Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In essence you need the government to act as a moderator between labor and business otherwise either you will get a business run oligarchy or communism depending on who wins when things become to unstable.
Where is this found in our Constitution? Where does it say that government is to be a "moderator" between business owners and individuals?
Rather, the Constitution was to protect Liberty and Freedom.
An individual can better protect himself from an unfair or unjust employer. He can leave and work elsewhere.
Employers that treat their employees badly soon find that the word goes out, and they have difficulty finding people willing to work for them.
It is not in the best interest of an employer to not treat their employees well. It does not lead to the success of a business.
Give them a fishing pole and let them catch their own fish.
The supporters of marxist Obama are waiting for the working fishermen to fish , filet, cook and serve that fish ... and do it daily for them... the liberals don't want to acknowledge that many have the ability to fish for themselves. They rather sit and watch those that fish supply all those who want it free without any work involved.
Liberals drove the San Diego tuna fleet out of the Eastern Pacific. There is virtually no tuna fleet left in San Diego today.
Last edited by nononsenseguy; 12-02-2013 at 07:34 AM..
Emerald City has shown the funadamental confusion of liberals regarding charity-
Charity is granted by the individual, is voluntary, and directed to an entity determined by that individual.
Confiscation of wealth by the government through taxation and redistribution is not charity, it is a means of consolidating power. Often this "redistribution" is to groups which are diametrically opposed to the views and beliefs of the "benefactor".
It is amazing, yet consistent and understood, that liberals really think taxation (for other people, of course) is analagous to charity. Of course, it is not. If liberals were so interested in charity, why do they consistently have lower rates of charitable contributions than conservatives? Why don't they pay more taxes voluntarily and thus be "charitable". Being a liberal must be very confusing, as its principles demand vacating common sense.
If someone is making minimum wage because that happens to be the only job they could get in a bad economy, regardless of how smart or industrious they are, that equals about $1,000 net per month. Say that person's rent is $600 per month and maybe that person has one kid (forget more than one). That leaves $400 per month for food, electric, medical, and clothes or any other necessities, and electric bills in the winter can run pretty high up north (if you do not have a car because you cannot afford one--you must pay for public transportation to get to your job). I don't think that income is strictly used for buying "nice" things-- for many it is just the necessities.
The original post in this thread dealt with redistribution. Redistribution in the form of social welfare programs. Programs paid for by the taxation of the working class. The poor I refer to in my post are those families that are getting some sort of aid from the government. Most programs are means tested. So I disagree with your analogy of how much that person has left over. They most likely get some sort of monetary payment, housing subsidy or food assistance. Work those numbers in your example and you will see the picture improves dramatically.
Most smart +/or industrious people don't have a problem finding a job in any economy.
Quote:
The poor people you have seen in other parts of the world may have a much lower cost of living or have a government which provides some basic necessities and transportation or have been raised with an entirely different culture (let's not forget--ignorance is bliss--maybe they do not see that others have 'things' or perhaps theirs is a very non-materialistic culture). How is a "living wage" demanding too much from corporations with billions in profits?
Trust me, the example I'm drawing from didn't include any government help. The populous would joke how the government screws them on a daily basis. It's all perspective. But they keep soldiering on, despite the hardships. Meantime the people are polite, greet complete strangers on the street, have big family gatherings on a regular basis. They live life to the fullest and I admire them for that.
Quote:
Agree, but also am aware that "it takes a village to instill these values." When people are born into a culture of poverty with other social norms associated with it, such as bigotry and racism, self-esteem easily becomes self-doubt and self-hatred and also hatred towards the society that excludes them. Unless people come to see themselves as part of the larger society at some point, they do not adopt their values. Also early education is a known force in helping people to achieve more in life. Private pre-schools require money. That is why many people fight to keep the Head Start program. Education is a powerful weapon in the war on poverty. I'm not saying that personal responsibility is not important, but sometimes it is difficult to achieve personal responsibility without role models, education and encouragement.
I don't buy any of this victim gibberish. We need more PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY and less victimization. I come from a large family. My parents struggled to feed us when I was growing up in the 60s. We never got any help from any public or private agency. Some nights dinner was pancakes. Now fast forward 40+ yrs. All 7 kids have achieved a level of living that surpasses that of our parents. Our role models were our parents. My dad worked hard and went to his job every day.
Stop making excuses for people's success and start holding them accountable. There are role models all around. But it's just edgier to follow the example of the examples of the rappers, gangsters and irresponsible, pampered athlete with their expensive tastes in cars and gaudy jewelry.
Head start is an abysmal failure.
Quote:
Head Start, the most sacrosanct federal education program, doesn’t work.
That’s the finding of a sophisticated study just released by President Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services.
Created in 1965, the comprehensive preschool program for 3- and 4-year olds and their parents is meant to narrow the education gap between low-income students and their middle- and upper-income peers. Forty-five years and $166 billion later, it has been proven a failure.
It found that, by the end of the first grade, children who attended Head Start are essentially indistinguishable from a control group of students who didn’t.
How? please explain a realistic and Constitutional mechanism you would implement to achieve this. The fact is even if you had an absolutely minimalist government no military, no social services, say you cut government back to just having judges and police for the purposes of enforcing contracts you would still have that fundamental conflict over who became the judges and what the judges could and couldn't do to enforce contracts.
The bolded is mere regulation. If there was a minimalist government regulations would be as well.
To be specific, how do judges and police 'enforce' contracts and what are said 'contracts' to do with?
Police are employees of jurisdictions within local, town, city and state and such is enumerated in the 10A. If the government was minimalist there would be no federal police and we have no real need for such. PGC has inept police and sheriff departments as is. Keystone would be an upgrade.
In essence yes, there is a lot of evidence for this position. Especially the way welfare is structured now. My criticism is not of arguing welfare has negative implications on the family as a unit, but on the comparison of welfare to slavery. Welfare is nothing like slavery not the least because there is no choice in slavery and as I have said slavery is a brutal dehumanizing process from which there is very little chance for escape even if escape is desired and sought after with the greatest possible motivation.
Sowell did not make any comparison of welfare to slavery, other than to say that it is more destructive to the family than slavery was.
Are you having difficulty comprehending the written word, or are you just attempting to obfuscate?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
