The Economy from different Perspectives

[Arcticdude]

Hysterical. Note that I left 5% of welfare in place. I think there is a small portion of welfare recipients who truly are incapable of caring for themselves. I don't know the number, 5%, 10%? But small. I'm fine with helping them to live with dignity. Note that this does NOT include nuts who took drugs and made themselves vegetables: I see no reason to keep them alive.

One problem is that no country would take the Trash. So I'll ask to change the title. Instead let's take a nice island off Alaska, one with LOTS of big hungry bears. For these Trash, if no other country will take them, we drop them off on the island, butt naked. So the new operation name would be: FEED THE BEARS. Short, simple, clear. Their last act on earth might be the only good thing they'll ever do... I only wonder if Al Gore would approve of this as it's a way of supporting 'nature'?

Wait a minute Tex. Why Alaska? Doesn't Texas have any islands?
Even 5-10% is too much. Let the charities feed them if the want. But no tax payer should be ever be forced to feed anyone that can't or won't work. Remember, welfare started out as a "safety net" to keep people from starving. Now look at it. It's become a lifestyle for millions of losers. All government programs start out small, and sound worthwhile, but they all turn in to huge uncontrollable monsters.

 

[jeager]

Those that genuinely need gov't aid should get it.
Sadly living on the dole has become a multi generational way of life.
A long time ago when I was a police officer I watched houses being built
at taxpayers expense in the ethnic neighborhoods that were much nicer than
the house I bought and was paying for.
Then the gov't bought building lots in middle to upper class neighborhoods
and built houses at tax payers expense and gave them to blacks who were
on the dole.
Integration at white peoples expense.
Property values in those nice neighborhoods dropped significantly and instantly.
Was it right and proper that the property values dropped.
NO!
Was it simply the way it was.
YES!
I didn't make the rules, it simply was.
Blacks that got the nice new homes in nice neighborhoods brought with them their
traditional ways of living.
55 gallon drum converted into a b b q, cook outs and pig roasts for their
family and friends, sitting on the porch drinking wine, litter all over
the place, broken down cars parked on the street...................
It isn't about race, it's about values, ethics, standards, or lack thereof.
Italian, German, Russia, Polish, etc., immigrants don't behave in such ways.
It's not race; it's behavior.
I mentioned before the city I policed was about 50% ethnic.
ALL the violent crime, rape, shootings, stabbings, robberies, were in the
black area.
I suffered 13 injuries in the line of duty ALL by "ethnics".
Finally disabled with broken back #4.
Among the young blacks it was a "badge of honor" to fight a white cop and go to jail.
Still I don't hate or even dislike black people.
It's behavior that is so shocking.

 

[TexasFreedom]

Wait a minute Tex. Why Alaska? Doesn't Texas have any islands?
Even 5-10% is too much. Let the charities feed them if the want. But no tax payer should be ever be forced to feed anyone that can't or won't work. Remember, welfare started out as a "safety net" to keep people from starving. Now look at it. It's become a lifestyle for millions of losers. All government programs start out small, and sound worthwhile, but they all turn in to huge uncontrollable monsters.

AD,

I don't have anything against Alaska... it's a beautiful state. And yes, Texas has some islands. But none of those islands are filled with big hungry bears nor are the isolated enough that they could escape. I should have added, any boat found within a mile or two of the island will be fired upon and sunk immediately, with the people on the boat sent naked to the island. So no rescues! Go swimming off a Texas island, it's great! Go swimming off Alaska, and you'll freeze and drown within 10 minutes... perfect!

In terms of having 'some' welfare, there are people who are genuinely disabled and need help. Yes, the charities could handle them. And the states could work with these charities to help identify who are truly in need. And I'm fine with 'welfare' returning to people getting a bag of beans & a bag of rice & a lump of 'government cheese' each month. The basics of the basics. And this is for the disabled. Now if "welfare-momma Bertha" has to start digging through Wendy's dumpster for dinner, I have NO problem with that (unless I owned that Wendy's!). Able-bodied adults can starve if they refuse to work, it's their absolute right! And I don't think I have a right to deny them of theirs! So I'm not too far from your viewpoint.

I think this opens a great topic (and thanks AD for mentioning it!). Gov't "Limits". Every time a gov't program gets launched, it should have a required 'reset' limits. For example when income tax became law with a constitutional amendment 100 years ago, it should have required a limit. Back then it was touted as "this is only for big business, the common man will NEVER pay income tax!" BullHockey. It needed limits, built right into the Amendment. "It will only be limited to the top 1% of business and never exceed 5% of income and terminate either once the War debt is paid OR in 5 years, whichever comes first". Limits on who is affected, how much they are affected, and how long this stays around. AD is 100% right, these programs start small & innocent and ALWAYS evolve into monsters. How about we add a Constitutional Amendment requiring all of this, AND require gov't to go back over EVERY law and add these limits (AS ORIGINALLY ADVERTISED WHEN IT PASSED! **). Require 5% of Laws be modified each year, so that gives incompetent Congress 20 years to complete this.**2

** Great example: Obamascare. It was advertised as "keep your doctor, save $2500/yr, etc". When the law proved to be a giant lie, it SHOULD have been revoked right then and there.
**2 And put a anchor on Congress' neck. If they fail to modify 5% of the existing laws each year, the longest-serving 20% of Congressmen/women are immediately FIRED and denied ability to ever run for public office OR work for gov't (direct or indirect). I know they'll fail every year, so MY goal would be to eliminate every stinking house/senate bum within 5 years.

 

[Proud Prepper]

All they had to do to change the income tax to effect wages and not just buisinesses is change the definition of income. You can go research the original tax codes in libraries and there the same as far as who is taxed. The definition of income was changed in the Tax code. Wages are not income. Its an equal exchange of goods and currency for labor. The US income tax is the largest of the scams and wealth redistribution systems forced upon the people of the USA, like the social security tax and the affordable care act.

 

[Maverick]

I'll sum up my thinking from a piece I written roughly 15yrs ago regarding my Liberty and Freedom by using my (by blackmail) taxes for career welfare recipients.

I entrust nothing to others for I am my own person, my achievements all my sacrifices and all my flaws are of my own making not to be taken like a thief in the night just to be bestowed upon those who’ve done nothing.

 

[jeager]

I'm soooooooooooooo glad I don't need Obummer care.

 

[Maverick]

I'm soooooooooooooo glad I don't need Obummer care.

I'm retired but covered under my Wife's employment health plan, by the time she retires I should already be dead and buried thus don't have to worry about the government sponsored crap.

 

[TexasFreedom]

I think 'healthcare', when in reality we're talking about 'insurance', is just massive hype. A 'scare the masses to control them' lie.

An example, which religious group refuse 'modern' medicine? I think it's Scientology (note these are far from 'Christian' but that's another discussion). I remember stories where they refused blood transfusions which lead to a few people dying. For them it's not the costs at all, they reject modern medicine in total. Yet I do not hear of them dying off in mass? Them having lives shorted by decades?

I know I've read where often half if not 90% of a person's lifetime medical expenses happen in the last few months or year of their lives. Did that really add anything meaningful to their lives? In fact I would argue that 'modern medicine' will extend their suffering without quality of life. Note that I'm talking about end-of-life events: cancer, organ failure, etc. I'm not talking about filling a cavity or fixing a broken leg, those are minor expenses and simple.

Now look at the math. Your payments into health insurance will give the insurance companies nice profits over time. Let's say for a couple they spend $1000/mo for 50 years for insurance. Simple math, assume they're 50 now so it was cheaper in the past & more expensive in the future, but averages $1000/mo. $1000 x 12 months x 50 years = $600,000. Sound like a lot of money? But it only gets worse. Assume 15% goes to administration costs, and another 10% is profits. So off the top the insurance keeps $150,000, so you 'get' $450,000 of healthcare while spending $600,000. Now you are likely to spend 60% of that in your dying year, that's $270,000. For me personally, I'd just as well get some morphine and die the year earlier than live the year in absolute misery. That means you really are wanting $180,000 in beneficial healthcare. Or about 30% of what you actually are spending.

So let me go back. That 50 y.o. couple today spend $1000/mo on forced-to-purchase healthcare insurance. But really they are only needing to spend $300 for their 'needs'. $700 goes POOF, no real want or need for that. Don't you think most couples could use that $700 in other ways? Many homeowners with a mortgage could cut their 30 year mortgage into a 10 year mortgage if they applied this $700 there.

I know the first thing everyone will jump on is "yeah, but one heart attack will bankrupt them". Guess what, for MANY people with health insurance, a heart attack will bankrupt them as well. All the co-pays, months without income, inability to return to work, etc. Insurance doesn't protect you from any of that, and you can always get a relatively cheap 'catastrophic care' policy with a $25k deductible.

I'm not saying we should return to the days of the black plague and no medicine. I think basic care is beneficial. I think health care for people who self-harm should be eliminated (drug addicts, drunks who get into accidents, etc), or at least triple the charge rate with cash-up-front. But I think medicine has been turned into a way to control people and that only causes harm.

 

[jeager]

Jehovah's Witnesses refused blood transfusions and organ transplants.
In recent year the "Governing Body" (leaders) announced those procedures
to be a "matter of personal" feeling.
Wonder what good it did for those that refused such and died?
Really though a unit of blood costs a ton of bucks.

 

[jeager]

I pay a monthly fee for my excellent health care.
A bit over $200 monthly that comes right out of my retirement
check.
I qualify for a bit of social security coverage.
Prescriptions are $5 bucks.
A real savings as I'm diabetic.
( mildly but take 2 pills 2 X a day. I was on 3 injections a day but my fiance
is a nutrition expert and got me off shots 100%.)
If I drink any alcohol I'll likely die.
Alcohol = refined sugar.
If a shtf and I'm out of meds I can control the sugar with a strict diet.
Squirrel, rabbit, venison, liberals ????????????? Are they edible?

 

[Warriorhealer22]

Jeager,

What you said shocked me, but with thought it really does ring more true than ever. I recently read an article that went into this, but it was focused mostly on the fallacy of black poverty. A few details:
* Black families with 2 parents where both parents work full time jobs have a poverty rate of 2%. TWO PERCENT!
* 8% of black married couples live in poverty
* 46% of single black women with children live in poverty.

So 1 in 50 black working couples with children are in poverty. But 1 in 2 black single women with kids are in poverty. And I'll bet the stat's are similar regardless of race: white, hispanic, asian, etc. Two really simple lessons: 1) WAIT until you're married to have kids and 2) get a JOB.

NOW here is the shocking statement that will blow away our liberal readers. CANCELLING 95% OF WELFARE WILL SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE POVERTY NUMBERS.

Chew on that idea. Really think about it. Many women have kids out of wedlock because it's a culture to pop them out & live on the dole. They're perfectly happy living in poverty and not working. And they're raising the next generation to do the same which will cost 10 times more. My thought is to cut the cord. It can be to all at once, or weaned over a matter of months, or cut off from any future applications, any of these can work. Now we'll have to get past the "oh poor me" stories for a while. But when you take away the carrot you change behavior. Women will learn that not having kids will be to their benefit. And guys will learn that they have responsibilities that cost a whole lot.

Women really can decide not to have kids until their lives are stable and they can support them. Women are brighter than guys in general. And there can be other consequences. A woman pops out kids but won't care for them? OK, the state will take the kids into foster, AND spay the mother. Animal shelters do this all the time. Now they don't have to do this on day one, but maybe on the 2nd kid? Or 6 months of help then do it? Or she can leave the country & not return (without getting spayed).

All this sounds very cruel. But an economic collapse will be much worse.

It is true, the cord should be cut and it won't be pretty. But that would be true freedom. True freedom is living with the choices you made.

 

[jeager]

Yes and true freedom is NOT living on the dole if one is capable of
WORKING.

Those on the dole because of race are STILL slaves.
Slaves to the system they wanted.

 

[TexasFreedom]

It is true, the cord should be cut and it won't be pretty. But that would be true freedom. True freedom is living with the choices you made.

I have to be careful going too far. "True Freedom" would go to anarchy and nobody wants that.

An interesting note previously mentioned. Historically, "welfare" was the domain of the Church. And I don't recall anyone saying that the "church" was unfair or insufficient. I wonder if the gov't getting involved was the gov't sticking its fingers where the didn't belong. They couldn't say the Church was racist: there were white churches and black churches and hispanic churches. They can't say the church wasn't in places, they are everywhere. And churches often (then and now) help people whether they are members or not, Christian or not. Now the Church is nowhere near as strong as it once was, but I think it is plenty strong to provide the welfare needed.

So, I am withdrawing my previous comment that welfare should be cut to 5 or 10%. You've made excellent points, it should be dropped at the federal level to 0.00%. Let local charities provide what help is really needed. And if some wacko leftist cities want to give handouts to every leach in their town, they can have at it. But they will have to TAX their own residence to get this money with zero federal help. OK, State power, if some states want to do it, that's their choice. But voters can see if they really want to vote for these spenders, and people can move to get away from these leach taxes. In fact I think that will be even better, the leaches will all move to the liberal cities/states and crush them under their freeloading lifestyle.

Can anyone say "Illinois Bankruptcy"?

 

[DrHenley]

“The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”
- Margaret Thatcher

 

[TexasFreedom]

“The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”
- Margaret Thatcher

Nah!

Just ask Nancy Pelosi. She'll tell you the "Rich" (of course that doesn't include her!) just need to pay their fair share. 15%. 25%. 35%. 45%. But don't worry, if it gets to 100%, it's not over! She'll just crank it to 110%. Just like banks can pay negative interest rates, she'll find a justification to charge more in taxes than people actually take home!

And if that isn't enough? Make it 120%, and take death taxes to a full 100%. Then she'll take these evil rich people and make them take on debt to pay up. If the gov't can go into massive debt, why can't they force selfish evil rich people to do the same?

The real trouble with socialism is that it destroys the people that they allegedly are claiming to help!

Russia did this with the Bolsheviks. Hitler did this to the Jews & handicapped. Obama will effectively do this to his own black race (or half of his race, but he claims to be black so I'll go with that).

It is going to get ugly.

 

[Maverick]

In the republic we were allowed to rise and fall on our own accord, in the modern democracy we are penalized and demonized for the rise and rewarded for the fall. Unfortunately the majority truly believe we were founded as a democracy which isn't true! When we stopped being recognized as individuals we lost the Republic and our souls. Democracy is nothing short of socialism and perhaps we can call democracy socialism-light though today not much difference between the two! Democracy today means freedom by permission slip only, we are a social democracy, we aren't really even a participatory democracy we certainly ain't a Republic today.

 

[jeager]

Liberals, I call 'em Libbydumbs, are the worlds biggest fools.
The MOST brainwashed political party the U.S. has ever tolerated.
Ask any Democrat how the party of "give away everything" got started
and you will get that "deer in the headlights" stare.

So how was the demodumb party started.

By the K.K.K.

What demographic groups are almost 100% Democrat?

Blacks and Latino's.
Go figger????

How did that happen?
Liberals promised "vote Democrat and we will give you anything you want
except a job."
Liberals have always taxed those that work to pay for those that don't
in exchange for votes.

Why do Democrats seem to forget that the KKK was founded as the militant arm of the Democratic party after the Civil War?
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-Democr...m-of-the-Democratic-party-after-the-Civil-War

If I stepped on any Liberal toes here...............................

Get over it.

Truth is truth.

Just find solace that your tax dollars are going to a good cause.
Welfare, food stamp, medical care, housing, and paying for ethnic girls to
squirt out babies knowing they will get more benefits and not pay one
dime for the kids care.
The most confusing day in "da hood"?
Fathers day.

I NO LONGER PAY TAXES.

I don't have too any longer.
Disabled police officer here.
I paid into my pension, tax payers did not.
I get a very modest disability from the Ohio Police and Fire pension
board. My money, not yours.
I also get a modest bit of social security that I paid into.
$5,000 thousand a month tax free.
It ain't a lot but better than many.

 

[jeager]

And another pet peeve.

When I was a police officer I watched brand new homes being built
for the "disadvantaged" of our society.
FREE, new homes with an attached garage to park the Cadillac in.

FREE utilities.
Free food.
Free college if they would just attend. Most did not.
Much better homes than I could even think of owning.

grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

 

[jeager]

O.T.O.H. I too went to college basically for free.

The Ohio disability people sent me to school on them.
I got a degree in engineering. (after 9 months of rehab)
I got a job at General Motors as a supervisor.
They paid for my second degree.

Love it!

8 years ago G.M. FIRED 50% of us supervisors to save money.
That hurt.
So who replaced us? The union members.

 

[TexasFreedom]

8 years ago G.M. FIRED 50% of us supervisors to save money.
That hurt.
So who replaced us? The union members.

Any surprise? I refuse to do anything with Government Motors. I wasn't fond of them before and after the gov't takeover I'll NEVER own a GM if you paid me. In fact I make it a point to mention "gov't motors" whenever a friend drives me in one explaining why I say that, and I offer to drive my (pick one of 4 brands) vehicle. I say just wait, GM will go defunct again sooner than later. The union will destroy what they have been given, THEN the union members will cry when their pensions collapse. But of course it will be my fault for some reason.

And I agree, "giving" to the unwilling to work is waste. I truly think there is a massive LACK of real hunger across this country. A LACK of consequences of failure. Hunger creates motivation. Motivation creates success. I see these "Feed the Hungry" drives all the time, I'd be happy to give money to NOT give food to the lazy in this country.