Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Number Of Americans On Food Stamps; Another High Years After Recession's End
Topic Started: Nov 5 2011, 12:38 AM (871 Views)
Banandangees
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Chris
Nov 5 2011, 12:34 PM
tomdrobin
Nov 5 2011, 10:50 AM
I know many people on food assistance. For the most part they are apolitical, just poor and sometimes disfunctional folks getting by any way they can. My point earlier was that many of those so opposed to government spending are benefitting from SS and medicare. It seems the attitude is I deserve my entitlements, but those other people don't deserve theirs.

Perhaps it's the social safety net that is the opiat of the masses. Without it IMO there would be a lot more unrest than the current OWS demonstrations.
I don't know anyone opposed to government benefiting from SS and medicare, I'm sure there may be, but that doesn't disqualify them from disagreeing with socialized policies, especially if they were forced to pay into them, in which case they're not entitlements.
"forced to pay...", that is the fact that many don't seem to understand, or want to understand. You can list SS and Medicare as an entitlement along side "food stamps" and welfare but the big difference is that an employee and his employer have been forced to pay into the fund by government. If it's to be called an entitlement it certainly should be defined as a paid in, required entitlement. If the government programs are not run properly or the funds mismanaged, it's not the fault of those who were forced to pay into such programs.

Why is it so hard to understand the significance of debt..... what the ramifications of debt over time are? We are seeing it played out in living color in Europe on TV every day. Debt is incurred by spending more than is taken in. It's that simple. It's not hard to sympathize with the "frustration of the demonstrators" as they are having a tough time (apparently) but is the target of their frustration "capitalism" or should it be more the very simple cause of the ramifications of a growing debt..... spending more than is taken in?

Ron Paul indicated that on the news today. It's not capitalism.... it's spending more than is taken in. He was followed by an "Englishman" economist who said the "bailout" in the EU is only "kicking the can down the road." Italy is next followed by France whose banks are holding bonds that will undoubtedly fail. All of Europe looks to Germany (that frugal nation) for financial aid. Obviously, Germany can't and doesn't want to take it on the chin for nations who have lived beyond their means. China doesn't want any part of it. The US can't afford it. Perhaps Canada can chip in. They have money. If they don't they will go down with the rest. But, why should they? Why should Germany.. if the rest are not going to put the painful austere programs into affect that will very slowly bring the global financials back. But, has the dependent masses grown to such a size that their intolerance can't be contained?

Why can't we look at Europe, accept the real causes of their predicament (and ours) and change our ways in time to prevent the same here. Maybe it's too late. The dependent masses may not allow it. So, they are taught to blame capitalism and not the over spending by governments.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mike
Member Avatar
Administrator
[ * ]
While it is true that social security and medicare are 20 century programs and Americans survived without either for 150 years, we can't overlook some facts.

Americans in general have abandoned the community-family social network. The public education system does little to prepare graduates for the world they will live in. Globalization is a recent phenomenon as is corporatism. This is not the America of our forefathers.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thumper
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
I agree Mike. Used to be you could barter or raise crops and even hunt for your food. Didn't need gasoline to find a job. Didn't need electric, cable TV, telephone, sewer bill, water bill and pay taxes.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
So whose fault is this?

The "the community-family social network" changed largely because with the rise of industrialization people left the farms, where they needed a large family of workers and depended on neighbors, to the cities where they could survive on wages that in time didn't require putting women and children to work, the family became more nuclear, and crowding isolated people from each other with the advent of telecommunications, radio, TV, and now the Internet.

It's a world of greater wealth, greater risk, where anyone can rise higher and fall further.

I have no problem with it, but it sounds like some would like to return to the past they yearn for.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mike
Member Avatar
Administrator
[ * ]
I'm not in favor of returning to the past, but I do recognize that some of the hardship individuals and families face are a result of the changes the society goes through. As evidenced by the number of folks on some form of public assistance,

Americans have not coped well with change. Particularly the economic changes which occurred as a result of the near financial meltdown and collapse of the housing industry. It wa ssudden and many folks simply could not adjust quickly enough.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ngc1514
Member Avatar
Moderator
[ * ]
Chris
Nov 5 2011, 12:30 PM
I find it attributed to him and that source, but now you ask I see wikiquotes says it's misattributed, that it's a variation on Alexander Tytler's "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."

I do know no one knows who Tytler actually was.
Amazing how many things are attributed to the wrong people. Probably for the same reason the de Tocqueville quote is mis-attributed... who the hell is Tytler? Sounds so much better than attributing it to someone unknown. Like the supposed Einstein quote that "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results." Of course, in quantum physics... you do get different results!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
ngc1514
Nov 6 2011, 04:10 AM
Chris
Nov 5 2011, 12:30 PM
I find it attributed to him and that source, but now you ask I see wikiquotes says it's misattributed, that it's a variation on Alexander Tytler's "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."

I do know no one knows who Tytler actually was.
Amazing how many things are attributed to the wrong people. Probably for the same reason the de Tocqueville quote is mis-attributed... who the hell is Tytler? Sounds so much better than attributing it to someone unknown. Like the supposed Einstein quote that "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results." Of course, in quantum physics... you do get different results!
So much for assumptions.

But the truth of the statement shouldn't depend on who says it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ngc1514
Member Avatar
Moderator
[ * ]
Chris
Nov 6 2011, 04:49 AM
But the truth of the statement shouldn't depend on who says it.
No, it shouldn't. The truth should be demonstrated.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
ngc1514
Nov 6 2011, 06:03 AM
Chris
Nov 6 2011, 04:49 AM
But the truth of the statement shouldn't depend on who says it.
No, it shouldn't. The truth should be demonstrated.
It is, by two forms of welfare, social and corporate.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tomdrobin
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Mike
Nov 6 2011, 12:04 AM
Americans in general have abandoned the community-family social network.
Agrarian extended families where women usually stayed at home to care for the children, and could then care for aging parents. And, those aging parents didn't live as long either. No high tech medicine, and low tech wasn't expensive. Divorce was rare, and if there were single parent families, it was usually because of a death in the family. Times have changed, and depending on your perspective better for some. Most of us would probably be taking dirt naps by now. Also, the increasing mobility has scattered family members accross the country in many cases. There were some things good about the good old days, but that's in the past we have to deal with the here and now.

No doubt the developement of the welfare state was not such a good idea. Because it created much dependency. But, it's not going to go away with defunding it, not without some serious suffering.

No argument that long term it would be good policy to reign in entitlement spending and pay down the debt. But, cutting taxes (what the government takes in) and then blaming the resulting deficits in an economic downturn as an excuse to drastically cut entitlements is bad policy. It makes about as much sense on a personal level as cutting your income because you can't make ends meet, and then using that as an excuse to kick the kids that are depending on you out.

Globalization and the recession has hurt the middle and low income in this country, while at the same time created tremendous opportunity for corporate america and investors. It would seem to me pretty irresponsible to cut the safety net while those depending on it are having such a tough time already, while holding the line on lower taxes for those who have benefitted.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Website Traffic Analysis