Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 53
  1. #21
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,173
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Good for Me, but bad for the country.

    Quote Originally Posted by SNACK
    How would you feel if a neighbor that you knew decided to this? By the mere fact you are asking the question, you must believe that there may be some dishonesty in the process.
    I have many neighbors that do this. In a few months I will be renting a house out to people who are doing this. How do I feel about it?.. Well I don't like it so much. But I don't like carrots either, and I eat them.

    On dishonesty. I know how I feel, but this is party to question the justification of it. Should I feel like I am stealing something when I am only taking what someone is trying to give me? I don't have a gun to anyone's head.

    Quote Originally Posted by SNACK
    Personally, I think it is fraudulent and morally bankrupt. You are essentially stealing from those that cannot otherwise provide for themselves. I have a rare skin condition which would technically allow me to collect SSI. However, I choose not to collect because it would deprive someone who really needed the resource.
    Should I then just allow everything I work for to slowly disappear, until I am forced on these programs?

    This whole "plan" is half predicated on a sort of "last resort". But it isn't limited to it of course.

    As for Fraudulent.. Exactly WHAT part of it is fraud?
    I wouldn't be married. That would be a fact.
    The gov supports those who are not married and have kids.
    It would be a fact that my wife would be in that position.

    I would never lie in the process, and only take what is being made available.

    As for limited resources. It would be the fault of the Gov for giving money to my wife, instead of the blind/crippled/burn victim.
    I am not responsible for their poor choices in dispersing the funds they have.

    Quote Originally Posted by SNACK
    The end result would be the elimination of welfare.
    If I don't like welfare, would this be a legit way of seeking it's end?


    Quote Originally Posted by SNACK
    Why would you feel the need to get back at the government? Do you not bear some responsibility in choosing your profession and understand the consequences?
    I live in South Louisiana. One of the "perks" of living here is that there is an underlying feeling of security here. Everyone knows that if they really got into trouble, or needed to make
    real good money, you could always go work off shore. That security is being shaken by things outside of my control.. and specifically and purposely effected by the Gov.

    On prison.. What LAW would I have broken? Why would I deserve prison but not the thousands(millions?) of people who simply never got married?
    As that appears to be my only crime (getting a divorce).

    Quote Originally Posted by SNACK
    As a Christian, you are to help others, not hurt them.
    You are correct. We are supposed to help others.
    But what is wrong with accepting what is offered? Did I make the Gov have these programs? NO, in fact I would vote against them
    However it is expressly the will of the people to support this life style. I am not stealing, and therefore any "harm" is self inflicted.
    I am not actively seeking anyone's harm.

    Question, would you consider it wrong if someone offered you their "new" car for $1?
    Surely they would be financially "harmed" by it right? Yet I can't imagine it being "Immoral". This is the same thing IMO.


    -----@manic
    Quote Originally Posted by MANIC
    Well is it really possible? I don't know the America system. I would be surprised. You mean if you shacked up but told them that you were living apart? That might be possible but highly risky. Too risky.

    Single parents might get some benefits, and so they should.

    Obviously you are gonna get a few scroungers on the dole, but its a drop in the ocean. We just talked about the corporate scroungers who got $ trillions off the government.
    I think it is. I wouldn't have to tell them where I am living. If they asked the wife who was staying there, she would answer "the kids, and sometimes my Boy friend (which would also not be a lie)".

    So, though I would do it, I wouldn't constitute a risk to the system
    You should probably have a debate with snackboy on that point, he has forwarded that I would be actively taking from those who "really" needed it.

    When you say single parents should receive benefits, you are telling me that I SHOULD do this. Because my wife would be a single parent, and it is advantageous for us to be single parents over a "family".
    To serve man.

  2. #22
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    741
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Good for Me, but bad for the country.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Taking from those who have, and giving to those who do not. That is socialism/communism.
    In all fairness, redistribution of wealth is not only evident in socialism. In fact for many decades (especially since the New Deal initiative by FDR), the United States and other capitalist states have had a significant redistribution of wealth policy in their tax policies. When the government taxes higher income people, the money goes towards things like unemployment, social security, medicare/medicaid, education, etc. So the people receiving the social benefits have ultimately received them mostly from groups of higher income earning people, but they are a benefit to anyone in need of them and that can apply for them.
    "Those who would give up ESSENTIAL LIBERTY to purchase a little TEMPORARY SAFETY deserve neither LIBERTY nor SAFETY."--Pennsylvania Assembly

  3. #23
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,217
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Good for Me, but bad for the country.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I have many neighbors that do this. In a few months I will be renting a house out to people who are doing this. How do I feel about it?.. Well I don't like it so much. But I don't like carrots either, and I eat them.

    On dishonesty. I know how I feel, but this is party to question the justification of it. Should I feel like I am stealing something when I am only taking what someone is trying to give me? I don't have a gun to anyone's head.


    Should I then just allow everything I work for to slowly disappear, until I am forced on these programs?

    This whole "plan" is half predicated on a sort of "last resort". But it isn't limited to it of course.

    As for Fraudulent.. Exactly WHAT part of it is fraud?
    I wouldn't be married. That would be a fact.
    The gov supports those who are not married and have kids.
    It would be a fact that my wife would be in that position.

    I would never lie in the process, and only take what is being made available.

    As for limited resources. It would be the fault of the Gov for giving money to my wife, instead of the blind/crippled/burn victim.
    I am not responsible for their poor choices in dispersing the funds they have.


    If I don't like welfare, would this be a legit way of seeking it's end?



    I live in South Louisiana. One of the "perks" of living here is that there is an underlying feeling of security here. Everyone knows that if they really got into trouble, or needed to make
    real good money, you could always go work off shore. That security is being shaken by things outside of my control.. and specifically and purposely effected by the Gov.

    On prison.. What LAW would I have broken? Why would I deserve prison but not the thousands(millions?) of people who simply never got married?
    As that appears to be my only crime (getting a divorce).


    You are correct. We are supposed to help others.
    But what is wrong with accepting what is offered? Did I make the Gov have these programs? NO, in fact I would vote against them
    However it is expressly the will of the people to support this life style. I am not stealing, and therefore any "harm" is self inflicted.
    I am not actively seeking anyone's harm.

    Question, would you consider it wrong if someone offered you their "new" car for $1?
    Surely they would be financially "harmed" by it right? Yet I can't imagine it being "Immoral". This is the same thing IMO.
    In looking at the documentation for welfare in Louisiana, it would appear that benefits are reliant on the household income. While I can't find it specifically, it the documentation seems to indicate that if the household income changes you must notify the department. http://www.dss.state.la.us/assets/do...on_rev0510.pdf

    And in looking at the application, it asks for household numbers. Failing to report those numbers correctly would constitute fraud.

    http://www.dss.state.la.us/assets/do...on_rev0210.pdf
    Only what can happen does happen. ~Watchmen
    When the Standard is defined you will know how right or wrong you are.
    electricShares - a work in progress

  4. #24
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,173
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Good for Me, but bad for the country.

    Quote Originally Posted by KING
    In all fairness, redistribution of wealth is not only evident in socialism. In fact for many decades (especially since the New Deal initiative by FDR), the United States and other capitalist states have had a significant redistribution of wealth policy in their tax policies. When the government taxes higher income people, the money goes towards things like unemployment, social security, medicare/medicaid, education, etc. So the people receiving the social benefits have ultimately received them mostly from groups of higher income earning people, but they are a benefit to anyone in need of them and that can apply for them.
    That would only make America more socialist. America is not the definition of capitalism or democracy. I mean, if America suddenly accepted a dictator, that wouldn't it democracy.

    The spectrum goes from
    Left Right
    Tyranny << ---- >> Anarchy

    Redistribution of wealth = a move towards tyranny.
    Socialism is farther to the left of that spectrum. That is why I say we are moving farther towards socialism.
    Yes America contains aspects of both tyranny and anarchy. The question is which direction to policies move us towards. Unless you would contend that Socialism is on the side of Anarchy


    --@ snack
    Quote Originally Posted by SNACK
    In looking at the documentation for welfare in Louisiana, it would appear that benefits are reliant on the household income. While I can't find it specifically, it the documentation seems to indicate that if the household income changes you must notify the department. http://www.dss.state.la.us/assets/do...on_rev0510.pdf

    And in looking at the application, it asks for household numbers. Failing to report those numbers correctly would constitute fraud.

    http://www.dss.state.la.us/assets/do...on_rev0210.pdf
    Good point, so I will have to "reside" with my parents, and just sleep over with the GF.
    Or Do whatever it takes to be classified as "residing" somewhere other than with the GF.
    To serve man.

  5. #25
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,217
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Good for Me, but bad for the country.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Good point, so I will have to "reside" with my parents, and just sleep over with the GF.
    Or Do whatever it takes to be classified as "residing" somewhere other than with the GF.
    At that point you would be lying...it is still fraud. While I can't find any legal references, I am sure that if the state / case worker determined you were indeed living with your girlfriend you would lose your benefits and likely be prosecuted and face jail time, and probably have to pay back the benefits.
    Only what can happen does happen. ~Watchmen
    When the Standard is defined you will know how right or wrong you are.
    electricShares - a work in progress

  6. #26
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    741
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Good for Me, but bad for the country.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That would only make America more socialist.
    Making America "more socialist" means it's already at socialism and it's moving farther left and you've yet to adequately support this case.

    A proper classification of "a socialist state" (or a near-socialist state) requires an adequate reading on the tenets of socialist thought and an anaylsis would properly conclude that the United State's is far from being a socialist state. Collectivization of property, nationalization of industries, dictatorship of the proletariat, and worker's democracy are all fundamental aspects necessary in a socialist state but all of which the United States lacks on any significant scale.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    America is not the definition of capitalism or democracy. I mean, if America suddenly accepted a dictator, that wouldn't it democracy.
    What's your definition of capitalism and democracy then? The United States has a free-market system, where individuals are able to buy, sell and barter on their own terms without the state necessarily intervening. The means of production are privately owned, and are operated as a means of making profit. A state is not required to adopt laissez-faire (pure) capitalist policies in order to be classified as a capitalist economy.

    The United States is also ruled by individuals that were elected by the people and are (expected) to account to those people. The United States has free and fair elections. It has institutions (courts, education, etc.) that can be freely accessed by the public. All these are part of a democratic country and all of these exist in the United States. Many argue that the United State's is a republic and not a democracy, but a republic can be categorized as a sub-set of democracy. When the United State's founding fathers argued against democracy, they were usually referring to a direct democracy, and when they favoured a republic, they were usually discussing a form of government that is not ruled by a monarch.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The spectrum goes from
    Left Right
    Tyranny << ---- >> Anarchy
    It's important to distinguish between the two spectrums. The first scale deals with economics. The far left being communism and the far right being neo-liberalism. The second scale deals with social issues; the top classification being Totalitarianism, and the lowest point being Anarchy.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Redistribution of wealth = a move towards tyranny.
    I beg to differ. Redistribution of wealth is associated with economic policy, and as such, it cannot be classified according to the Anarchy-Authoritarianism (up-down) scale. It must be classified according to the Left-Right (economic) scale.

    Even if it was such, all you've done is simply stated it without providing an explanation.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Socialism is farther to the left of that spectrum. That is why I say we are moving farther towards socialism.
    What moves have progressed the United State's towards socialism and what other economic policies must be initiated to categorically deem the United States a "socialist state"?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Yes America contains aspects of both tyranny and anarchy. The question is which direction to policies move us towards.
    Anarchy-Tyranny deal with social issues (abortion, education, health care etc.). So according to the social scale, are you contending that the United States is closer to tyranny, closer to anarchy, in the middle or in between the middle and either tyranny or anarchy? Could you also explain why?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Unless you would contend that Socialism is on the side of Anarchy
    Well no, socialism is not on the side of Anarchy. But it's funny you should mention, because when a state transitions farther towards socialism, you eventually get to (pure) communism which is ideally, a society that is anarchic--it is absent of any state or any classes. Just some food for thought.
    "Those who would give up ESSENTIAL LIBERTY to purchase a little TEMPORARY SAFETY deserve neither LIBERTY nor SAFETY."--Pennsylvania Assembly

  7. #27
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,394
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Good for Me, but bad for the country.

    As I closed in my previous post, I'm hoping I'm wrong. The arguments that I am wrong about my understanding of the changes appear to be pretty convincing. I will concede the argument for now and read up more on the upcoming changes.

    And for the record Boog, I don't listen to Glen Beck nor do I know much about the Tea Party's position on issues. It was Forbes magazine that I based part of the argument on. http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/26/hea...-matthews.html

    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  8. #28
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,042
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Good for Me, but bad for the country.

    Quote Originally Posted by KingOfTheEast View Post
    In all fairness, redistribution of wealth is not only evident in socialism. In fact for many decades (especially since the New Deal initiative by FDR), the United States and other capitalist states have had a significant redistribution of wealth policy in their tax policies. When the government taxes higher income people, the money goes towards things like unemployment, social security, medicare/medicaid, education, etc.
    Redistribution of wealth has gone out the window, as wealth inequality has been rising since the 1950s.

    ---------- Post added at 09:58 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:53 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That would only make America more socialist. America is not the definition of capitalism or democracy. I mean, if America suddenly accepted a dictator, that wouldn't it democracy.

    The spectrum goes from
    Left Right
    Tyranny << ---- >> Anarchy

    Redistribution of wealth = a move towards tyranny.
    Socialism is farther to the left of that spectrum. That is why I say we are moving farther towards socialism.
    Yes America contains aspects of both tyranny and anarchy. The question is which direction to policies move us towards. Unless you would contend that Socialism is on the side of Anarchy

    tyranny and anarchy are separate from left / right. Socialism by definition is democratic. Have a look at the political compass thread.

    You can have right wing tyranny - fascism

    'left wing' tyranny (not accurate but it will do for now ) = Stalinism.

    Capitalism always needs elements of state control, partly to make sure unemployed workers dont starve and start a revolution, and partly to bail out the big capitalists when they get stuck.

    ---------- Post added at 10:06 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:58 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by KingOfTheEast View Post

    A proper classification of "a socialist state" ...etc
    Good post, sounds about right what you were saying.

    Anarchists and socialists want the same thing, Mind Trap - communism. Not to be confused with the anarchy of a capitalist system. Anarchists want to go straight to it, whereas communists believe you need to defend the revolution with a workers state, which then withers away. Of course in Russia it got derailed after a few years.

    ---------- Post added at 10:11 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:06 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    I will concede the argument for now and read up more on the upcoming changes.
    Yeah, and dont just read the Washington Post or the New York Times.

    Have a read of a socialist perspective

    http://www.socialistalternative.org/

    recent articles -



    What is Socialism?
    By Philip Locker Sep 3, 2010

    While voices on the right decried Bush and Obama’s massive bailout of Wall Street as “socialist,” real socialists were actively campaigning against it, explaining that it amounted to a giant handout to those who had created the crisis.

    Capitalism in Crisis
    By Philip Locker Sep 3, 2010

    Capitalism isn’t working. This is the conclusion being drawn by increasing numbers of workers and young people as every week a new crisis dominates the headlines. These calamities include the deepest economic crisis since the Great Depression, which has left millions unemployed; millions in foreclosures; the BP oil spill and the growing threat of global warming; an escalating disaster in Afghanistan; vicious Islamophobia and racist scapegoating of immigrants.

    Should You Vote for the Democrats?
    By Tony Wilsdon Sep 3, 2010

    As the 2010 elections approach, millions of working people and young people who are looking to fight against the right-wing corporate agenda will be confronted with the question: Should I give my vote to the Democrats?

    Obama's Iraq "Withdrawl" Plans
    By Patrick Ayers Sep 3, 2010

    The recent, celebrated ending of “combat operations” in Iraq is telling for what kind of “withdrawal” policy could be in store for Afghanistan.

  9. #29
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    741
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Good for Me, but bad for the country.

    Quote Originally Posted by manc View Post
    Redistribution of wealth has gone out the window, as wealth inequality has been rising since the 1950s.
    That's because the highest income earners have continued to increase their net income at a much higher rate, whereas the lower income individual's net income has gradually increased but at a much slower rate. However, the economy depends upon those high income earners to invest their capital by increasing the size of their companies, thus opening up more employment opportunities. If your statement suggests that we should tax the heck out of the highest income earners and businesses, then that can have negative effects on the economy, because those same businesses will be much more hesitant to invest and therefore, there will be higher unemployment as a result. There also won't as much surplus capital to go along. So while I believe higher income earners should be taxed in a higher tax bracket than the rest, I don't think the state should tax them at a disproportionate rate simply because they've made more wealth than the rest of the income earners.

    Quote Originally Posted by manc View Post
    Good post, sounds about right what you were saying.

    Anarchists and socialists want the same thing, Mind Trap - communism. Not to be confused with the anarchy of a capitalist system. Anarchists want to go straight to it, whereas communists believe you need to defend the revolution with a workers state, which then withers away. Of course in Russia it got derailed after a few years.
    That's the interesting part about it. You can have capitalism-anarchy (in the sense of no state intervention at all); you can have capitalist-authoritarianism (fascism); you can have anarchic-communism (pure communism); and you can have authoritarian-communism, which according to the ideals of Marx would sort of be a contradiction since a (pure) communist state requires that the state be insignificant and thus it withers away. But ideally, if the society is closer to communism (classless, property-less society) but which is still not yet stateless, I guess it can still be considered authoritarian-communism, until it reaches pure communism.
    "Those who would give up ESSENTIAL LIBERTY to purchase a little TEMPORARY SAFETY deserve neither LIBERTY nor SAFETY."--Pennsylvania Assembly

  10. #30
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,217
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Good for Me, but bad for the country.

    Quote Originally Posted by KingOfTheEast View Post
    That's because the highest income earners have continued to increase their net income at a much higher rate, whereas the lower income individual's net income has gradually increased but at a much slower rate. However, the economy depends upon those high income earners to invest their capital by increasing the size of their companies, thus opening up more employment opportunities. If your statement suggests that we should tax the heck out of the highest income earners and businesses, then that can have negative effects on the economy, because those same businesses will be much more hesitant to invest and therefore, there will be higher unemployment as a result. There also won't as much surplus capital to go along. So while I believe higher income earners should be taxed in a higher tax bracket than the rest, I don't think the state should tax them at a disproportionate rate simply because they've made more wealth than the rest of the income earners.
    For the most part, I agree with the theory. The problem is that in it's execution, those dollars that can be invested don't necessarily stay in the country.
    Only what can happen does happen. ~Watchmen
    When the Standard is defined you will know how right or wrong you are.
    electricShares - a work in progress

  11. #31
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    741
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Good for Me, but bad for the country.

    Quote Originally Posted by snackboy View Post
    For the most part, I agree with the theory. The problem is that in it's execution, those dollars that can be invested don't necessarily stay in the country.
    That's why the state must give higher incentives to those that invest in their own country rather than moving their business and their capital overseas. Skyrocketing the tax rate of the highest-income earners and top businesses isn't the solution.

    The problem with this is that we are living in an age of globalization where the movement of goods and capital is heavily promoted and the norm. Corporations, thankful to the policies of international trade agreements like NAFTA, have set up Maquiladoras--factories that rely on cheap wages and tarrif-free zones to make more profits. Because of lower taxes, lower wages, less environmental standards, less unions etc. in overseas locations (Mexico, China, India), businesses are finding incentives to invest and move their business overseas, and are hesitant to invest in their own country. The irony is that the developed states have worried about businesses being outsourced overseas, and jobs moving abroad while at the same time singing to the tune of globalization which is the major reason why businesses have invested overseas to begin with.
    "Those who would give up ESSENTIAL LIBERTY to purchase a little TEMPORARY SAFETY deserve neither LIBERTY nor SAFETY."--Pennsylvania Assembly

  12. #32
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,042
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Good for Me, but bad for the country.

    Quote Originally Posted by KingOfTheEast View Post
    That's because the highest income earners have continued to increase their net income at a much higher rate, whereas the lower income individual's net income has gradually increased but at a much slower rate. However, the economy depends upon those high income earners to invest their capital by increasing the size of their companies, thus opening up more employment opportunities. If your statement suggests that we should tax the heck out of the highest income earners and businesses, then that can have negative effects on the economy, because those same businesses will be much more hesitant to invest and therefore, there will be higher unemployment as a result. There also won't as much surplus capital to go along. So while I believe higher income earners should be taxed in a higher tax bracket than the rest, I don't think the state should tax them at a disproportionate rate simply because they've made more wealth than the rest of the income earners.
    I wouldnt tax the heck, I would take the biggest companies into public ownership, without compensation unless need can be proven. The richest 1% in the USA have more wealth than the whole of the bottom 90%. They can afford to lose some of it! Yeah I would tax those in the top 10% who dont get nationalised. A socialist economy wouldnt depend on the rich, and we wouldnt allow them to blackmail us (eg strikes of capital). There would be no unemployment because we would create jobs for everyone.

    ---------- Post added at 11:01 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:55 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by KingOfTheEast View Post

    That's the interesting part about it. You can have capitalism-anarchy (in the sense of no state intervention at all); you can have capitalist-authoritarianism (fascism); you can have anarchic-communism (pure communism); and you can have authoritarian-communism, which according to the ideals of Marx would sort of be a contradiction since a (pure) communist state requires that the state be insignificant and thus it withers away. But ideally, if the society is closer to communism (classless, property-less society) but which is still not yet stateless, I guess it can still be considered authoritarian-communism, until it reaches pure communism.

    Well some people on here who are right wing call themselves anarchists, but traditionally in politics the word 'anarchist' has always referred to the left wing, communist kind.

    A state is required, according to Marxists, to defend against counter-revolution. Hopefully it withers away. Unfortunately it did the opposite in Russia, basically because the conditions were impossible for socialism. But even a workers state can be democratic. The Bolsheviks ran it as democratically as they could. Of course various factors meant they had to cut down on democracy gradually, seeing as the opposition were fighting them in a war.

  13. #33
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    741
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Good for Me, but bad for the country.

    Quote Originally Posted by manc View Post
    I wouldnt tax the heck, I would take the biggest companies into public ownership, without compensation unless need can be proven.
    You're essentially taking over the entire of one's property and telling them they can no longer have their own business and must now work for you. That's a fairly authoritative approach. Can you point to a time in history where such large scale nationalization produced long-term positive effects on the economy/society?

    Quote Originally Posted by manc View Post
    They can afford to lose some of it! Yeah I would tax those in the top 10% who dont get nationalised. A socialist economy wouldnt depend on the rich, and we wouldnt allow them to blackmail us (eg strikes of capital). There would be no unemployment because we would create jobs for everyone.
    I'm wary of the government being the main provider of employment in the country, particularly because a historical analysis of such an approach wields results that indicate a very low success rate. Governments are not cost-effective, and efficient as are businesses. I just don't think the government should stick its nose in the entire economy. Putting that much control and that much responsibility on the state is problematic, but that's partly because I don't think the state should have such a huge of a role in society/economy as the one you're suggesting.
    "Those who would give up ESSENTIAL LIBERTY to purchase a little TEMPORARY SAFETY deserve neither LIBERTY nor SAFETY."--Pennsylvania Assembly

  14. #34
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,173
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Good for Me, but bad for the country.

    Quote Originally Posted by SNACK
    At that point you would be lying...it is still fraud. While I can't find any legal references, I am sure that if the state / case worker determined you were indeed living with your girlfriend you would lose your benefits and likely be prosecuted and face jail time, and probably have to pay back the benefits.
    As long as as I don't fulfill the legal definition of "residing" then I wouldn't be lying.
    When I said "sleep over", it was saying that I wouldn't sleep there any more than would cause me to NOT fulfill the definition of "residing".

    My goal is not to lie, my goal is to change my lifestyle to one that is more acceptable to the Gov.


    --To everyone else

    I'll concede for the moment the argument about left/right and socialist/whatever.. etc.

    The policies exist, their origin are not really specific to my question.


    My position is that the plan in the OP is supported and encouraged by the Gov regardless of where it came from.
    To serve man.

  15. #35
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,217
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Good for Me, but bad for the country.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    As long as as I don't fulfill the legal definition of "residing" then I wouldn't be lying.
    When I said "sleep over", it was saying that I wouldn't sleep there any more than would cause me to NOT fulfill the definition of "residing".

    My goal is not to lie, my goal is to change my lifestyle to one that is more acceptable to the Gov.
    You could still be hard pressed to provide evidence that you reside in your parents home, especially if you are not paying rent or helping them with utilities and the such...which would defeat the purpose of the scheme. Honestly, I think you will find it more hassle than it's worth especially with the risk of going to jail.

    And I don't think that the government finds this lifestyle acceptable. It just recognizes their are some instances where life takes some hard turns and people need help. Are you genuinely one of those people? Or are you one of THOSE people?
    Only what can happen does happen. ~Watchmen
    When the Standard is defined you will know how right or wrong you are.
    electricShares - a work in progress

  16. #36
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,173
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Good for Me, but bad for the country.

    Quote Originally Posted by SNACK
    You could still be hard pressed to provide evidence that you reside in your parents home, especially if you are not paying rent or helping them with utilities and the such...which would defeat the purpose of the scheme. Honestly, I think you will find it more hassle than it's worth especially with the risk of going to jail.
    I'm pretty sure where ever I get my mail will be fine.
    Besides.. it is not like the Gov is actively looking for this. They don't go knocking on the doors of these people to do searches of the house. I mean, the only reason I would have to prove where i live, is if the investigate my ex. Then again, Section 8 is pretty strict around here.

    Quote Originally Posted by SNACK
    And I don't think that the government finds this lifestyle acceptable. It just recognizes their are some instances where life takes some hard turns and people need help. Are you genuinely one of those people? Or are you one of THOSE people?
    If they didn't find it acceptable, then they wouldn't be encouraging it by supporting it.

    The truth is, people with my exact family make up (only with a not married status), eat better than I do, and live in comparable housing. (We don't have to man "projects" around here. Only they get to spend any money they make on other things. Now the single moms with a bunch of kids, they didn't get that way by someone NOT sleeping over. In short, my personal experience is that the Gov is supporting this lifestyle. More kids = more money, and that is how the people on it generally view it. (per our speaking to some, not necessarily the entire group).

    While I recognize that my experience and "evidence" is purely anecdotal, it seems overwhelmingly to add up to the Gov sanctions these arrangements. To the point where I'm thinking.. "hey, it might be a good idea".

    As for jail.. As long as I am not doing anything illegal I should have nothing to fear. Why should the Gov target me over everyone else anyway? Because I was "married"? I could live in my van (have to get one) down by the river for all they would be able to prove.. or even suspect.
    To serve man.

  17. #37
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,217
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Good for Me, but bad for the country.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I'm pretty sure where ever I get my mail will be fine.
    Besides.. it is not like the Gov is actively looking for this. They don't go knocking on the doors of these people to do searches of the house. I mean, the only reason I would have to prove where i live, is if the investigate my ex. Then again, Section 8 is pretty strict around here.
    There will be a case worker assigned, but fair enough.

    If they didn't find it acceptable, then they wouldn't be encouraging it by supporting it.
    Support that the government "encourages" this behavior. They may support it just like they support Medicaid services, but they are most certainly not encouraging people to get sick.
    As for jail.. As long as I am not doing anything illegal I should have nothing to fear. Why should the Gov target me over everyone else anyway? Because I was "married"? I could live in my van (have to get one) down by the river for all they would be able to prove.. or even suspect.
    Fair enough. Personally, I don't believe the solution involves becoming part of the problem.
    Only what can happen does happen. ~Watchmen
    When the Standard is defined you will know how right or wrong you are.
    electricShares - a work in progress

  18. #38
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    741
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Good for Me, but bad for the country.

    While I do not find your approach particularly against any of the Biblical commandments (except the fact that a case can be made that you're coveting thy neighbours goods) nor do I find your approach illegal, it does seem hypocritical to be against welfare while you're simultaneously looking to receive government benefits. I presume that you're against welfare on the grounds that the individuals receiving the funds are not working/earning the money they're receiving and thus, the tax payers are providing for them and also because such policies do not encourage people to work for their subsistence and forces them to rely on the system without being independent on their own. If that's the case, I do not see why you'd be against one and not the other. The benefits you'd be receiving are very much similar. The same objections should apply to the benefits in the OP as they do to welfare.
    "Those who would give up ESSENTIAL LIBERTY to purchase a little TEMPORARY SAFETY deserve neither LIBERTY nor SAFETY."--Pennsylvania Assembly

  19. #39
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,173
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Good for Me, but bad for the country.

    Quote Originally Posted by SNACK
    Support that the government "encourages" this behavior. They may support it just like they support Medicaid services, but they are most certainly not encouraging people to get sick.
    They are encouraging people to use the program. Just as they are encouraging people to use medicaid.

    But more importantly, they are encouraging the lifestyle. If they support the life style then they in turn support my change to the life style. Just as if my children run up debt due to poor life choices and then I pay that debt off. then when they do it again, then I pay it off again. I am supporting their lifestyle. I am enabling, and enablers are supporters.

    Quote Originally Posted by SNACK
    Fair enough. Personally, I don't believe the solution involves becoming part of the problem.
    Fair enough. Then there are some that think if enough people made the same decision then the gov would have to quit. That however is not my primary concern. My primary concern is my families personal well being. In the event that, that concern is in conflict with the concerns for the nation then I will side with my family hands down. Should I e expected to act any other way? Why?
    To serve man.

  20. #40
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    I'm not from here, NV
    Posts
    2,267
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Good for Me, but bad for the country.

    Wait, no.

    Quote Originally Posted by MT
    That wouldn't be necessary in and of itself. She could rent a house from someone else, and I could simply live with her and rent my current house out.
    When on Section 8 all income must be reported of any individual. You're as good as married if you're on welfare. Here are the basic requirements for your state.

    http://www.ehow.com/how_4532274_appl...louisiana.html


    Gather all of the documents that you will need to complete the application. Among other things, make sure you have a birth certificate, pay stubs, rental history and previous years' income tax forms.

    As an adult living with her you would be required to disclose any assets, and that makes a huge difference in whether you qualify for welfare. If you were not listed on the lease and were not included in the Section 8 application; if the landlord or the state found out, Section 8 would be terminated and all monies owed.

    Not only that what would you list as the reason for your divorce? I am reading about divorces in your state and there would be a required separation period of one year since you have children. During this time you are NOT allowed to live together. Are you able to bypass this? Will the state consider your wife eligible for welfare? I know in my home state, they still include your husbands/wife income.

    So now, you would own a house that you must pay on, your wife find another place to live for a year. Then, you have to figure out a way to qualify for welfare with you listed on the paper work, assuming you're going to do this legally. Once listed, that house you own, is considered an asset and your application declined.

    How much of your money are you willing to waste to get this working? Are you willing to sell your house? Anyway, if you don't report everything in the Section 8 application, you would be committing welfare fraud.

    How is any of this better for your children? You would have to rid yourself of all your assets. That's going to hurt you in the long run. Throwing away your entire life. Hiding assets would be considered welfare fraud.

    I see later on you would only stay as much as you were legally allowed. Section 8 does NOT allow for consistent overnight visitors. Your landlord would be OBLIGATED to report the violation. You've completely fit yourself into the box of welfare fraud. You are intentionally trying to find ways to take advantage and to misuse the system.

    Anyway, if you want tips I can give you my sisters email address, lol.
    "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." ~Bertrand Russell

 

 
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Good or bad?
    By disinterested in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: August 30th, 2009, 04:35 PM
  2. Obama. Good or Bad?
    By Xemnas41 in forum Member Contributed News
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: April 26th, 2009, 10:07 AM
  3. Is Bilingualism good or bad?
    By wanxtrmBANNED in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: September 24th, 2007, 04:34 PM
  4. Emo's Good or Bad
    By supercookie in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: March 30th, 2007, 10:54 AM
  5. Is competition good or bad?
    By timemachine in forum General Debate
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: January 7th, 2005, 01:34 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •