable;1394902 wrote: No one is in danger of not surviving. If you disagree, please explain.Fear is a well developed adaptation in every species which experiences it which drives each member of a species to survive.
Why do you imagine it is that a common pursuit today is top quality health care? Tell the cancer patient or the person waiting for a kidney transplant there's no danger of not surviving. Or tell the people who cannot pay the electric bill in winter there's no danger of not surviving. Or how about the elderly who have to carefully balance food and medication spending. People do these things because they have a sense of danger of not surviving. It's also why others hoard and obsess.
Why is it people hope, to the point of delusion, that there's an afterlife or reincarnation? Permanent survival, which translates into avoiding extinction. Your genes and mine are programmed, via evolution by way of natural selection, to survive and fear aids that process.
Why do you imagine it is that a common pursuit today is top quality health care? Tell the cancer patient or the person waiting for a kidney transplant there's no danger of not surviving. Or tell the people who cannot pay the electric bill in winter there's no danger of not surviving. Or how about the elderly who have to carefully balance food and medication spending. People do these things because they have a sense of danger of not surviving. It's also why others hoard and obsess.
Why is it people hope, to the point of delusion, that there's an afterlife or reincarnation? Permanent survival, which translates into avoiding extinction. Your genes and mine are programmed, via evolution by way of natural selection, to survive and fear aids that process.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,â€
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
One Half of U.S. Households Getting Benefits
Accountable;1394902 wrote: I don't see the parallel. What in patriotism takes from one who has more and gives to another who has less but is not in need?Youthful energy, strength and a naivety that is willing to sacrifice the self for the good of the group, which is why youth is also a targeted consumer group.
Accountable;1394902 wrote: "The love of money is the root of all evil." Get your quotes right. Same thing from my view.
Accountable;1394902 wrote: Again, it's not relevant whether it is needed. It belongs to the one and not the other, and not the government. The owner has the right to decide what to do with it.It isn't relevant because it doesn't fit your view. The owner of the money is the system and the system was invented to aid in the survival of all, so the money belongs to everyone.
Accountable;1394902 wrote: "The love of money is the root of all evil." Get your quotes right. Same thing from my view.
Accountable;1394902 wrote: Again, it's not relevant whether it is needed. It belongs to the one and not the other, and not the government. The owner has the right to decide what to do with it.It isn't relevant because it doesn't fit your view. The owner of the money is the system and the system was invented to aid in the survival of all, so the money belongs to everyone.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,â€
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
One Half of U.S. Households Getting Benefits
Ahso!;1394901 wrote: IOW - fear!
Jesus, I had to look up "IOW" only to find that it means "In other words"
Jesus, I had to look up "IOW" only to find that it means "In other words"
One Half of U.S. Households Getting Benefits
yaaarrrgg;1394891 wrote: On a purely free market, despite how much a person manages to save up, a retiree would quickly be stripped of all wealth after they lose their private health insurance and have to pay for the first medical emergency out of pocket.
This would certainly be true for me and my wife if it were not for Private Health Insurance as well as Medicare (Governmental Medical for those age 65 and over).
This would certainly be true for me and my wife if it were not for Private Health Insurance as well as Medicare (Governmental Medical for those age 65 and over).
One Half of U.S. Households Getting Benefits
Ahso asked----"Humor me would you. Why, if the money, property, whatever isn't needed, is it pursued?"
For the same reason that some choose to climb mountains, sky dive, bungy jump, bowl a 300 game, run a four minute mile, build a house, write a book, etc.
For the same reason that some choose to climb mountains, sky dive, bungy jump, bowl a 300 game, run a four minute mile, build a house, write a book, etc.
One Half of U.S. Households Getting Benefits
Lon;1394913 wrote: Ahso asked----"Humor me would you. Why, if the money, property, whatever isn't needed, is it pursued?"
For the same reason that some choose to climb mountains, sky dive, bungy jump, bowl a 300 game, run a four minute mile, build a house, write a book, etc.That reinforces the lack of community I mentioned because the consequences of hoarding money extends to others and affects them in ways those other activities cannot. It shows selfishness and a lack of empathy on the part of the hoarder.
The baloney we get from the political right is that these are in fact community minded people because they are the so called "job creators". That's a laugh.
For the same reason that some choose to climb mountains, sky dive, bungy jump, bowl a 300 game, run a four minute mile, build a house, write a book, etc.That reinforces the lack of community I mentioned because the consequences of hoarding money extends to others and affects them in ways those other activities cannot. It shows selfishness and a lack of empathy on the part of the hoarder.
The baloney we get from the political right is that these are in fact community minded people because they are the so called "job creators". That's a laugh.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,â€
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
One Half of U.S. Households Getting Benefits
Youthful energy, strength and a naivety that is willing to sacrifice the self for the good of the group, which is why youth is also a targeted consumer group. You still haven't shown any parallel to taking money from one to give to another who does not need it, especially if you support one and not the other.
Ahso!;1394908 wrote: Same thing from my view.It's not the same. It's not even similar. Money is not evil. Guns don't kill. Drugs don't commit crime. Money is inanimate; it simply exists. It can be used for good as well as evil. People decide which.
Ahso!;1394908 wrote: It isn't relevant because it doesn't fit your view. The owner of the money is the system and the system was invented to aid in the survival of all, so the money belongs to everyone.Money is a medium of exchange, nothing more. If we had a bartering system then people would have chickens or something else instead of coins, paper, and bank statements. Would those chickens, then, belong to everyone?
Ahso!;1394908 wrote: Same thing from my view.It's not the same. It's not even similar. Money is not evil. Guns don't kill. Drugs don't commit crime. Money is inanimate; it simply exists. It can be used for good as well as evil. People decide which.
Ahso!;1394908 wrote: It isn't relevant because it doesn't fit your view. The owner of the money is the system and the system was invented to aid in the survival of all, so the money belongs to everyone.Money is a medium of exchange, nothing more. If we had a bartering system then people would have chickens or something else instead of coins, paper, and bank statements. Would those chickens, then, belong to everyone?
One Half of U.S. Households Getting Benefits
Accountable;1394934 wrote: If we had a bartering system then people would have chickens or something else instead of coins, paper, and bank statements. Would those chickens, then, belong to everyone?Only the chickens that aren't pumped full of steroids that make our daughters hit puberty at the age of 9.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31842
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
One Half of U.S. Households Getting Benefits
Every single women In the UK Is on benefit the moment she has given birth for the first time. It's called ' Child Allowance'.
I really would like to see this means tested.
Child benefit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I really would like to see this means tested.
Child benefit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
One Half of U.S. Households Getting Benefits
oscar;1394958 wrote: Every single women In the UK Is on benefit the moment she has given birth for the first time. It's called ' Child Allowance'.
I really would like to see this means tested.
Child benefit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaPeople with children can claim them as a dependent on their taxes and they then receive tax breaks per child every year. It's then up to the parents to calculate their future expenses
I really would like to see this means tested.
Child benefit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaPeople with children can claim them as a dependent on their taxes and they then receive tax breaks per child every year. It's then up to the parents to calculate their future expenses
One Half of U.S. Households Getting Benefits
Accountable;1394934 wrote: Money is a medium of exchange, nothing more. If we had a bartering system then people would have chickens or something else instead of coins, paper, and bank statements. Would those chickens, then, belong to everyone?
On my view, the chickens only belong to themselves. Humans will eat them and fight over them. To diminish the chance that their claims of chicken ownership will be challenged, humans invented the idea of ownership. "I own that chicken" means that the chicken was too weak to defend itself, and became captive to the human. It also means that they will fight anyone that challenges their claim of ownership. Though by the same lofty principles, if the human is too weak to defend his chicken, it likewise becomes the property of the taker.
On my view, the chickens only belong to themselves. Humans will eat them and fight over them. To diminish the chance that their claims of chicken ownership will be challenged, humans invented the idea of ownership. "I own that chicken" means that the chicken was too weak to defend itself, and became captive to the human. It also means that they will fight anyone that challenges their claim of ownership. Though by the same lofty principles, if the human is too weak to defend his chicken, it likewise becomes the property of the taker.