 |
Becuase Tal, that is what it is, to make a dependent population, not saying the help isn't necessary but this is what socialism does, makes the population dependent on government, on centralised authority. The real problem is over population in a mechanised, digital world.
I answer and you pretend I don't . Mounting interventions is trillions in government spending on the economy )6 trillion to date and counting ). Mounting interventions is the bureaucratic regulatory state that tells us and business how to conduct every aspect of our lives Clete's comment above is right on socialism makes people dependent on the government.....cradle to grave government , Where Clete is wrong in in his strawman telling me that because I object to a program where it is more advantageous for someone not to work than to rejoin the work force that I oppose all unemployment assistance .Quote:
My question, still not answered, is what are those interventions?
This is the third time I have asked you about "socialism", and this us the third time you have not answered my question.
No pretending at all. In fact, the first time I asked you, you refused in your own words to answer because you thought it was a trick. (or a trap).Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Increasing the national debt occurs under whatever administration is in power. Are both parties therefore "socialistic"? In any case, I'm asking about specifics, not generalities.Quote:
Mounting interventions is trillions in government spending on the economy )6 trillion to date and counting
This is crazy talk. Government is not telling us how to conduct "every aspect of our lives".Quote:
Mounting interventions is the bureaucratic regulatory state that tells us and business how to conduct every aspect of our lives
Exactly where is this cradle to grave socialism in the USA? Examples, please.Quote:
Clete's comment above is right on socialism makes people dependent on the government.....cradle to grave government
Does this mean unemployment insurance is not socialism?Quote:
Where Clete is wrong ..... telling me that because I object to a program where it is more advantageous for someone not to work than to rejoin the work force that I oppose all unemployment assistance .
It is not actually insurance, it is government welfare, and welfare is a form of socialismQuote:
Originally Posted by Athos
Tomder again is notable for his absence in replying re socialism. I can't assume paraclete speaks for Tom. Presumably, he would eliminate unemployment insurance for which premiums are paid. He does not say what he would replace it with, if anything, nor does he address the other points in my post to Tomder.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
In the US, there is a clause in the Constitution that states "provide for the general welfare". It is unclear why Paraclete considers welfare to be a dirty word.
Conservatives think welfare is a dirty word, until they need it, or if it's CORPORATE welfare, or legalized stealing. Socialism is just a buzz word for the right to brand everybody but them as being a bad thing and only their rights matter. Yep the right to bear arms is sacred but the right to vote is on their terms.
Freedom for some and not others which in truth started when THEY got to the new land.
I don't consider welfare a dirty word. I'm not going tp go point to point with you, I addressed the misconception that unemployment insurance is insurance, but call it what it is, a government handout to help you meet difficult circumstance. However, government payment to an individual in any form is socialism, and I cannot see why you run away from it as if it is a bad thing, as you say "provide for the general welfare"Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
I notice you never do. Something pops into your head and you post it without thinking. Are all Aussies like that, or just you?Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
All employees are charged a premium for the insurance. The money goes into an insurance pot paid out when necessary. When paid out, the employer gets a surcharge according to the amount paid. That's called insurance. It is not a government handout.Quote:
I addressed the misconception that unemployment insurance is insurance
That's ridiculous. Are death benefits paid to a soldier's survivor socialism? Salaries to police and firemen? Elected officials? Excellent example of your popping off whatever enters your head.Quote:
government payment to an individual in any form is socialism
I have no idea what this means, and I don't expect you to clarify it.Quote:
and I cannot see why you run away from it as if it is a bad thing, as you say "provide for the general welfare"
That is true in theory, and it seems to be true in good economic times. But when the economy hits a serious downturn, the feds end up having to subsidize the fund, and never more dramatically than now when it is clearly not bringing in anything close to enough money. It's now just another "borrow, print and spend" federal fiasco.Quote:
All employees are charged a premium for the insurance. The money goes into an insurance pot paid out when necessary. When paid out, the employer gets a surcharge according to the amount paid. That's called insurance. It is not a government handout.
I'd have to agree with Athos in his response. Socialism is more an economic model than it is a government model.Quote:
government payment to an individual in any form is socialism
The provision to provide for "the general welfare" in the Constitution was historically considered to be a provision to provide for highways, police, and so forth which lifts the welfare of everyone. It is only in the past century or so that pols figured out how to buy votes by sending out payments funded by taxes lifted from working people. Now, even worse, they don't even bother to fund this vote buying with taxes.
Providing the means to survive for families - men, woman and children - is a "federal fiasco"?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Yes, the interpretation of the clause changed over the years. It came closer to the plain meaning of the original words. As to the cynical notion that it is only for buying votes, would you therefore rescind social security?Quote:
The provision to provide for "the general welfare" in the Constitution was historically considered to be a provision to provide for highways, police, and so forth which lifts the welfare of everyone. It is only in the past century or so that pols figured out how to buy votes by sending out payments funded by taxes lifted from working people.
I am opposed to expanding the federal debt to levels which have the potential to sink us.
I would make SS a voluntary program. Sadly it is too late for that. At least it is, for the present, self funding.
What level is that?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
That would condemn millions to poverty in their old age.Quote:
I would make SS a voluntary program.
We are currently approaching a national debt of about 100,000 dollars for every man, woman, and child in America. That strikes me as a titanically stupid idea. Interest rates will some day rise again, and we are going to be in serious trouble.
How?Quote:
That would condemn millions to poverty in their old age.
We call them professional students. Anybody who wants to work, need just show up, hired on the spot!Quote:
not these damn millennials who know nothing
Athos said: That would condemn millions to poverty in their old age.
JL said: How?
WG says: C'mon, think about it. Where does SS come from? And why? And how?
I thought you said we were not to respond to a question with more questions. Well...you just did.
You do so I can too. HA!Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
SS is failed ponzi scheme, it worked while ever there was a smaller population with lower life expectancyQuote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Currently, nearly 70 million Americans receive social security benefits. You call that a failure?Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
The SSA estimates that it made about $7.9 billion worth of improper payments in total during the 2019 fiscal year.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:56 PM. |