[Parallax]

I really think the US should just give up this half assed socialism. Abolish:...............................

By Jove, I think he's got it!

[Peter Zack]

9) No more catastrophic aid for anything. Fires in Ca? Fight them yourselves. We'll rent you the trucks and planes real cheap. Tornadoes in Kansas? All the mobile homes are wiped out? Go buy a shovel and dig yourself a cave.No money for you. Look at Katrina, from here on in, we're treating everyone like that. The richest country in the world will just let the city fall into complete ruin.

[Parallax]

8) ....................You have to pay rent to live on the base/ship etc. ............

Actually, you DO pay rent, in a sense if you live on the base. You are afforded either housing, or a housing allowance.At the time I got out of the AF I was paid about $500.00 more living off base than I would have been had I lived on base. I'm sure it is substantially more now.

[Peter Zack]

So Parallax. You go to school did you? Ever drive on a road in your home town? Feel your country is protected by the military? Ever fly in a plane that was landed by air traffic control? Is you bank money protected by the FDIC? Do you think the 911 victims should have been left on the site to die (remember that fireman (paid for by taxes) were the primary rescuers)?

Give me a break. You guys have been arguing for weeks that health care should be private and all the other stuff Obama wants to change. You are far more socialist than you care to acknowledge. If you really were the tough, self relaint, independant, self aware, citizen you claim you want, then you'd not need any of these services and even more.

trust me, the second your house catches on fire, you're dialing 911. Oh sorry that will be $4.99/minute to place this call and billed to your CC. No CC? Sorry let it burn. Payment accepted. What's your emergency? Fire? OK we'll need a credit check first as each call is $1500 to show up on site and $500/10 minutes for each truck on scene. Average house fire cost is $18,000. Sorry, your credit failed the limit. Let the house burn and get out now. Times up, CC maxed out.

[Peter Zack]

Actually, you DO pay rent, in a sense yo live on the base. You are afforded either housing, or a housing allowance.At the time I got out of the AF I was paid about $500.00 more living off base than I would have been had I lived on base. I'm sure it is substantially more now.

Well (Steve martin Voice) excuuuuuse meeeee. If you went through all those ramblings of mine and could only find that one poor example of me attempting to make a point, then you just will never get it. Plus do you really think the rent you pay on a $300 billion aircraft carrier is anywhere close to the cost per sq foot of the room? Pfffft...

Join a militia, take over the government. Turn the white house into a high rent condo complex. Abolish EVERY GOVERNMENT SERVICE THERE IS and stop paying taxes. Have fun.

[Ratmagiclady]

Nice story with lot of truth in it.
However, what's the situation with a fellow ant, that want to live like his mate, but got no education and has no job to be able to do the same?

Having lived in Finland for over 30 years I do apreciate the free health and education + other social benefits (that one pays through taxes). But I also agree that there's a bunch of people taking full advantege of the system.

Living now in Chile (aroud 15 years) and paying almost the same % of taxes to goverment, I have to pay apart for my health, education for my kids, my and my wife's pension plan. Got no good roads to drive (outside Santiago area), if I can not work anymore after an accident we´d loose our home (I'd better die than get crippled). At the same time goverment is GIVING houses for poor!!!!!

The middle class is suffering everywhere, while "poor" live in our expense and the rich can use all the available benefits of the tax system ....

That's why these systems depend on there *being* a strong middle and working-class. What a lot of people don't understand is that social services are actually a small price to pay for how far the middle class's money goes.

A big problem in America that's been developing for a while, and one that Central and South America have been trying to deal with, is *stratification* of wealth.

When a very small number of people hold most of the wealth, injustice tends to result, (cause the wealthy are going to be inclined to spend some of those resources keeping their pile of coin ...while the masses of people only become more desperate and unhappy.) and it doesn't help those better-off.

Scaling things to benefit the already-wealthy is a process which in the end only leads to more people becoming poor, and what the wealthy *have* becoming worth less in real-world terms.

Like with the housing crash here in America: the housing bubble was used to make scads and scads of dollars in imaginary wealth, putting a lot of the middle class in huge debt, and holding the bag when that money value *disappeared because the inflated value was all about how much more money could be made in the future.*

But suddenly, the equity on a home went negative. Banks take the home, people become destitute, owing money on a house they can't even live in, on top of paying rent somewhere, if they're so lucky, ...the banks end up with a lot of houses that no one can buy, so the value of all that wealth disappears and a bunch of people are homeless and in debt, not able to buy the things a capitalist economy needs to sell in order to create wealth... Downward cycle.

Of course, meanwhile, all the housing stock deteriorates cause there's no one living there to take care of it... People get sick and can't pay, again worsening these situations, meanwhile the cost of health care becomes ruinous to those who *can* pay some, because the doctors and hospitals are trying to spread out the cost of the unrecoverable bills, which of course keep getting steeper and steeper till people go completely bankrupt, more poor people... Exacerbating all the above problems.....

Getting the poor out of poverty is *good* for the middle class. It turns tax liabilities into *customers.*

[Peter Zack]

911? Yes this will be $5.99/ minute (we raised the rate since your last call). CC cleared, go ahead. You're living in a park and there's a man holding a gun to your wife's head? You want the police? Sure. please wait for the credit check. Each call is $975 to show up per officer. Car chases require a $40,000 damage deposit in case of a crash. Bullets and other consumable supplies are extra. Sorry Credit check failed. Your wife will have to die....

[Peter Zack]

Ratmagiclady - Exactly.

9) No more catastrophic aid for anything. Fires in Ca? Fight them yourselves. We'll rent you the trucks and planes real cheap. Tornadoes in Kansas? All the mobile homes are wiped out? Go buy a shovel and dig yourself a cave.No money for you. Look at Katrina, from here on in, we're treating everyone like that. The richest country in the world will just let the city fall into complete ruin.

Helping during disaster in...well anywhere in the world? No Chance.

[reytor]

I'm not against helping poor, what I'm against is, is giving them things instead of giving the job.
The same with all the food help to Africa. The situation is not getting better if you keep on sending food. You should send food to cover the initial need and at the same time send seeds and expert help to build up proper agriculture so that in the end this poor country can live with their own production.
But ofcourse the rich countries need to have the poor countries and let them develop only enough to sell them, what can not be sold no longer in the developed countries...

I'm in favor of strong social (health, education, pension, ...) care system, because it brings equality to the society. And equality generates peace (Scandinavia is still one of the most secure and peaceful areas in the world). But as I mentioned there are people taking full advantage fo the system and those should be forced to do their part in building the system instead of ruining it.

There's a lot good things the last couple of govements have done here in Chile, but giving houses to poors, who then rent the house, go in to another camp to claim again a house is not going to solve the problems. System needs to be controlled and giving everything free of charge makes people lazy...

[Peter Zack]

That's the spirit. Survival of the richest.

In fact lets do this one better. Since we're abolishing all goverment, all taxes and it's services (yes that includes the military which is the biggest form of government). We'll each go to a; pay-for-service-user method. In order to have a military, we'll have to each have a son and the family will have to pay for his training and gear. Everything else will be private pay as you go, police, roads, schools, fire services and anything else. To make it workable,, based on last years tax returns, anyone who earns less than $150,000 per family must leave the USA. We don't care where you go but you can't come back without a $500,000 down payment and the required income. All poor people and lower middle class should begin to cue up at Ellis island now. Those not deported within 6 months will be shot.

Oh crap. this won't work. Without the poor and middle classes to exploit like slaves and then to spend the small amounts we do pay them on stuff to live, the rich can't get richer. Who will we rob and rape to make more money from? Bill Gates and Warren Buffet will have to downsize their homes. The horror!

[Parallax]

Peter, I'm not quite sure how to respond to all of that, but here goes. Roads, military, schools, parks, etc. all serve the public good as a whole. THAT is what taxes are for. Tell me how the public good is served by my tax dollars supporting someone who is to lazy to work, or in some cases chooses not to because, when the dust settles at the end of the month with child care, medical benefits, food stamps, lack of need for transportation, etc. all figured in, they have more money left than if they were working. When I got out of the AF 20+ years ago, I initially worked for a while for minimum wage and lived in a mobile home. Just about that time, there was a story in the local paper about HUD needing to buy several houses in the area to provide to low (no) income families. One of the things brought out in the article was that they would not buy mobile homes as they considered them to be sub standard housing. The government thought they were perfectly fine for working people though. My wife and I made too much money to qualify for any of that housing, but not enough to be able to afford any of the houses that HUD ultimately bought with OUR tax money to give to people who didn't work . Tell me how the government taking money out of my pocket to give to someone else (in the form of housing in this instance) so that they, who are paying no taxes can live in a better house than I could serves the public good as a whole.

[Parallax]

Helping during disaster in...well anywhere in the world? No Chance.

Actually, I hope that if I am ever caught up in a serious disaster, that it is in a foreign country. The U.S. Gvt will get aid to me a lot quicker somewhere else than it did to Katrina victims.

[Peter Zack]

Roads, military, schools, parks, etc. all serve the public good as a whole.

Of course public health care, a system to aid the less fortunate to feed their children and get out of poverty (free adult education programs and training).

Here's the point. The right is so fixated on the few who abuse the system that they want to punish everyone. I don't care what system you put in place, someone will abuse the rules and help offered.

Many of the rich are too lazy to work and have inherited the money they have, but we see them paraded on TV like modern day gods. I mean has Paris Hilton and the hundreds like her ever gotten their collective nails dirty? We worship people with money no matter who they robbed or how they stole it (Madeoff was they guy to be seen with before he was caught). But some poor shmuck takes $250 extra in food stamps and the whole thing is corrupt. Ask any economist, 3% of the population is unemployable, physical or mental disabilities, lazy, uneducated or any number of reasons.

So what you are saying is toss everything and only the fit will make it. Do I think the services provided should be re-worked? Absolutely. Delivery of these services is terrible and there's no accountability for anything. Government has gotten too big and doesn't know where the money is being wasted. Your example proves that point. If I'm homeless and they offered me a watertight garden shed, I'd be happy. To have some do-gooder claim that a mini home isn't good enough is crap. We both know that.

But what we need is real reforms. Not abandon the poor because a few programs are going sideways. Create programs that help these people get started back into society. Most of them want to have the chance to earn more and live better. A few don't. So get them in safe housing. Get them in adult education and training courses. Let them move up and out of the poverty they face.

Don't take this attitude that if they can't make it on their own, F*** them.

I was rambling to make a point. Glad somebody read it.

Finally we all "use" public services to our benefit. Some poor family is seen as "freeloaders" because they get a subsidized house. But you and I are not when we drive down the free highway we take to work each day. You would never pay enough in tax for 300 years to cover the cost of that 40 mile commute. So are you a freeloader too?

[Ratmagiclady]

I'm not against helping poor, what I'm against is, is giving them things instead of giving the job.

Well, part of the problem there is that handing out 'jobs' while people are still spending most of that money on rent only reduces your pay, while the economic benefit still leaves the community and goes to landlords and finance companies taking the most of it every time the money changes hands.

Job creation is important, but here in America what's supposed to 'create jobs' is generally about appeasing the wealthiest with tax money to subsidies and profit-friendly deregulations, and asking them to out of the goodness of their profiteering little hearts to slow the *destruction and outsourcing* of jobs. A legacy of 'supply-side, trickle-down economics' which is essentially irrational and should be discredited by now. Of course all they do is spend the money to manipulate politics *more* and advertise how 'friendly and good folks' they are while they screw workers and bust unions.

Social services, on the other hand, are the best bang for your buck there *is,* even *just* compared to law enforcement and crime rates.

And if people own a home, they're *invested* in something. In their community. More of the money they *can* make *stays* in the community, too. Which means there's more opportunities for everyone, instead of everyone having to buy crap from Wal-Mart and increase the trade deficit.

Certainly, in our RL situation here, if my partner and I can get a home that's our own, somewhere, I'll become more of a benefit to a community than I would be if someone creates another burger-flipping job I can't keep up with. I'm pretty acutely aware of my capabilities and limitations: in economic terms, I'm *too slow* for a regular job, not *useless.* Can't hope to keep up with the rent, never mind health care, by being a really unreliable cashier who gets worn out by a daily bus ride, but if I have a secure home and a workshop, I can accomplish plenty. Not enough to keep up with the pace of 'corporations dole out monthly wages for more and more work, and corporations charge monthly bills for circumstances you can't change and which roll on whether or not you can keep up.'

Basically, I can't compete in the 'job' market, not against healthier and more reliable warm bodies. But as my screen name kind of means, I'm very good at 'value added.' Trying to channel everything through a certain model of 'jobs' actually turns a lot of human resources to *waste.* As these models of what constitutes a 'profitable employee' get narrower and narrower, it actually creates a lot of these huge expenses and drains on the economy. Keeping real wages depressed and making it harder and harder for anyone to make a buck without being the CEO at the head of some vicious economy of scale that gives as little as it can to as few as it can, while taking away as much as it can off the top of every time money changes hands.

The same with all the food help to Africa. The situation is not getting better if you keep on sending food. You should send food to cover the initial need and at the same time send seeds and expert help to build up proper agriculture so that in the end this poor country can live with their own production.

There is unfortunately a legacy of colonialism which on the one hand tells people how to live (and creates circumstances which encourage people to overpopulate, if not commands them to by religious missionary efforts) ...and on the other hand thinks the answer is not to empower people and find balances with their local ecology and economy, but rather think itself noble to do all this screwing-up and exploiting, as long as someone gives charity (usually brought by more missionaries.)

The answer isn't, of course, to cut out the charity. But to add more help in the sustainability department. There are a huge lot of farmers in India who are in serious trouble that could really get a leg up, not through selling them GMOs that mean they get no seed grain unless they can buy it, but actually just if they were given some Victorian-era technology. For want of even a people-powered thresher and just as likely the occasional location-suitable ploughshare, they can't keep up. The suicide rate is appalling.

But ofcourse the rich countries need to have the poor countries and let them develop only enough to sell them, what can not be sold no longer in the developed countries...

'Development' is unfortunately something which people in the wealthier countries project onto peoples and locations where such 'development' is not development.

In the West *we* 'developed' because of certain accidents of geography and the like which don't have much basis in other environments. In Africa, there are ways they can interact with a global economy, but they aren't going to suddenly just grow a breadbasket cause some missionary tells them to.

I'm in favor of strong social (health, education, pension, ...) care system, because it brings equality to the society. And equality generates peace (Scandinavia is still one of the most secure and peaceful areas in the world). But as I mentioned there are people taking full advantage fo the system and those should be forced to do their part in building the system instead of ruining it.

I think the burden of 'being forced to build a system' needs to be shared first and foremost by those who have *benefited most from that system.* They want to claim it's purely by some personal virtue on their own part that they're in that position, and thus it's on the 'poor' to start to win at a game scaled against them and that only a few can win at to begin with, but that's not how it's gonna work.

You can bet *the rich* are taking 'full advantage of the system.' That's why they whine when they fear 'the system' will blunt those advantages.

Systems *should* be set up to give full advantage to as many as possible. Advantage to mutual benefit, not to rich people moralizing at the poor with one hand and bleeding them white with the other.

There's a lot good things the last couple of govements have done here in Chile, but giving houses to poors, who then rent the house, go in to another camp to claim again a house is not going to solve the problems. System needs to be controlled and giving everything free of charge makes people lazy...

Or, maybe they learned how to 'charge' people and be lazy from someone else. Someone who taught them what charging rent was all about?