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.
since ronald reagan came into office we have seen trickle down economics going to generate all kinds of wealth for the country...its been nearly forty years and 3 or four tax-cuts later...whats taking so long????
the fact is wealth disparity has grown every more...the solution is to find out how much we can re install the taxes for the rich and give out money to the needy
The problem is we have had 50 plus years of social programs that have done little to improve poor communities but that have killed incentive to better oneself since if you have a few kids you are taken care of by the government essentially for life.
Would it not make more sense to empower the needy as you call them to better themselves through education and or small business help, to start businesses? The goal has to be to improve the lives of those in lower incomes just handing them money has always failed. We don't need to punish success.
The problem is we have had 50 plus years of social programs that have done little to improve poor communities but that have killed incentive to better oneself since if you have a few kids you are taken care of by the government essentially for life.
Would it not make more sense to empower the needy as you call them to better themselves through education and or small business help, to start businesses? The goal has to be to improve the lives of those in lower incomes just handing them money has always failed. We don't need to punish success.
i would agree that the "social programs" need to be re-evaluated as well...and its to simple to say just do this or that...
at present we seem to have a limited program that for lack of a better way to say it rewards people for having more and more children...there has to be a limit...(my mother was a nurse back in the 40s in California and she says it was common practice for doctors to tie the tubes of the mothers..just left unspoken)..i am just uncertain how too make sure children do not get hurt....
when humans start passing laws with good intentions it is all to common for unintended consequences
i would agree that the "social programs" need to be re-evaluated as well...and its to simple to say just do this or that...
at present we seem to have a limited program that for lack of a better way to say it rewards people for having more and more children...there has to be a limit...(my mother was a nurse back in the 40s in California and she says it was common practice for doctors to tie the tubes of the mothers..just left unspoken)..i am just uncertain how too make sure children do not get hurt....
when humans start passing laws with good intentions it is all to common for unintended consequences
Teenagers and young adults coming out of lower income families can either go to school and get a trade or education or get public assistance. And if you young without marketable job skills and have a kid or two its a no brainer to go on public assistance. Keep having more kids and you can string it out for 30 years or more.
Only way I would offer public assistance is if someone with a kid is going to school full time or working full time. And I would give them free child care. Maximum 6 years until the point the kid can be in first grade. And they need to identify the father who has to pay child support or no benefits. The father of the child needs to be living with the mother and providing for his kid or if living elsewhere paying child support. And that support pays for food and necessities. No food stamps or section 8. And its a one time thing, have more kids and they are your responsibility. The father of the child needs to take care of his kids.
Some tough love will change the culture in the lower income areas.
"Socialism" and "communism" are the rallying cry of poor people all over the world. It's not just limited to the United States.
Everybody knows that, right?
I don't know if you were being sarcastic, but in Latin America for instance left movements are often associated with the urgent need for a land reform as peasants work like slaves while all the profits go to a tiny elite that has owned the land since colonial times.
Communism has always opposed personal freedoms and liberties for the "benefit" of the state. That is a basic principle of communism. So how does surrendering personal liberties and freedoms grant one more freedom and liberty?
Keep in mind that socialism and communism are artificial constructs of man- theories that were created in the minds of men in which people were required to reform to live in that construct. Like most man made plans, it was (and is) very flawed, as the construct imposes limits and requirements to citizens which did not evolve "naturally" in human existence. It is attempting to fit a square peg in a round hole.
Capitalism was not planned or created. Capitalism was a slow evolution of natural instincts and actions of humans to interact with each other for their mutual benefit. Capitalism existed before there was the word "capitalism" or recognition of its existence as a form of economics. Given its slow evolution and the fact that it was processed through the will of the people, it is not surprising that such as system appeals to most people- we (the collective) created capitalism, not a single philosopher.
Consider these facts when pondering the two systems. It is not a shock either that communism opposes human nature in establishing patterns of behavior alien to us as a civilization, while capitalism IS human nature. To destroy capitalism would require someone to destroy the evolutionary behaviors and traits that we have accumulated through the existence of man.
The natural way was direct bartering. The invention of money ruined everything and lead to our absurd inequality.
Money was created to simplify trade. Instead of hauling a few pigs to market to buy vegetables, you brought coins.
Money, in of itself, Is a convenient mechanism to facilitate trade. Controlling the flow of money (the instrument of trade) and interjecting middlemen (banks, taxation) is what has corrupted a very fine idea.
Keep in mind that the Federal Reserve was the invention of (and currently owned by) private bankers who instituted the concept of central banking to "cash in" on every dollar printed and gain access to profiting off the labor and incomes of every citizen. It was genius- evil genius, but clever.
As long as we have a federal reserve system, bankers will make money off of every dollar created and the budget can never be balanced, lest we care to precipitate a Depression.
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.
