Helping Homeless Illegal?

[Grillick]

WISD0MTREE, by your definition, the entire insurance industry is socialism.

[WISD0MTREE]

WISD0MTREE, by your definition, the entire insurance industry is socialism.

The government wasn't forcing them to accept everybody before. Please read my signature. 

 

Please read my whole post before replying. 

I clearly somewhat clearly said that it is only because the government is forcing them to accept everybody. 

[Lambdadelta]

Yes it is. 

All the companies are forced to take everyone in, even if they have stage 3 brain cancer and have frequent heart failures and smoke a lot. It takes the money of those not sick and puts it into those poorer people who are sick. It's really socialism, but just using the PS to do so, since they are required to do it.

Just because it involves state regulation of the private sector does not make it socialism.

[WISD0MTREE]

Just because it involves socialist state regulation of the private sector does not make it socialism.

Fixed that for what you are saying.

[Lambdadelta]

If you think all regulation is socialist, then you don't understand what socialism means and therefore lack the qualification to maintain this conversation.

 

If it makes you feel any better, most Americans don't know what socialism is either, only that they disagree with it.

[WISD0MTREE]

If you think all regulation is socialist, then you don't understand what socialism means and therefore lack the qualification to maintain this conversation.

 

If it makes you feel any better, most Americans don't know what socialism is either, only that they disagree with it.

I never said all regulations are socialist you !@#$. Read my WHOLE damn posts. This one requires insurance companies to redistribute wealth. Normally they can deny doing that to some people, but now they have to. 

 

Well, most Libs are bordering socialism... 

[Filthy Fifths]

Yes I love how my rates went up $300 for some individuals who are perfectly capable of working/producing for the economy but have decided to feed off the system that never stops giving.

Edited May 22, 2014 by Filthy Fifths

[Filthy Fifths]

Also I do like the clause that forces businesses with over 50 employees to guarantee insurance for it's employees or face fines. Gotta love how business have decided to turn full-time employment unto part-time employment. God knows what will happen if I ever hit 40 hours..Will I lose my job?

[Filthy Fifths]

Since when did the government have the option to force it's citizens to buy a privatized good off the market or face fines and penalties? Let's use an illegal tax system that's only used to pay the interest off to the illegal federal bank against the "American's" who do not comply with our regulations that only seem to funnel wealth in one direction.

[Lambdadelta]

Yes I love how my rates went up $300 for some individuals who are perfectly capable of working/producing for the economy but have decided to feed off the system that never stops giving.

Also I do like the clause that forces businesses with over 50 employees to guarantee insurance for it's employees or face fines. Gotta love how business have decided to turn full-time employment unto part-time employment. God knows what will happen if I ever hit 40 hours..Will I lose my job?

Since when did the government have the option to force it's citizens to buy a privatized good off the market or face fines and penalties? Let's use an illegal tax system that's only used to pay the interest off to the illegal federal bank against the "American's" who do not comply with our regulations that only seem to funnel wealth in one direction.

[Filthy Fifths]

 

So

1. Individuals feeding off the many social programs gave you cancer?

2. Forcing business, this manly affects small businesses not large corporations, but large corporations are guilty of hiring on part-time employees compared to full-time to save a quick buck here or there. But yes you are saying this also gives you cancer?

3. Income inequality and government overstepping the rights they have been given gives you cancer.

 

Wanna know something that gives me cancer? A !@#$ed system, in it's entirety, that seems to only get patchwork fixes here and there whenever a crisis "appears" when in reality it's been known that it will happen months, even years prior. A system that encourages individuals to solely rely a part of their yearly expenses on the backs of others when they could easily get a job or maybe you know live within your means. No need to get that new iPhone when you can't even pay for the meals that are on your table. Even better, a !@#$ed system that encourages individuals to eat fast, convenient for a good majority of their lives and encourages obesity because that's the Capitalist way of doing things. A system that uses religion, "Jesus was Capitalist or would've been if he were born today." to further dictate and control the spending habits of the lower and middle class. A system that considers corporations people and has defined them as such under numerous judicial cases throughout the country. A system that let's any corporation or political action committee donate a plethora of money that doesn't have to be disclosed to any politician or any person running for a spot in office. Gee I wonder how much Obama spent last election to "win" his office. A system that wants to so badly give healthcare to all when it can't even !@#$ing help out our own veterans that have been sent off to fight many wars not for the American people but for American Greed. A system that wants to put the hardships and countless burdens on the backs of millions of hard-working individual for short-term profit gains. A system that thrives on predatory practices all in the good ole' name of freedom and capitalism. The only system of governance to have ever worked ever. A system that considers pizza a vegetable. A system that bases it's unemployment numbers off the individuals who can't/aren't working instead of also considering underemployment such as barely making enough to meet ends meat. Yeah we all know that unemployment numbers are 100% right since you know they don't include marginally attached workers or count into it's formula the # of people retiring from the labor force or the # of individuals who gave up looking for a job that month. Etc etc. A system that encourages newly graduated high school students and subject them to student debt that will haunt them for many decades and the interest rate is only going up, up, up I hear. A system that let's the government bully corporations and companies into submitting into their demands or face harsh consequences. Really, all I'm trying to get at is why should we "improve" something that didn't need to be fixed as badly as the other 98% of things that are wrong with the system. If that post gave you cancer, then this system must be cancer by definition.

 

 

I read an interesting article the other day. I can't seem to find it but here's a brief summary: They say that the reason why individuals are poor, homeless, dependent on the government enjoy a life of luxury that really has only been improving for all classes since the 1950s. With the progression of technology and increasing access to a global market, the price to enjoy such a high standard of living has actually gone down from what it was 10, 20, even 50 years ago. The price you get basic household utilities such as refrigerators, microwave ovens, and washer/dryer units has gone down and has become increasingly available to the lower/middle class. As more and more luxuries become more and more "affordable" you will start seeing what you can call "over-extended households". These are households that are struggling to pay their rent but enjoy other luxuries such as cable, nail-salon, alcohol, drugs, you get the idea. Families are wanting to further improve their quality of life even though they enjoy one of the best qualities of life that any human has enjoyed. The lower and middle class enjoy a quality of life that the wealthy and aristocrats enjoyed hundreds of years ago. To simply put it, while they may seem like the life they life is in complete and utter decay. If they had a better control and grasp over their financial situation and had a better understanding or priority in which to head financially that maybe they wouldn't be in the position that they are currently in. I believe that most Americans have been given instant gratification for a good majority of their lives and that's one of the biggest problems we will face in the coming century. More and more our decisions are based upon getting what we want and when we want it. It's like we have forgotten what we are truly working for. We are working for a better future. Not working just to get comfortable and to think that everything will be alright because it always has and it always will. This ideology has corrupted everybody on all social, financial, political classes in someway, shape, or form. Everybody seems to have forgotten how to actually work for what you have and to appreciate everything you possess no matter how big or small it is. We are raised in a culture in which material wealth, that has been in the media for numerous years now, is the only goal there is in life. You work to improve the quality of life around you and your loved ones. Not to work days, weeks, or even months for that new pair of Jordan's or the new Xbox One. You don't go into debt or put yourself in a situation where your basic needs aren't taken care of just for something that you probably won't find fun 10-15 years down the road. And just because that person made it into the NFL, NBA, or became that socialite you've seen on the TV since you were a baby, does it mean that you will get to that point. You have to work hard and with extreme ambition/determination to accomplish anything in this world. And once you have completed those goals, you simply do not stop. You aim higher and higher until your very last breathe on this planet. I'm tired of the excuse, "Well it's not fair and we have to help everybody." It's one of the most overused and nonbinding excuses anybody can offer you. Life isn't fair and we aren't here to help everybody. We are here to help out those who seek it the most. Life seeks out those who are truly ready to have a meaningful, fulfilled, long, and experienced life. It's not handed to you on a silver platter every chance you decide to mess things up and end up in the hole. 

 

 

My mini-rant on everything.

[Lambdadelta]

So

1. Individuals feeding off the many social programs gave you cancer?

I know a few individuals that are feeding off of social programs that never seem to get looked at by the Government:

 

 

Meanwhile, the people that cop the hatred (mostly from the Right) are the ones who, without Government assistance, would be driven to crime and prostitution so that they can survive. These people are not lazy, they are victims of a capitalist economy that values profit over employment and to which workers are but cogs in a great profit-generating machine.

 

2. Forcing business, this manly affects small businesses not large corporations, but large corporations are guilty of hiring on part-time employees compared to full-time to save a quick buck here or there. But yes you are saying this also gives you cancer?

If you want the full-time use of a person's labour, you should bloody well be prepared to pay the cost of maintaining that labour, whether or not it's more than you would like to be paying them.

 

3. Income inequality and government overstepping the rights they have been given gives you cancer.

No, people who don't give a !@#$ about wealthy inequality and whine about "lazy people bludging off of their tax dollars" give me cancer.

Edited May 22, 2014 by Lambdadelta

[Don Juan]

If that post gave you cancer, then this system must be cancer by definition.

It is cancer. The cancer of unfettered capitalism.

 

However, by giving cancer (capitalism) a healthy dose of chemo (socialism) you get a more stable, balanced and fair system.

[WISD0MTREE]

However, by giving cancer (capitalism) a healthy dose of chemo (socialism) you get a more stable, balanced and fair system.

So socialism doesn't always work? Chemo doesn't always work. 

[Lambdadelta]

So socialism doesn't always work? Chemo doesn't always work.

News flash: People don't always work. People are the ultimate failing of any economic system.

Edited May 22, 2014 by Lambdadelta

[WISD0MTREE]

News flash: People don't always work. People are the ultimate failing of any economic system.

Tell me about it. Look at the welfare. I'll bet you that only half (if even that) need gov. aid. 

[Don Juan]

So socialism doesn't always work? Chemo doesn't always work. 

Depends how selfless people are.

[WISD0MTREE]

Depends how selfless people are.

This is a friendly reminder we are talking about America. 

Yeah. 

[Ayayay]

This is a friendly reminder we are talking about America. 

Yeah. 

America, where you only help others if it will get you some good press.

[Lambdadelta]

Capitalism and Communism both share the same underpinning flaw - they assume humans are perfectly altruistic.

[Hereno]

Well, most Libs are bordering socialism...

Also I do like the clause that forces businesses with over 50 employees to guarantee insurance for it's employees or face fines. Gotta love how business have decided to turn full-time employment unto part-time employment. God knows what will happen if I ever hit 40 hours..Will I lose my job?

What socialist would require you to buy insurance from a private company? These weird quasi-fascist laws where government reinforces corporate power have nothing to do with socialism, but with social democratic ideas that government is the answer to the excesses of capitalism. What they fail to understand is that capitalism itself is the problem.

 

People like yourselves see that there is a problem, and you rightly identify that government involvement has mainly, while making many things better, achieved an ever-increasing totalitarianism. However, what you fail to realize is that the system of economic liberalism you espouse already existed and led us to our current situation.

 

Let me explain.

 

Any government will become increasingly susceptible to the will of the most powerful in society, and in capitalism the most powerful in society are the owners and the wealthy. Even if we had a revolution that implemented a tea party society, it would quickly degenerate into what we have now because there will always under capitalism be a class that is significantly more powerful than the others, and can therefore influence government to do what it wants. Because of this, you're never going to be able to legislate back to or maintain a state of libertarian capitalism, because libertarian capitalism is not in the interest of the capitalist class.

 

Which is also why the social democrats can only ever fail or make things worse: it is impossible for us to legislate away corporate influence when the same people who make our laws are the ones who want the exact opposite of what we want in terms of corporate influence.

 

Capitalism and Communism both share the same underpinning flaw - they assume humans are perfectly altruistic.

Neither capitalism or communism assume humans are perfectly altruistic. This is little more than a typical social democratic "appeal to moderation" fallacy.

Edited May 23, 2014 by Hereno

[Lambdadelta]

Neither capitalism or communism assume humans are perfectly altruistic. This is little more than a typical social democratic "appeal to moderation" fallacy.

Not at all.

 

Typical arguments for a so-called capitalist solution to the supposed problem of welfare-dependence (for example) in the developed world suggest that such is the responsibility of private charity and not state handouts - this assumes that the wealth-holders are perfectly altruistic - that they will willingly part with their wealth to prevent the needy from dying in poverty.

 

On the other hand, communism assumes that people are perfectly willing to part with their labour for a return that is equal to the return given to everyone else (from each according their ability, to each according their need), regardless of the notional value of that labour as it would be in a capitalist system.

 

Both are flawed by this assumption that people are altruistic and that this will iron out the obvious contradiction in the system.

[Hereno]

On the other hand, communism assumes that people are perfectly willing to part with their labour for a return that is equal to the return given to everyone else (from each according their ability, to each according their need), regardless of the notional value of that labour as it would be in a capitalist system.

"The elimination of all social and political inequality,†rather than “the abolition of all class distinctions,†is similarly a most dubious expression. As between one country, one province and even one place and another, living conditions will always evince a certain inequality which may be reduced to a minimum but never wholly eliminated. The living conditions of Alpine dwellers will always be different from those of the plainsmen. The concept of a socialist society as a realm of equality is a one-sided French concept deriving from the old “liberty, equality, fraternity,†a concept which was justified in that, in its own time and place, it signified a phase of development, but which, like all the one-sided ideas of earlier socialist schools, ought now to be superseded, since they produce nothing but mental confusion, and more accurate ways of presenting the matter have been discovered.

- Engels to August Bebel, London, March 18-28, 1875

 

But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only -- for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.

 

But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.

 

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

- Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme, Chapter 1

 

I'm not sure which socialists you've been talking to but they're in disagreement with both Engels and Marx.

[Lambdadelta]

I'm not sure which socialists you've been talking to but they're in disagreement with both Engels and Marx.

Funny you should say that, quoting Critique, since the very part you quoted includes the statement I purported to be supported by Communists.

[Hereno]

Funny you should say that, quoting Critique, since the very part you quoted includes the statement I purported to be supported by Communists.

Reading comprehension. Or, in this case, reading what I quoted at all, most likely.