Badges

desertrain10 ✭✭✭✭✭

About

Username
desertrain10
Joined
Visits
3,557
Last Active
Roles
Members
Points
5,026
Posts
4,757
Badges
21
  • Re: THEY CUTTING OFF WELFARE

    Well then nigga you understand me. I was, however, born in Saginaw; a city that GM yanked the cord on EVERY plant they had there except one (and the only reason they can't pull the plug on Grey Iron Foundry is because it would be entirely too expensive to move it). Saginaw is a fuckin wasteland, worse off than Flint which ain't but 30 miles down the road. I lived in Pontiac too, I know first hand how that shit is out there(lived at Auburn and Carriage Circle Dr).

    People are not willing to step out of their comfort zone to train for a job that will take care of their families. If you used to work on the line and get laid off, and you got a family to feed, why are you not taking advantage of training programs to get a decent paying job? Why are you not seeking shit outside of your comfort zone? Shit is Darwinian outchea; you gotta evolve or die.

    Again I see ppl trying

    The cause and rise of poverty is more deeper and complicated than what you are making it seem

    "the simplest explanation is usually the correct one" - Occam's razor

    The US was once a manufacturing and agricultural powerhouse. Jobs that didn't require any sort of education were plentiful and paid very well. We're now 30+ years since that was the case. Industry in this country has shifted and the people have not. Jobs require a high school education at a bare minimum with college or equivalent training and certification being the norm. Those people that adapted are doing well, those that did not are living in poverty and, truthfully, have no one to blame but themselves. We don't live in the days of black and white TV and radio shows, when a loaf of bread was a nickel and shit. Those days are not coming back so you need to clamp down and learn some new shit to make it in today's economy.

    I've seen it first hand myself: One of the cats I used to work with in network security was in his early 50's. He told me Ford closed the plant he worked at in Ohio back in 2003. He had been there for 20 years and got in without a high school diploma. There were ZERO opportunities for people without a diploma so he buckled down and got his GED. There weren't any jobs available for folks without at least an associates degree or some sort of training so he worked in fast food and went to community college, took a "computer class", as he called it, and found how much money could be made in IT. 10 years later we're working together and he was making 6 figures as a senior security engineer specializing in firewalls and vulnerability scanning. Dude had ZERO interest in computers before that, and actually resented technology 'cause he blamed his job loss on tech advances. Now he's working in it.

    There are lots of people I've met along the way that have similar stories. You say you see people trying but is what are they trying to do viable in today's economy? Are they going to school for careers that will translate into decent paying jobs? Are they learning a skilled trade? Are they willing to relocate for better opportunities? If none of this is going on then they're not trying hard enough.


    So most poor and low income ppl are poor or struggling because they lack the motivation or know how?

    The rising costs of healthcare, food and housing And stagnated wages doesn't play a role?

    Yea let's just agree to disagree
    Smokey Tha Bandit
  • Re: THEY CUTTING OFF WELFARE

    Plutarch wrote: »

    I don't necessarily think capitalism is this great evil

    Heh, well, you could've fooled me.
    I just believe your disdain of the welfare state /social welfare programs is short sighted and misplaced

    Really? Did you come to that conclusion based on what I've said in this thread, because I don't think I've said much or really explained my views on the welfare state/social welfare programs. What do you find short-sighted and misplaced about my "views"?
    My understanding of the welfare state being a system whereby the government undertakes to protect the health and well-being of its citizens, especially those in financial or social need, by means of grants, pensions, and other benefits

    I figured this, and I think I understand this. And it does sound socialist and pro-big government. I guess we just disagree on the nature or proper form of U.S. government. I think our current welfare state is immoral, unconstitutional, and ineffective (as more than half-a-decade has proven, imo). I neither believe in government dependency (do you?) nor collusion between government and the private sector (i.e., fascism).

    I believe it would be much more productive and efficient if individuals and organizations, with little government interference, took on the burden of protecting and providing for themselves and others. Of course, as I've said, I don't support an immediate removal of the welfare system. A lot of other measures would have to take place alongside the transition to capitalism.
    Corporations being the backbone of market capitalism. By "advanced" = when corporations own corporations which own corporations

    Corporations should be able to do as they like, as long as there is no criminal or unconstitutional activity. The people and the market should determine economic progress. There will never be an economic utopia, but less regulation and corruption should mitigate monopolies and the like and should encourage innovation and a plethora of small businesses and choices.

    What is really true capitalism?

    And how would true capitalism and less government interference protect us from the influence of corporations?

    Corporations form and grow powerful because of the law of economics, not because of the laws of governments

    And in the pursuit of capital they will always seek to influence local authorities

    Even if government were removed they would find alternative means to gain influence and stifle competition that individuals could not regulate or contend with

    At the same time there are many products, services and industries that simply wouldn’t exist if it hadn’t been for corporatism, the opportunity costs would make such ventures impracticable

    So yea less government regulation is not the answer and introduced a whole other set of problems into the mix

    The solution requires better regulation and the enforcement of the law. Only than can monopolies and corruption be mitigated
    (Nope)
  • Re: THEY CUTTING OFF WELFARE

    Plutarch wrote: »

    I don't necessarily think capitalism is this great evil

    Heh, well, you could've fooled me.
    I just believe your disdain of the welfare state /social welfare programs is short sighted and misplaced

    Really? Did you come to that conclusion based on what I've said in this thread, because I don't think I've said much or really explained my views on the welfare state/social welfare programs. What do you find short-sighted and misplaced about my "views"?
    My understanding of the welfare state being a system whereby the government undertakes to protect the health and well-being of its citizens, especially those in financial or social need, by means of grants, pensions, and other benefits

    I figured this, and I think I understand this. And it does sound socialist and pro-big government. I guess we just disagree on the nature or proper form of U.S. government. I think our current welfare state is immoral, unconstitutional, and ineffective (as more than half-a-decade has proven, imo). I neither believe in government dependency (do you?) nor collusion between government and the private sector (i.e., fascism).

    I believe it would be much more productive and efficient if individuals and organizations, with little government interference, took on the burden of protecting and providing for themselves and others. Of course, as I've said, I don't support an immediate removal of the welfare system. A lot of other measures would have to take place alongside the transition to capitalism.
    Corporations being the backbone of market capitalism. By "advanced" = when corporations own corporations which own corporations

    Corporations should be able to do as they like, as long as there is no criminal or unconstitutional activity. The people and the market should determine economic progress. There will never be an economic utopia, but less regulation and corruption should mitigate monopolies and the like and should encourage innovation and a plethora of small businesses and choices.

    We've had similar convos about the welfare state and capitalism from which I gathered that you believe the welfare state is ineffective and immoral

    Seems like i was right

    Again I don't believe capitalism is inherently this great evil or great good

    What I do believe is that capitalism is organized in ways that encourage the accumulation of wealth at one end and creates conditions of scarcity that make poverty inevitable at the other. And it should our moral duty as a country to help the poor. It also necessary. The more ppl we can lift out of poverty into the middle class the greater the demand for goods. Also it curbs social unrest
    (Nope)
  • Re: THEY CUTTING OFF WELFARE

    zzombie wrote: »
    Plutarch wrote: »
    Plutarch wrote: »
    yeah, A link or some sort of reference would be nice.

    This.

    If it's true (whatever "they cutting off welfare" exactly means), then I don't think that's a good thing. I'm generally against the "welfare system," but cutting it abruptly is not the proper way to address the problem. Some people are very much dependent on welfare.

    meh

    An advanced capitalist society could not sustain itself without a welfare system

    You keep on expressing your dislike of capitalism, and I keep on telling you that I believe that your understanding of capitalism is flawed. And this might be yet another example.

    I'm not sure what you exactly mean by "advanced" and "welfare system," but I would argue that a capitalist society generally thrives well with a very limited "welfare system" or with no "welfare system" at all.

    I believe that the kind of welfare system that currentlyknitrates in the United States is counterproductive in regard to the mitigation of poverty, the opportunity for social mobility, and the production of wealth.

    I don't necessarily think capitalism is this great evil

    I just believe your disdain of the welfare state /social welfare programs is short sighted and misplaced

    My understanding of the welfare state being a system whereby the government undertakes to protect the health and well-being of its citizens, especially those in financial or social need, by means of grants, pensions, and other benefits

    Corporations being the backbone of market capitalism. By "advanced" = when corporations own corporations which own corporations

    That said, capitalism and technological advances have done much to destroy traditional tight knit, self sustaining communities of the past leaving many of the unemployable without support...

    Capitalist economies are also subject to boom and bust cycles leaving many without work

    The welfare state is the necessary management of capitalistic poverty and unemployment

    It provides a cushion

    Absent the redistribution and government programs, an advanced capitalist society would not be able to sustain itself and grow

    There would be insufficient demand to drive production. There is only so much the wealthiest amongst us can buy

    Not mention the social unrest that would occur

    Advances in technology and globalization is going to make the welfare state even more moving forward

    Your cushion is too big and too soft and too comfortable.

    Government is wasteful, inefficient and is always on the edge of being tyrannical.

    I had to come back to this post

    What big cushion you are referring to?

    Food stamps?

    Please provide some data, numbers

    From what I've read and observed we spend very little on social programs to assist poor and low income families compared with most developed nations

    Not to mention the cuts in funding to these programs the last 40 yrs

    We once declared a war on poverty. But it didn't last for even 10 yrs

    (Nope)
  • Re: THEY CUTTING OFF WELFARE

    zzombie wrote: »
    zzombie wrote: »
    Plutarch wrote: »
    Plutarch wrote: »
    yeah, A link or some sort of reference would be nice.

    This.

    If it's true (whatever "they cutting off welfare" exactly means), then I don't think that's a good thing. I'm generally against the "welfare system," but cutting it abruptly is not the proper way to address the problem. Some people are very much dependent on welfare.

    meh

    An advanced capitalist society could not sustain itself without a welfare system

    You keep on expressing your dislike of capitalism, and I keep on telling you that I believe that your understanding of capitalism is flawed. And this might be yet another example.


    I don't necessarily think capitalism is this great evil

    I just believe your disdain of the welfare state /social welfare programs is short sighted and misplaced

    My understanding of the welfare state being a system whereby the government undertakes to protect the health and well-being of its citizens, especially those in financial or social need, by means of grants, pensions, and other benefits

    Corporations being the backbone of market capitalism. By "advanced" = when corporations own corporations which own corporations

    That said, capitalism and technological advances have done much to destroy traditional tight knit, self sustaining communities of the past leaving many of the unemployable without support...

    Capitalist economies are also subject to boom and bust cycles leaving many without work

    The welfare state is the necessary management of capitalistic poverty and unemployment

    It provides a cushion

    Absent the redistribution and government programs, an advanced capitalist society would not be able to sustain itself and grow

    There would be insufficient demand to drive production. There is only so much the wealthiest amongst us can buy

    Not mention the social unrest that would occur

    Advances in technology and globalization is going to make the welfare state even more moving forward

    Your cushion is too big and too soft and too comfortable.

    Government is wasteful, inefficient and is always on the edge of being tyrannical.

    No it's not big enough

    Part of the reason why poverty is on the rise and social mobility in this country is so low

    Big government is evil? Tell that to the many countries with robust safety nets, low employment and low poverty rates

    And at least with the government citizens have some same in who is running things opposed to the alternative

    You mean in northern Europe??? where they have whole nations with the population size of NYC ???

    You cannot recreate their relative success into the american situation because of many different factors and you wacky leftist know this. America has a 300 million population of very diverse people AMERICA CAN NEVER BE EUROPE.

    You have to grow up and accept that some people have to suffer that's just how it is.
    zzombie wrote: »
    zzombie wrote: »
    Plutarch wrote: »
    Plutarch wrote: »
    yeah, A link or some sort of reference would be nice.

    This.

    If it's true (whatever "they cutting off welfare" exactly means), then I don't think that's a good thing. I'm generally against the "welfare system," but cutting it abruptly is not the proper way to address the problem. Some people are very much dependent on welfare.

    meh

    An advanced capitalist society could not sustain itself without a welfare system

    You keep on expressing your dislike of capitalism, and I keep on telling you that I believe that your understanding of capitalism is flawed. And this might be yet another example.

    I'm not sure what you exactly mean by "advanced" and "welfare system," but I would argue that a capitalist society generally thrives well with a very limited "welfare system" or with no "welfare system" at all.

    I believe that the kind of welfare system that currentlyknitrates in the United States is counterproductive in regard to the mitigation of poverty, the opportunity for social mobility, and the production of wealth.

    I don't necessarily think capitalism is this great evil

    I just believe your disdain of the welfare state /social welfare programs is short sighted and misplaced

    My understanding of the welfare state being a system whereby the government undertakes to protect the health and well-being of its citizens, especially those in financial or social need, by means of grants, pensions, and other benefits

    Corporations being the backbone of market capitalism. By "advanced" = when corporations own corporations which own corporations

    That said, capitalism and technological advances have done much to destroy traditional tight knit, self sustaining communities of the past leaving many of the unemployable without support...

    Capitalist economies are also subject to boom and bust cycles leaving many without work

    The welfare state is the necessary management of capitalistic poverty and unemployment

    It provides a cushion

    Absent the redistribution and government programs, an advanced capitalist society would not be able to sustain itself and grow

    There would be insufficient demand to drive production. There is only so much the wealthiest amongst us can buy

    Not mention the social unrest that would occur

    Advances in technology and globalization is going to make the welfare state even more moving forward

    Your cushion is too big and too soft and too comfortable.

    Government is wasteful, inefficient and is always on the edge of being tyrannical.

    No it's not big enough

    Part of the reason why poverty is on the rise and social mobility in this country is so low

    Big government is evil? Tell that to the many countries with robust safety nets, low employment and low poverty rates

    And at least with the government citizens have some same in who is running things opposed to the alternative

    You mean in northern Europe??? where they have whole nations with the population size of NYC ???

    You cannot recreate their relative success into the american situation because of many different factors and you wacky leftist know this. America has a 300 million population of very diverse people AMERICA CAN NEVER BE EUROPE.

    You have to grow up and accept that some people have to suffer that's just how it is.

    Lol

    America is not Norway or Denmark

    My point is the government can do a lot of good

    And our government can do more to move us toward a more egalitarian society if the right ppl are in office and the right policies are instituted

    It will take a major cultural shift before that happens though

    (Nope)CashmoneyDuxdnyce215