The Goverment and Money
- Thread starter mud duck
- Start date
It\'s not people like Steelcult or I that don\'t understand the realities, it\'s that politicians have the ability to make these things happen today, but instead pursue their own ideals, using our tax dollars to make their ideals realities.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of our politicians are more worried about their ideals then the people they are supposed to represent.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of our politicians are more worried about their ideals then the people they are supposed to represent.
I like the workfare approach. My recollection is that many of the national parks building, roads, etc were the product of similar programs during the Great Depression.
Even if one isn\'t capable of physical labor, it seems as though there would still be many opportunities to help out in the community. Companion care for the elderly, medication or food delivery for the homebound, working at a local youth center. All of these would generate a sense of self-worth as well, and potentially learn a skill set that could lead to employment.
Even if one isn\'t capable of physical labor, it seems as though there would still be many opportunities to help out in the community. Companion care for the elderly, medication or food delivery for the homebound, working at a local youth center. All of these would generate a sense of self-worth as well, and potentially learn a skill set that could lead to employment.
funnymouth
Active member
...or here....
side question: i was under the impression that the $600 tax relief was being paid for with money borrowed from the chinese (~$150B)....anyone have any facts?
funnymouth
Active member
my point was merely that in a free market system (i.e. capitalism) some people will become more wealthy than others, over time. it is indeed the point of the system, so as to promote ambition and competition, and economic success.
No Such Agency
New member
The problem with those professions is that they require carefully screened, skilled workers who will work for crap wages. Which is why they are understaffed in the first place... But I know what you mean.
Avelorn
Sven Jonsson
@funnymouth:
Then I misunderstood. I agree. I thought you ment that people will always be unhappy with material egalitarianism.
To add ot it. Each society promotes different kinds of people and award ambition in different kinds of ways. There is a definite difference between individualistic and collectivistic societies in attitudes etc. Definately a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy going on. You are socialised into, \"brainwashed\" into every system... So if you change the system people will also change.
I think some here *hinthint* are being too cynical. I understand that you can become that way, but systems can change. And often, I\'m not saying this concerns you, but often cynicism becomes an excuse for doing nothing.
Then I misunderstood. I agree. I thought you ment that people will always be unhappy with material egalitarianism.
To add ot it. Each society promotes different kinds of people and award ambition in different kinds of ways. There is a definite difference between individualistic and collectivistic societies in attitudes etc. Definately a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy going on. You are socialised into, \"brainwashed\" into every system... So if you change the system people will also change.
I think some here *hinthint* are being too cynical. I understand that you can become that way, but systems can change. And often, I\'m not saying this concerns you, but often cynicism becomes an excuse for doing nothing.
I see three things that would help a lot.
1.) Term limits on all politicians, including supreme court justices. However the politicians will not vote themselves out of jobs.
2.) Line Item Veto. Once again the congress will not vote for something that takes away a lot of their pork barrel money and their ability to fail bills by tacking on unrelated stuff or pass stuff secretly added to the bill.
3.) A separate truly bi-partisan Ethics committee over the House and Senate. Once again however, the congress would not vote to put this in place.
As I see it we have two options: Vote everyone out and put a large group of like minded individuals in at the same time, and hope they do not get corrupted by the power.
or
Revolution.
1.) Term limits on all politicians, including supreme court justices. However the politicians will not vote themselves out of jobs.
2.) Line Item Veto. Once again the congress will not vote for something that takes away a lot of their pork barrel money and their ability to fail bills by tacking on unrelated stuff or pass stuff secretly added to the bill.
3.) A separate truly bi-partisan Ethics committee over the House and Senate. Once again however, the congress would not vote to put this in place.
As I see it we have two options: Vote everyone out and put a large group of like minded individuals in at the same time, and hope they do not get corrupted by the power.
or
Revolution.
I want everyone that wants a job to have one. I don’t want to see people struggle their whole life because they made bad choices when they were young and the best way to do that is to gradually and generational-ly phase out the attitudes and other causes to those problems. If you want to fight starvation in Africa, what do you do? Do you throw food at the problem or do you invest in education and equipment and teach them how to make it themselves? \"Well, it would take a long time to implement that strategy and people will starve in the meantime so we have to just give it to them.\" Give a man a fish, feed him for a day, teach him to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. Let\'s give him 1 fish today, .9 fish tomorrow, etc, until he gets none for free but can get it himself. And I don’t want some design that just cranks out jobs. Channel all the energy spent spreading bogus ideas like “the rich are evil” and “outsourcing jobs means we won’t have any soon” etc., into early child education and teach people not even to just take the jobs that are tossed to them, but instead to create their own jobs and/or do what they really want to do (an idea like that is something everyone could unite behind). I don\'t think the Republicans are all right and the Democrats are all wrong. Both have strengths and weaknesses in their goals but how can we possibly reach common ground by tolerating members of the various parties spreading ideas that are clearly false or seriously oversimplified?
Teach them to think creatively and analytically, rather than how to memorize well, and have finance and entrepreneurial classes. Because the big secret to being rich is that there is no secret. If from age 20 to 65 you invest $100* a month in a mutual fund with a conservative 10% average growth per year, you’ll have over $1 million. And the nice thing about a large portfolio is that you can sell 5% of your holdings each year (a modest 50k the first year) and your portfolio is still growing at 10-5= 5%. So if you lived from 65 to 100, even though you didn’t work a day after 65 and you sold 5% of your portfolio each year, you would have an impressive $5.7 million at age 100. Why don’t we teach that starting in elementary school? The stock market is open to anyone and everyone.
*And while $100 may seem steep to some, anyone can afford to save 10% of their income if they choose to. The median income in the US is about 28k and 10% of that would be $230 a month. And even if the most dirt-poor people chose to save only their tax refunds, they too could have $2+ million at 65. Go to college and get a job that pays 50k a year, save 10% a year and you\'ll have $4.3 million. $4.3 million! That means you sell 5% a year after 65 to live off of (that\'s over $218,000 your first year to spend!) Then, five years later you\'re 5% to live off of is $280,000. By age 100 you have over $25 million and your 5% to live off of is $1.25 million.
Originally posted by Avelorn
@James9487
On which basis do you believe that the world would be a better place? We\'ve had this kind of system many times before and on many places, never ever has it come out the way you describe it to. There\'s nothing new with marcet economy, capitalism and a minimal state. You have to add some revolutionary ingredience to it that would make it work. Economic growth doesn\'t mean that everybody automatically will get a share. That\'s clear from statistics on the topic. I’d say the same reason a pro-communist could argue that China and Russia’s past aren’t pure proof that communism doesn’t work. They could argue that communism works but Stalin and Mao weren’t the right leaders. Thus, I can, and do, believe that those that fight capitalism and hard work are those that lose. Entitlement is an extremely destructive attitude. And I don\'t know how much effort we\'ve put into REALLY helping the poor. People don\'t know what they want/need so those that the poor elect won\'t necessarily be focused on longterm, permanent, and steady improvement, they\'re interested in giving temporary pain-relief because that\'s what the people asked for. If everyone in a market economy worked hard, everyone could find their niche and be relatively successful. Everyone wouldn’t be equal, the most productive/intelligent would be much better off, but everyone is capable of working hard and being able to produce enough to have a modest lifestyle. It just seems like those who want to succeed do and those who don’t do so because of feelings of entitlement and taking on a victim-complex (“well, I don’t have a job because I got fired unjustly and I’m just not going to try to get another one because the evil businesses are out to get me”).
Same with your incredible rich island. In a decades of time things will look very different. We can\'t all be geniouses you know... And why if we make a robot that can do our tasks for us, who\'ll get the money? What do you suggest we do with all the left-over people who aren\'t brilliant inventors etc. The incredible island was just a hypothetical example to support a point. Yes, there will be income inequality because there is intelligence inequality as well as inequality in all natural traits like determination, etc. The goal should be to keep it at as minimal as possible by focusing on making sure people reach as much of their potential as possible. So many high school dropouts have so much wasted potential. Of course they aren\'t going to develop the Theory of Relativity: Part II or invent the breakthrough robot, but they are certainly capable of being productive in whatever areas they are talented. The problem today is that those who are intelligent and can go to Harvard do so while those at the very bottom still don’t know how to read. The amount of knowledge and average education level WILL rise and if we don’t focus on keeping those in the bottom 20% slightly competitive then the gap inherently widens. So if the government’s main energy is invested into the lesser endowed then we can fight inequality naturally and keep it in check.
So you mean that poor people get kids because of financial benefits and then neglect them? Controversial to say the least.I think you reason as if anyone being poor can just decide to take a \"proper\" job and then they will be rich again. It\'s not that easy. The fosterparents issue are isolated events... you can\'t seriously say it\'s a large problem?
I never said that the only reason, or even the main reason that poor people have kids is just so that they can get money, I said the government provides them with artificial incentive to have them. If there are, lets say, 16 variables when considering having kids and one of the main variables is money, then artificially over-inflating that variable will produce an unnaturally high result. I work at a restaurant and many of my co-workers are food stamp recipients, welfare, etc. And as convenient to my argument as it sounds, several of them have literally told me that SOME people do have kids because of tax benefits. Yes it sounds controversial but let me clarify. Their motivation may range anywhere from (75% of my motivation is that I want kids and 25% is I want the extra benefits( to those that lock them in cages (-10% want kids + 110% want the money). Haha, and yes of course I realize the enslavers are very isolated cases, that is why I said ‘Every now and then we see on the news’. The news shows things that are not normal, the foster parent example was just a random example that illustrates the power of incentives among a very wide range of personalities.
And for plenty of people it is too late, so no they couldn\'t just get a job and be rich. That is why I have said it must be a slow \'phasing out\' of the attitude because those that are who they are at 30 probably won\'t be capable of changing too much so it would be best to develop a long term plan.
