Like Tree4Likes

Presidents: leaders or beggars?

This is a discussion on Presidents: leaders or beggars? within the General Discussions forums, part of the Community Boards category; What I am saying is that it is not white and black, and we cannot assume because someone is unemployed ...

  1. #16
    Master Apprentice phantomotap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,359
    What I am saying is that it is not white and black, and we cannot assume because someone is unemployed or uneducated that they are "lazy drunks".
    I agree; unfortunately for whatever point you have been trying to make, I never said anything of the sort.

    What I did say is that the United States has a large population of people who are lazy, uneducated, and arrogant. There is even a lot of individuals who are all three.

    There are jobs out there that require a strong back and stronger will, but a lot of the populace are too lazy for that kind of "back breaking" work.

    There are jobs out there that require an advanced education, but a lot of the populace just doesn't have sufficient skill to manage that job.

    There are jobs out there that require rummaging around in the muck or reveling in the danger, but a lot of the populace are to arrogant too want that job.

    You can't pretend that it isn't the case, or rather, if you do pretend that such isn't the case for a lot of the population, you are guaranteed to perpetuate the problem.

    It isn't just a stereotype perpetuated by other countries to make us look bad. It is a real problem. This is a problem that we need to fix.

    Your example doesn't apply to this problem, nor does it apply to anything I've said. Both girls have problems, both have support, and both are likely to fail. Neither of them, according to your example, dropped out of school, are too lazy to rely solely on the public for support, or unwilling to work for it. Sure, one of them is better off than the other, but you example is lacking a sufficient case of scum. I'm talking about the individuals that are far worse than these two girls. I'm talking about "GirlC" who didn't want to graduate because "she isn't worried about that sort of thing", doesn't apply for jobs because "the government takes care of her", and is unwilling to work because she is "entitled to support".

    There is a great difference between the lazy, arrogant, and uneducated individuals who are a plague upon society and simply those whom are down on their luck.

    Soma

  2. #17
    Super Moderator VirtualAce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    9,597
    The problem with the citizens of the United States is that secretly they all pretty much want "big government",
    I assure you I do not want big government or the government involved in any of my daily affairs. However this is unavoidable since in The United States...keyword States...the states should govern the day to day lives of its citizens. Federal government is for international affairs and those powers not specifically granted to the states. Most in our current day have this backwards and have given the federal government powers that were expressly granted to the states. States are beginning to fight back but it is a lost cause b/c once power is given to the federal side it almost never is given back. The federal government in America is far too large and far too involved in day to day affairs of the citizens of the U.S. to be efficient at what it is they are supposed to be doing via the Constitution.

    Another problem is that all the world sees of the United States is what our horrid mass media sends their way or the what the absolute idiots that populate Hollywood spew out of their mouth. In truth everyday America is actually quite simplistic and although most if not all love their country they cannot stand their federal government for the same reasons the rest of the world cannot stand it. State government is something altogether different though and very rarely, if ever, do you hear of any American complain about government at the state level. When we mention 'big government' in America we are talking about the federal government. I think it is high time the States tell the Feds to shove off and get out of the affairs of its citizens and then maybe the Feds can get back to what it is they are supposed to be doing.

    I fortunately had the chance to attend college, but some of the best/brightest people I have worked with had no formal education.
    I, too, fall into this category. I have not found a direct correlation between education and the intelligence of a person. Intelligence is not based on your formal education b/c we have all met some pretty ignorant college graduates. We have all also met some pretty ignorant people who never attended college. College, in and of itself, does not make one intelligent or smart nor does it guarantee one's earning potential increases as some would have you believe. There are plenty of degrees available that cannot come close to the earning potential of jobs that do not require a degree such as construction, maintenance, manufacturing, etc. I certainly condone attending college but I do not judge another person nor their earning potential or possible benefit to society simply on college alone. If you had the chance to attend college that is great but do not think yourselves above another simply because you did. As well all people who did not attend college are not drunken lazy people who depend on the government. There are plenty of recent examples of highly educated workers being lazy and wanting the government to coddle them as much as the next person. A lack of college does not mean you are going to end up in a trailer court in Arkansas, beat your wife and kids, drink all day and all night, and contribute nothing to society...not that all people who live in trailers in Arkansas fit into this mold either b/c they don't but you get the idea.
    Last edited by VirtualAce; 05-28-2011 at 02:32 PM.

  3. #18
    Master Apprentice phantomotap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,359
    I assure you I do not want big government or the government involved in any of my daily affairs.
    I don't want a big government either. I want a "medium government".

    But most people do, probably without realizing it.

    As the examples from earlier, increasing social security, subsidizing healthcare, and a large standing military are all aspects of big government.

    Soma

  4. #19
    Super Moderator VirtualAce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    9,597
    As the examples from earlier, increasing social security, subsidizing healthcare, and a large standing military are all aspects of big government.
    A large military is exactly what the federal government is for. One of its main duties is the protection of the United States and her assets domestic and foreign. Of course assets here meaning non-State assets. A large military is not big government nor is it referred to as this.

    Healthcare is an example of a large federal government b/c healthcare is NOT one of the federal government's responsibilities. Hopefully the Supreme Court will agree with this and throw away the plan that is going to bankrupt America.

    Social security is definitely a big government issue and it is one we have allowed for so long that it is no longer considered as such but in truth it is. It is the States who are supposed to be concerned about the welfare of its citizens. The federal government is supposed to maintain the welfare of its citizens by allowing the States to maintain the welfare of them. What we have seen is the Feds gaining power and far too much of it to be healthy. If you remember from history the main reason people were afraid of the new government was a fear of an extremely powerful federal government. The only reason the Unites States exists today is because the role of the federal government was diminished and most of the power stayed with the states - hence the name of the country - The United States of America.

  5. #20
    Master Apprentice phantomotap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,359
    Well, I wrote a much larger post, but it was consumed. I'll just settle for saying this and only this.

    A large military is not big government nor is it referred to as this.
    When the military is centralized without balances at the local level, when it is a reason for largely unchecked taxation, and when it results in authoritative conflict it is big government by definition. (That is what the United States has.)

    Seriously, those phrases are literally used in the definition of big government in text books and dictionaries.

    If you are willing to accept this as is instead of demanding some measure of the many fiscally sound alternatives for a locally sourced federal military presence capable of protecting our people claiming even so much that it isn't big government then all of the people who claim that social securities and subsidized healthcare are not big government is right for exactly the same reason. You've only closed your eyes to the alternatives and potential of a smaller government.

    Soma

  6. #21
    Registered User xentaka's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    60

    What I..

    I guess the point I am trying to make is that people blame the social programs instituted in the US for all of our problems. They always use the small percentage of lazy non-motivated leaches on social programs to prove that they are not worth having, but they do not mention the people who work their .......... off and rely on those programs to make ends meet.

    This country does not promote an aristocracy which is exactly what we would have if we didn't institute various social programs that allow the poor to attend college and have the basics to survive. The capitalistic aristocracy is of course the will of the wealthy, and those who wish to hold on to power while keeping the poor/working class in their place as virtual slaves.
    "The people don't want war, but they can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and for exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country." - Hermann Goering.

  7. #22
    Master Apprentice phantomotap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,359
    I guess the point I am trying to make is that people blame the social programs instituted in the US for all of our problems.
    I'm not doing that.

    They always use the small percentage of lazy non-motivated leaches on social programs to prove that they are not worth having
    It is a small percentage of the populace, but not actually a small percentage of the people in those programs.

    In any event, you've greatly misunderstood everything I said.

    I was blaming those "lazy non-motivated leaches" for the problems with those "social programs".

    So... pretty much the opposite of what you thought.

    Soma

  8. #23
    Registered User xentaka's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    60
    Point taken.

    I still think that instead of targeting these people we should aim a bit higher.

    * We should review our tax strategy on the wealthiest Americans. I can already hear the gnashing of teeth as they try to explain trickle down craponomics and how it is the savior of the free world, but I think we all know how that fairy tale ends.

    * Bring our wars to an end, and stop propagating fear to control our citizenry.

    * Admit that the free market was not the economic utopia that it was promised to be, and have open discussion with the people about alternatives.
    "The people don't want war, but they can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and for exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country." - Hermann Goering.

  9. #24
    Registered User C_ntua's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,853
    Quote Originally Posted by whiteflags View Post
    Trouble with that is I don't think anyone in America wants to dissolve any of the public companies:
    - PBS
    - busses
    - the postal service

    Greece is not America. If you want to trim America's budget there is a multi-billion dollar line item that eclipses every other around the world in spending. Laws or the lack thereof may help positively, but I'm not seriously considering Constitutional amendments necessary.
    The military is kind of an exception. Private postal office, yes. Private army, I wouldn't agree.

    But, you are right that the US spends a lot in their army. To prove your point, though, you need also to compare the result. Are they paying too much because soldiers and higher ranks are paid too much? Equipment are too expensive? Do they pay too much because of the recent wars they had to maintain, thus this is temporary? Just questions, I don't have the answers, but the picture is not very clear.
    In Greece there is a big spending on army as well and there was always the same debate. The soldiers don't have the benefits they have here nor they have the expensive equipment. The army there is just for defense, so the cost is much less. When you have to send army on the other side of the world then you can imagine the budget skyrocketing. So cutting budget significantly would also mean a complete change on the US military operations.
    So again the question should be "does the US spend too much for what they achieve?" rather just comparing the final budget.

    I would certainly agree totally with you on the last point, that a lot of money was spent for recent wars. That is why I prefer if people were asked "do you want to pay more taxes and make the war or not" rather than resulting in borrowing money from China. It is just a matter of doing things right. Otherwise you give the misconception to the people that "we are making a war and nothing really changes in your life".

    There is no need to add an amendment on the Constitution just add some laws or even just guidelines on how you want the government to operate financially. I am generally in favor of the government holding resources, but the private sector actually making profit with them, paying to use them of course. This I find that works the best. It ensures stability, it defines better the role of the government in business, it ensures that resources are not abused by greedy people and you get away with public employees.

  10. #25
    Registered User xentaka's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    60

    Welcome to Corporate America

    Corporate Fascism

    I could go on and on, but this sums it up nicely.
    "The people don't want war, but they can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and for exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country." - Hermann Goering.

  11. #26
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,532
    Quote Originally Posted by xentaka View Post
    Corporate Fascism

    I could go on and on, but this sums it up nicely.
    Yes, I could also go on and on about your views. But the links you have given summarize it up nicely too. I have one interesting question for you though:

    Since you don't like that a few lazy people answer for everyone when evaluating health care and social benefits, why are you so quick evaluating an entire economical system that has given you your country, your internet and your lifestyle, based on the greed of a few non-representative number of individuals?
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  12. #27
    Registered User xentaka's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    60

    What?

    You act as though the US was built upon the ideas of the free market, but we can really thank Mr. Ronald Reagan and to a much greater extent Mr. Milton Friedman.

    Calling free market capitalism into question is not a crime against the US, but it is our duty to do such.

    Someone did call the idea of laissez-faire economic policy into question and was summarily muzzled and shut down. Brooksley Born warned them about the OTC Derivatives market, but her keynsian thinking had no place in a free market.

    Not like the current crash was the only warning. They knew the risks and proceeded anyway.

    I would also contest the idea that it was the greed of a few individuals. Our economic system was brought to its knees, and even now is on course to crash again since we have done nothing to bring the situation under control.

    EDIT: Elizabeth Warren ... not going to say anything but look her up and read what this rather talented woman has to say.
    Last edited by xentaka; 05-28-2011 at 11:35 PM. Reason: Elizabeth Warren
    "The people don't want war, but they can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and for exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country." - Hermann Goering.

  13. #28
    Super Moderator VirtualAce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    9,597
    So xentaka I'm interested to know how you would personally fix the issue at hand. You appear to have all the answers.

  14. #29
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,532
    Tax the rich, end all wars and stop with the free market. Those were the three things I heard him saying...

    It almost brought a tear to my eyes and made me feel like singing Kumbaya around a fireplace, wearing green sleeves while under a shower of flowers being throw by people called Francisco.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  15. #30
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    682
    Quote Originally Posted by xentaka View Post
    Forget it. I wrote a rather long reply, but the fact is people would rather denigrate someones integrity rather than try to discuss it reasonably.

    I disagreed with what phantomotap said, and then posted why I disagreed with it. Turns out I misunderstood what he was saying.

    I cannot discuss what you disagree on if you don't post WHY you disagree with it.
    I do not live in the US nor I know much about its economy, but since the topic became more generalised I will say a word too.

    Reading your posts I hear from you something pretty much similar to what Mario F. has said.
    To be honest, it sounds to me like a piece of socialistic you know what.

    Let me get back to your previous example of two girls, A being richer and B being poorer. From my point of view these are two separate individuals. There are no relationships between them. They live on their own, work on their own, and do not know each other.

    You can state that B worked much harder that A and still does not have as much as A has from her parents. This can be true indeed, but you are a bit injust, since you miss one important part, the origin of the money:

    If person A is rich, he must have some source of income, which allowed him to get this amount of money. What if he does not have such an income? Then probably, he got it from his parens. Wait, what if his parents do not have such an income too? Then we can get yet deeper to his grandparents, great-grandparents and so forth. Money has not appeared from nowhere. Someone worked HARD to accomplish this. Whether this was the girl or not, someone is the owner of the whole money and it is HIS decision who he will give HIS property. So, it does not matter whether the girl A earned this money on her own or not. Someone has done it before and noone has right to take any part of it (oh god, the inheritance taxes!).

    So, since we have the owner of the money, why are we talking about justice at all? The owner can be just or not and this is his choice and his moral decision. He could have given it as well to a welfare organization, noone has any right to make decisions for him.

    Another important fact is that such public services will be more expensive. In your model of education, this poor GirlB also pays for school, but probably much less that the GirlA. The problem is more visible when we look at them as a whole. The money has to travel from both girls A and B to the budget and then, from the budget, back to the schools. Everyone can notice that there is a loss, since these operations also cost.

    It is not that I see it black and white. I know that this is a problem, but why should we enhance somebody's life on someone's else expense?

    EDIT:
    I'm sorry, I started writing this before xentaka removed his post.
    Last edited by kmdv; 05-30-2011 at 04:12 AM.
    I never put signature, but I decided to make an exception.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. How to remove text/format leaders VS 2005
    By csonx_p in forum Tech Board
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-16-2008, 05:21 AM
  2. Smart World Leaders
    By golfinguy4 in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 04-12-2002, 02:49 PM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21