Tent cities of poor and homeless.

[Tharkon Fargor]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/00981/Tent-Cities-460b_981655c.jpg
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/00981/Tent-Cities-460_981652c.jpg

This isn't Sudan, guess where?
Full article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/2991742/Tent-cities-of-homeless-on-the-rise-across-the-US.html)
^The article also states that there hasn't been so many homeless people since the 1980's...Reagans time. Non-interventionist capitalism is obviously not the cure.


Here's a sidenote:
Homeless in Paris (http://www.citizenside.com/en/photos/headlines/2008-05-15/7488/homeless-camp-out-near-the-seine-in-paris.html)
Let's not kid ourselves. Europe is being overun by greed aswell.
In the 60 and 70's when we still cared about each other alot more than today these things didn't exist in Europe. Now when we're moving towards a more vicious capitalist reality the effects are truly beginning to show.
Those that didn't get their cut, missed their chance, failed that one exam couldn't get a home. And without a home there's never enough time or energy to get a education or a real job. Survival becomes your first priority.
This inturn spurs crime which causes taxes to raise as more police is needed.

Poverty and its never ending circle will cause even a Nightwatcher state to have taxes far above its intentions simply to finance the security of its citizens. And when even that day comes, when security and law are no longer held by an objective and free system but controlled and owned by those with money then civilization has failed.

[Dredgon]

I'll go out on a limb here and say US.

[wowsa0]

This is what capitalism does.

[hardboiled]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/00981/Tent-Cities-460b_981655c.jpg
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/00981/Tent-Cities-460_981652c.jpg

This isn't Sudan, guess where?

Sweden?


This is what capitalism does.

A mortgage crisis caused by government intervention leads into a financial crisis fueled by nanny statism is obviously the fault of capitalism.

[LordTenacious]

Yeah, espically since a poor person in America is more likely to own a home than a middle-class European.

...

Crap.

[Forgin]

Yeah, espically since a poor person in America is more likely to own a home than a middle-class European.

...

Crap.

If you count eastern europe maybe

[hardboiled]

If you count eastern europe maybe

Own a home.

[wowsa0]

Yeah, espically since a poor person in America is more likely to own a home than a middle-class European.

...

Crap.

Yeah Europe is not a single country (yet), the standard of living varies dramatically depending on where you go. If those stats include eastern europe then it is hardly surprising.

[Rimayven]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/00981/Tent-Cities-460b_981655c.jpg
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/00981/Tent-Cities-460_981652c.jpg

This isn't Sudan, guess where?

Somewhere in Yewrup?

[Tharkon Fargor]

A mortgage crisis caused by government intervention leads into a financial crisis fueled by nanny statism is obviously the fault of capitalism.

I thought the government is stepping in now when greed and selfishness has destroyed the country once again?
You can blame "socialism" all you want but if there's one thing that never existed or barely existed in countries that rank themselves by how their poorest have it then that's homelesness.

Somewhere in Yewrup?


Selfdenial won't help you. Though it does make you feel all fuzzy and warm inside, I'll give you that.

[palo god]

This is what capitalism does.

No, this is the result of all the democrats/neo cons "hard work".

[LordTenacious]

No, not really. Because the prices of housing is still cheap compared to Western Europe, house ownership is more likely for the poor in the United States compared to Europe.

I just spent the last ten minutes searching for a peer-reviewed paper that states this but of course all this housing "crisis" bullshit is making it difficult. The fact of the matter that the stats for people having a roof over their heads between western europe and the United States are the same, but of course since we are America every flaw instantly becomes "HOLY SHIT HOW CAN AMERICA LET THIS HAPPEN!?!?! LETS LECTURE THEM SOME MORE!!"

[Tharkon Fargor]

So it's bullshit that there's basicly more empty houses in Cleavland outskirts for example than inhabited houses because the banks took those houses away from the people who could no longer pay for them?

Besides, who cares about owning a home if you have none. I think you'd go for a 25m2 appartment if you had nothing. Even if you just rented it.

[LordTenacious]

Also, I think it's funny that you think this is new. You think those illegal immigrants just waltz over and instantly rent out a place?

[Vanno]

Shitty. You'd think we would have evolved enough by the 21st century to at least provide some sort of domicile for everyone.

Anyway, there are probably thousands of hotels with empty rooms, and the owners could probably spare a room in exchange for some menial labor.

[Rimayven]

Selfdenial won't help you. Though it does make you feel all fuzzy and warm inside, I'll give you that.

Oh, you mean that the shit really is starting to hit the fan? :ohno:

[Lethn]

This is what capitalism does.

lulz oh noes! socialism is bad fer pplz!!!!11 Noes healthcare noes!!

The sick irony of this is if the government actually bothered helping them then they wouldn't be living in tents and would have jobs.

[LordTenacious]

You know Lethn, you could actually help them yourself instead of telling the government to do it.

Oh crap, I forgot, that would require some sacrifice on your part. And don't tell me "you just hate poor people" because I'll give you a couple guesses on what I spent the better part of yesterday doing and it wasn't bitching about how the government should help people.

[Teutates]

I wish I lived in a tent... with internet connection.

[Vanno]

You know Lethn, you could actually help them yourself instead of telling the government to do it.

Oh crap, I forgot, that would require some sacrifice on your part. And don't tell me "you just hate poor people" because I'll give you a couple guesses on what I spent the better part of yesterday doing and it wasn't bitching about how the government should help people.

Indeed, true help/innovation comes from within the community or the individual. The federal government is inept in responding to such things.

[wowsa0]

You know Lethn, you could actually help them yourself instead of telling the government to do it.

Oh crap, I forgot, that would require some sacrifice on your part. And don't tell me "you just hate poor people" because I'll give you a couple guesses on what I spent the better part of yesterday doing and it wasn't bitching about how the government should help people.

How is one person meant to help hundreds of people get homes? The action has to be taken by the government, the duty of the government is to protect their citizens, and every citizen who can contributes financially to allow this to happen.

[Rimayven]

I wish I lived in a tent... with internet connection.

QFT, this is what I plan to do.

[Aragoni]

Well the Americanos didn't vote on Ron Paul and thus you're screwed! Will be interesting to see ships full of Americanos, just waiting to immigrate to a Jewrupean country.
Or flee to, God forbid, Canada or Mexico!

[Lethn]

Oh crap, I forgot, that would require some sacrifice on your part. And don't tell me "you just hate poor people" because I'll give you a couple guesses on what I spent the better part of yesterday doing and it wasn't bitching about how the government should help people.

Hate to tell you but I live in the UK and don't have a job earning me millions yet so I really wouldn't be able to do much, of course if the government or state government had gotten themselves reliable emergency services they wouldn't be in that sort of mess in the first place.

Also I think your mistaking me for Matriel, I support government run emergency services.

[hardboiled]

.

I thought the government is stepping in now when greed and selfishness has destroyed the country once again?
You can blame "socialism" all you want but if there's one thing that never existed or barely existed in countries that rank themselves by how their poorest have it then that's homelesness.




Selfdenial won't help you. Though it does make you feel all fuzzy and warm inside, I'll give you that.

The government is stepping in when greed and shelfishness has destroyed the country? Eh? Have you been following this at all?
The major cause could be attributed to the government pushing for easier given loans to poor people, who then could not pay back, which then bankrupted the subprime industry, to which the government responds with lower interest rates and borrowing/printing more money and bails out companies and floods money into the market. Companies knowing that they will be bailed out and that there isn't much to lose for them take stupid risks, companies fall, companies are bailed out, merged or nationalized. Now the Fed plans to borrow some 700 billion to buy all the accumulated debt from the companies, exactly what they've been doing all the time but now in a much larger scale.
What the hell is capitalistic about this? This is socialism, corporatism, whatever you want to call it.

http://econlog.econlib.org/
Good blog with some insight and good links.

[LordTenacious]

How is one person meant to help hundreds of people get homes? The action has to be taken by the government, the duty of the government is to protect their citizens, and every citizen who can contributes financially to allow this to happen.

If you can find that bullshit you be spouting in here (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html), I'll be the first in line.

[LordTenacious]

Hate to tell you but I live in the UK and don't have a job earning me millions yet so I really wouldn't be able to do much,
Ah yes, the classic excuse.

Tell me, do you have working pairs of arms, hands and legs?

[wowsa0]

If you can find that bullshit you be spouting in here (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html), I'll be the first in line.

It might not be how it works in America, but it is my personal belief of what a government should be. Am I not allowed to have an opinion which contradicts the constitution? Sorry, I thought that it allowed freedom of speech.

P.S. What I was describing was basically the welfare state which they do have in America anyway right?

[Lethn]

I love it when people go by their usernames and resort to personal insults when they can't argue or just repeat themselves, sorry, but I'm just not interested in epeen wars anymore, I think I pretty much just won this though I told myself I'm not going to post in political threads anymore because of people like you either, oh and I really would love to know what you were doing, was it sitting on a couch and watching t.v or playing a computer game?

I'll just be off and enjoy my quality checked tea, free healthcare and dental thank you :) *ruffles feathers and flies off*

[LordTenacious]

...So you don't have working pairs of arms, hands and legs?

[m0j0mann]

Ah yes, the classic excuse.

Tell me, do you have working pairs of arms, hands and legs?

Comes back to "greed and selfishness", like Tharkon said, doesn't it.

Bemoan the fact that people aren't helping/contributing/caring all you want, but they'll continue not helping/contributing/caring. Which is why there's a goddamn government.

[LordTenacious]

oh and I really would love to know what you were doing, was it sitting on a couch and watching t.v or playing a computer game?

Yep you caught me. It wasn't working with local charities, that's for shit sure.

[wowsa0]

Why is it that the average forumfall user is a right-wing illiberal libertarian? I thought the internet was the home of left-wing liberalism, or is it just that all the right-wing guys come here?

[Vanno]

I have to say the recent influx of socialist tending posters/posting is refreshing. The amount of free-market cultists was begining to make forumfall stagnant (which is never good for any system).

Although, I find the socialist vs capitalist argument to be beating a long dead horse.

[LordTenacious]

Comes back to "greed and selfishness", like Tharkon said, doesn't it.

Bemoan the fact that people aren't helping/contributing/caring all you want, but they'll continue not helping/contributing/caring. Which is why there's a goddamn government.

Bemoaning? Not at all. It's personal choice. Just don't bitch about someone else not doing something when you are doing nothing about it yourself.

[m0j0mann]

Bemoaning? Not at all. It's personal choice. Just don't bitch about someone else not doing something when you are doing nothing about it yourself.

That's a fair enough thing to say, but 1) you can't exactly determine what people are/are not doing from over the internet and 2) that still doesn't make government aid to poor people a bad thing.

[wowsa0]

Bemoaning? Not at all. It's personal choice. Just don't bitch about someone else not doing something when you are doing nothing about it yourself.

The average citizen doesn't do anything, but they pay the government to do something. That is how government works. If the people aren't happy with what the government isn't (or is) doing then they can bitch about it all they want.

[Ben060682]

bankrupted the subprime industry, to which the government responds with lower interest rates and borrowing/printing more money and bails out companies and floods money into the market.
What the hell is capitalistic about this? This is socialism, corporatism, whatever you want to call it.


Actually this a text book free market, capitalist response to try and stave off depression, the paralysis of capital, in a bid to re-inject financial liquidity and the movement of investment. It is anything but 'socialism'. I am quite amused by this forum's US populations obsession with 'socialism'. The cold war is over bozos, stop blaming the 'red under the bed' for your financial woes. If your government hadn't pumped some finanical liquidity back into your faltering economy the situation would be even worse. Go study some basic economic practice before you spout glorified crap about economic management and mechanisms.

[Spinewire]

Hate to tell you but I live in the UK and don't have a job earning me millions yet so I really wouldn't be able to do much, of course if the government or state government had gotten themselves reliable emergency services they wouldn't be in that sort of mess in the first place.

Also I think your mistaking me for Matriel, I support government run emergency services.
do some work in a soup kitchen then

[LordTenacious]

I like how you completely ignored the first part of his post Ben.

Truly brilliant.

[Ben060682]

Although, I find the socialist vs capitalist argument to be beating a long dead horse.

Indeed.

[Rimayven]

I love it when people go by their usernames and resort to personal insults when they can't argue or just repeat themselves, sorry, but I'm just not interested in epeen wars anymore, I think I pretty much just won this though I told myself I'm not going to post in political threads anymore because of people like you either, oh and I really would love to know what you were doing, was it sitting on a couch and watching t.v or playing a computer game?

I'll just be off and enjoy my quality checked tea, free healthcare and dental thank you :) *ruffles feathers and flies off*

QFT

[LordTenacious]

do some work in a soup kitchen then
He can't. That would require him do something other than watch anime or bitch about not having a job.

See? That's personal. My other "attacks" (which were hardly attacks at all) could be applied to anyone.

[m0j0mann]

That's a fair enough thing to say, but 1) you can't exactly determine what people are/are not doing from over the internet and 2) that still doesn't make government aid to poor people a bad thing.

QFT, well said that m0j0mann.

[hardboiled]

Actually this a text book free market, capitalist response to try and stave off depression, the paralysis of capital, in a bid to re-inject financial liquidity and the movement of investment. It is anything but 'socialism'. I am quite amused by this forum's US populations obsession with 'socialism'. The cold war is over bozos, stop blaming the 'red under the bed' for your financial woes. If your government hadn't pumped some finanical liquidity back into your faltering economy the situation would be even worse. Go study some basic economic practice before you spout glorified crap about economic management and mechanisms.

A free market would not be staving off depression. In a free market the bad companies would be allowed to fall and a recession would follow, but it would pass. That's how the economy works. You're naive if you really think that the government can keep up the economy artificially forever.

[Tharkon Fargor]

The government is stepping in when greed and shelfishness has destroyed the country? Eh? Have you been following this at all?
The major cause could be attributed to the government pushing for easier given loans to poor people, who then could not pay back, which then bankrupted the subprime industry, to which the government responds with lower interest rates and borrowing/printing more money and bails out companies and floods money into the market. Companies knowing that they will be bailed out and that there isn't much to lose for them take stupid risks, companies fall, companies are bailed out, merged or nationalized. Now the Fed plans to borrow some 700 billion to buy all the accumulated debt from the companies, exactly what they've been doing all the time but now in a much larger scale.
What the hell is capitalistic about this? This is socialism, corporatism, whatever you want to call it.

http://econlog.econlib.org/
Good blog with some insight and good links.


Ok let's evaluate:
The major cause could be attributed to the government pushing for easier given loans to poor people, who then could not pay back,
In a truly right-wing libertarian state the government wouldn't have any rules on how much poor people can loan. "Mini-loan" banks would then spring up where they'd start loaning people even loans as small as 400-500-1000 dollars just so that people can manage the month. When they couldn't pay they would take *everything* away from those people which would in turn result into them either revolting, commiting suicide or simply becoming criminals.


and borrowing/printing more money
In any society that is not an abomination the means of producing money would not be controlled by individuals or corporations but by the people as a whole, as a civil and unified society. The FED is ofcourse an even more corrupted and viscious entity than that which Ron Paul advocates. It is something so rotten that words cannot describe it. It forces your nations money to loose double the value each time they are printed instead of just the classic inflation (there's a better word) that happens when money is printed. This due to the fact that really all money is de facto borrowed and thus owned by 8 or so companies. This is so far from socialism you can get.

Now the Fed plans to borrow some 700 billion to buy all the accumulated debt from the companies, exactly what they've been doing all the time but now in a much larger scale.
Greed and only greed is to blame for this.
First of all if the government wouldn't do this you would be heading for a new depression. Which in fact wouldn't be bad since back then the NEW DEAL of government INTERVENTION saved your country and could do it again.
Greed is to blame because for example the big bank that just recently got FUBAR:d was authorizing loans to people that knew couldn't pay them back.
Heck they even have like fucking Master Card and Visa desks at schools and colleges in your country telling students who are already deep in debt to subscribe and loan even more.



Now what would a more "sane" government do?
It would abolish the FED and remake a state owned national bank.
It would forbid credit card companies and others to advertise and sell credit cards to teenagers and inside colleges.
It would create education that was free so students wouldn't need to loan money and pay that money back their entire life to greedy corporations.
It would create housing for those that do not have it so that these people can become productive parts in our society, get a job, get an education, start a business.

[Rimayven]

He can't. That would require him do something other than watch anime or bitch about not having a job.

See? That's personal. My other "attacks" (which were hardly attacks at all) could be applied to anyone.

QFT

[Ben060682]

I like how you completely ignored the first part of his post Ben.

Truly brilliant.

:p You mean the bit where he suggests that the government doubles up as mortgage brokers? Wasn't even worthy of a response. It also wasn't the point I wanted to refute, which was the lack of understanding about how financial liquidity works. or what socialism means and is.

[palo god]

How is one person meant to help hundreds of people get homes? The action has to be taken by the government, the duty of the government is to protect their citizens, and every citizen who can contributes financially to allow this to happen.

"One" person cant, its a group effort, and last time I checked the government buying homeless people homes wasn't protecting their citizens.

[Rimayven]

Ok let's evaluate:
*TL;DR*

Why have our government not taken these steps?

[palo god]

The average citizen doesn't do anything, but they pay the government to do something. That is how government works. If the people aren't happy with what the government isn't (or is) doing then they can bitch about it all they want.

Most of those homeless people decided to be homeless by not getting a fucking job, do you know how hard it is to be poor in the US?

Those bums shouldn't get a dime of my money.

[Tharkon Fargor]

Why have our government not taken these steps?

Cause it's owned and lobbied by people with a shitload of moneyz.
And they profit from people being insecure and in debt.

If people had enough money to save and invest, build and create with then that would create a lot of unwanted competition from small, local businesses and big corporations don't want this neither.

[Vanno]

A free market would not be staving off depression. In a free market the bad companies would be allowed to fall and a recession would follow, but it would pass. That's how the economy works. You're naive if you really think that the government can keep up the economy artificially forever.

Sure, we would have creative destruction and feedback. However, one could say the companies have essentially failed (as private entities) and the feedback is already there. Plus, we don't know yet what is planned for these companies. They still may be cut up and sold to the public.

Cause it's owned and lobbied by people with a shitload of moneyz.
And they profit from people being insecure and in debt.

If people enough money to save and invest, build and create with then that would create a lot of unwanted competition from small, local businesses and big corporations don't want this neither.

True, and I am confident that most sane Libertarians could even *shivers* agree with socialists in their distaste for the way money is created and distributed in most the developed world.

A top heavy money disitirubution process is counter to free-market thinking.

[Ben060682]

A free market would not be staving off depression. In a free market the bad companies would be allowed to fall and a recession would follow, but it would pass. That's how the economy works. You're naive if you really think that the government can keep up the economy artificially forever.

The economies of not only the world but also individual nations are all regulated dude. That is a part of free market economics. Free market economics does not mean pure free for all, unregulated economic chaos. Don't read so much into the word 'free' tagged onto it!

In times of economic instability more regulation is needed, not forever, but to return stability to the markets and enable the system to successfully continue. Its just how it works, it's not a new phenomena.

[m0j0mann]

"One" person cant, its a group effort, and last time I checked the government buying homeless people homes wasn't protecting their citizens.

Evidently, the group efforts are not enough. Props to anyone who tries though. But they aren't enough, which is why there's a government.

Government and charities serve the same purpose - redistribution of wealth. One is obligatory, and the other is not. Charities don't have nearly enough finances to take over from government, therefore government should be used for helping the people. A supercharity. Better than buying more submarines to fight Al Qaeda's navy anyway.

Most of those homeless people decided to be homeless by not getting a fucking job, do you know how hard it is to be poor in the US?

Those bums shouldn't get a dime of my money.

Let them eat cake!
That sort of thinking usually ends up like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_revolution). Cruel world, isn't it.

[Vanno]

The economies of not only the world but also individual nations are all regulated dude. That is a part of free market economics. Free market economics does not mean pure free for all, unregulated economic chaos. Don't read so much into the word 'free' tagged onto it!



Actually, the free-market is a model, first developed by Adam Smith, to describe a perfect system of exchange. Lack of regulative power is one of the assumptions of this system.

[Ben060682]

Actually, the free-market is a model, first developed by Adam Smith, to describe a perfect system of exchange. Lack of regulative power is one of the assumptions of this system.

lack being the imperative word, not an absence of regulatory power.

[palo god]

Evidently, the group efforts are not enough. Props to anyone who tries though. But they aren't enough, which is why there's a government.

Government and charities serve the same purpose - redistribution of wealth. One is obligatory, and the other is not. Charities don't have nearly enough finances to take over from government, therefore government should be used for helping the people. A supercharity. Better than buying more submarines to fight Al Qaeda's navy anyway.

You think the government can do any better? When the government takes over anything it turns to shit. Their will always be homeless people(mainly because their to lazy to work) and their will always be poor people. The government does not belong in the charity business, I would rather have are tax dollars invested into the middle class community and new roads etc. then give it to these worthless bums.

[m0j0mann]

You think the government can do any better? When the government takes over anything it turns to shit.

Ridiculous generalisation. Note which country's healthcare system was at the top of the last World Health Organisation survey, and note what kind of system they were using.


(mainly because their to lazy to work)

Another generalisation. Bad luck and hard times has nothing to do with it I suppose.


The government does not belong in the charity business, I would rather have are tax dollars invested into the middle class community and new roads etc. then give it to these worthless bums.


Why would you invest it into the middle class, and how?

Oh, and building roads/infrastructure is one of the things Obama proposed...Why? To create jobs for poor people, of course. ;)

[tarsus]

In San Diego CA, ranked the 5th most expensive city in the US, you can rent a room for under 500 bucks a month. That's a little over 3 bucks an hour if you work a 40 hour week. Minimum wage is an easily livable wage and I see help wanted signs at many burger joints. If you're homeless here you're either too prideful, too lazy, or are just in some weird-ass transition period that shouldn't count.

[Vanno]

You think the government can do any better? When the government takes over anything it turns to shit. Their will always be homeless people(mainly because their to lazy to work) and their will always be poor people. The government does not belong in the charity business, I would rather have are tax dollars invested into the middle class community and new roads etc. then give it to these worthless bums.

That is a bit of an absurd assumption, especially since the world seems to be heading more and more towards automation. The only reason homeless really exist is the structure/system we choose to operate under.

[Vanno]

In San Diego CA, ranked the 5th most expensive city in the US, you can rent a room for under 500 bucks a month. That's a little over 3 bucks an hour if you work a 40 hour week. Minimum wage is an easily livable wage and I see help wanted signs at many burger joints. If you're homeless here you're either too prideful, too lazy, or are just in some weird-ass transition period that shouldn't count.

If the homeless know where to find these rooms, and if there are enough of them, and if someone will employ them, and if there are enough burger jobs, etc. Most employers are msot likely not going to hire someone that doesn't even have a place of residence.

[Tharkon Fargor]

You think the government can do any better? When the government takes over anything it turns to shit. Their will always be homeless people(mainly because their to lazy to work) and their will always be poor people. The government does not belong in the charity business, I would rather have are tax dollars invested into the middle class community and new roads etc. then give it to these worthless bums.

Always back to this point.
Listen, it's not because "government" as such is bad.
Imagine a world where nothing was government controlled.
Where roads were private and where laws were made by those who controlled stocks in the "Law companies" that the private security firms had contracts with. That is no different from healthcare or education.
The question is only how far a unified, democratic and unanimous approach to societies problems is better than a individual, creative approach.
I'd say that most socio-economic functions require a mixture of both. While a few (such as roads, law, police) are to be mandated only by the elected government in the interest of all. Education should for example be free and owned by the government but both teachers and students should have the right to vote on how their school should look and how education should be handeled so that we in the end can have schools formed for individual needs, not the general public.

The reason why "everything government touches fails" as you put it is not because government is less capable of doing things right but because the forces that govern the governments rule do not desire the government to do certain things. As explained earlier, the eight banks that control the FED would not want the government to take control of it and thus in an instance improve it. It is still the governments fault that things are shitty as fuck but it is in fact not the government that makes it shitty but the corporations that bribe and force the government to act in that fashion.
The banks also have no interest in seeing education free as that would not only mean slightly higher taxes for the individuals that own the banks but it would mean alot less loans and thus alot less power and money for the banks themselves.

This in turn would also empower the students to start their own businesses after graduation with the money they indirectly saved from not needing to loan them for their education. These businesses or investments would then be a threat to the already established ones. Even though there probably is no such conspiracy, it would retrospectly not be in the interest of the established corporations to allow such a thing to happen.

[palo god]

That is a bit of an absurd assumption, especially since the world seems to be heading more and more towards automation. The only reason homeless really exist is the structure/system we choose to operate under.

The reason they exist is not because of the system but because they were to lazy to get a job(for the most part).

[m0j0mann]

The reason they exist is not because of the system but because they were to lazy to get a job(for the most part).

GG, seeing as you're not gonna address my points.


he reason why "everything government touches fails" as you put it

It doesn't fail (http://www.skyaid.org/Skyaid%20Org/Medical/who_rates_france1.htm). That's another of Palo's generalisations, don't play into it.

[Tharkon Fargor]

I'm talking about his government ofcourse. Swedish social democrats have led the country for almost 80 years consequently (with two failed governments and now a third inbetween) with enormous success. We have always ranked as one of the best nations to invest in, have had a thriving high tech sector and at the same time free education free/cheap healthcare (symbolic fees) and alot of other government things that help all of us out no matter how rich or poor we are.

[Ben060682]

The reason they exist is not because of the system but because they were to lazy to get a job(for the most part).


If the government allowed the large investment groups who underpin so much of the wider US economy to collectively whither and die, many, many jobs will be lost due to the economic knock-on effects. This is one of the things they are trying to avoid through increased economic interventionism.

Unemployment and homelessness are not just the problems of the unemployed but of the wider economy as a whole.

[palo god]

Another generalisation. Bad luck and hard times has nothing to do with it I suppose.

I said that was the main reason, I didn’t say that was the whole reason.

Why would you invest it into the middle class, and how?

Because that would help the economy and its their money anyways so why not? and I would do it in the form of tax breaks.

[m0j0mann]

I said that was the main reason, I didn’t say that was the whole reason.

Whatever. Point still stands, there are plenty people who are poor through no fault of their own. And that number appears to be growing rapidly at the moment.


Because that would help the economy and its their money anyways so why not, and I would do it in the form of tax breaks.

Tax breaks for the middle class eh. No fucking shit (http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080611/NEWSBLOG/244217910). I agree.

The poor need help too, however. Helping them is much more worthwhile than the other retarded shit government spends money on.

[wowsa0]

Most of those homeless people decided to be homeless by not getting a fucking job, do you know how hard it is to be poor in the US?

Those bums shouldn't get a dime of my money.

It isn't very hard to be poor! If you are born in to a poor family and hence get a lower standard of education then you are going to have a worse life than someone who was born in to a rich family with a good education. It doesn't matter how hard you work, equal opportunity is a myth designed to keep the poor people quiet.

[Aragoni]

I'm talking about his government ofcourse. Swedish social democrats have led the country for almost 80 years consequently (with two failed governments and now a third inbetween) with enormous success. We have always ranked as one of the best nations to invest in, have had a thriving high tech sector and at the same time free education free/cheap healthcare (symbolic fees) and alot of other government things that help all of us out no matter how rich or poor we are.

3 failed governments?

I know 2 of 'em (the one we have know included). Both of them (well this one is heading that direction) had/will have a financial disaster and both were caused by the Social Democrats (They got the ball rolling, so to speak).

And free healthcare in Sweden is a fucking nightmare tbh. Have you checked the news? People have had to wait 2 years for a new hip and different types of surgeries. In the U.S. however people can get surgeries rather fast (unless some people here on forumfall are flat-out lieing).

And the education... I think it's ok if we except the fact that noone is allowed to start a school and charge money for it + that kids are getting brainwashed that "Democracy kicks motherfucking asses!" instead of being allowed to think for themselves.
Makes me think of a quote. Teachers are directed to instruct their pupils... and to awaken in them a sense of responsibility toward the community of the nation

[Salo]

Why is it that the average forumfall user is a right-wing illiberal libertarian? I thought the internet was the home of left-wing liberalism, or is it just that all the right-wing guys come here?


There are some left-wingers here *smiles*

I am resisting the temptation to get heavily involved in this particular debate because I'll just lose half my Sunday and end up in a bad mood :P

[Tharkon Fargor]

I said that was the main reason, I didn’t say that was the whole reason.



Because that would help the economy and its their money anyways so why not? and I would do it in the form of tax breaks.

Hey Palo. I know you can turn this on me and all but shut the fuck up now. Just for a second.

Read the http://www.skyaid.org/Skyaid%20Org/Medical/who_rates_france1.htm article.
The Americans life was saved in France due to its healthcare system.
It would have cost him 700 000 dollars in that days US money to get the same treatment in the US. Who can pay 700 000 dollars and has a middle or lower class job?

Also do you really think that it really costs us in Europe (taxpayers) 700 000 dollars for any treatment to cure cancer? We'd be bankcrupt if it cost that much. Alot of people in Europe get cancer, so do they in the US. In the US people either sell everything they own to afford the treatments or they die not being able to afford. One could probably equip a warehouse with the equipment needed and hire private doctors for less money than that one treatment costs. And after that give it to others for just what the doctors wages and the monthly maintance is.

Here we somehow manage to treat everyone and still have the same lifestyle as you. My point is thus that you must realize that the only reason the treatment even costs 700 000 dollars is because the few hospitals that have it wish to profit as much as possible both from the individuals or/and the insurance companies. So they drive the pricetag up because they know that there's not alot of competition and that they can drive the price up for peoples lives. They also know that people will pay anything to stay alive.

This is also why there's so much shit in your country due to your insurance system. Your insurance companies may seem greedy, they probably are. But who wouldn't be greedy and extremely picky when a treatment costs this much?

[Vanno]

The reason they exist is not because of the system but because they were to lazy to get a job(for the most part).

Sorry, but that is just patently incorrect. There is not enough money spread out, and thus not enough velocity for everyone to be employed. If we used a different means of exchange, or a variety of currency, your argument might hold water.

[Salo]

Actually, the free-market is a model, first developed by Adam Smith, to describe a perfect system of exchange. Lack of regulative power is one of the assumptions of this system.

Except in those areas which are important to the general happiness and prosperity of the nation and which private enterprise has failed to thrive.

[palo god]

It isn't very hard to be poor!

Don’t give me that bull, it isn’t hard to get into the middle class in the US.

If you are born in to a poor family and hence get a lower standard of education then you are going to have a worse life than someone who was born in to a rich family with a good education.

Even if you were born into a poor family you can work hard in school and get good grades you can get a scholarship.

It doesn't matter how hard you work

The reason your poor is because you think that way.


equal opportunity is a myth designed to keep the poor people quiet.


You keep thinking that.

[m0j0mann]

Whatever. Point still stands, there are plenty people who are poor through no fault of their own. And that number appears to be growing rapidly at the moment.



Tax breaks for the middle class eh. No fucking shit (http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080611/NEWSBLOG/244217910). I agree.

The poor need help too, however. Helping them is much more worthwhile than the other retarded shit government spends money on.

I think you'd better say that again, m0j0mann, Palo might not have heard it the first time.

[wowsa0]

The reason your poor is because you think that way.




You keep thinking that.

I myself am not poor actually, but that doesn't mean that I think it is easy to get into the middle class.

[palo god]

If the government allowed the large investment groups who underpin so much of the wider US economy to collectively whither and die, many, many jobs will be lost due to the economic knock-on effects. This is one of the things they are trying to avoid through increased economic interventionism.

Unemployment and homelessness are not just the problems of the unemployed but of the wider economy as a whole.

Government intervention in the markets creates bubbles, those bubbles WILL burst at some point, they arent saving anything.

[Vanno]

Except in those areas which are important to the general happiness and prosperity of the nation and which private enterprise has failed to thrive.

The nation is an abstraction; it doesn't exist. the closest thing to what you are trying to describe is an aggregation of individual well being.

[palo god]

I think you'd better say that again, m0j0mann, Palo might not have heard it the first time.

Don't even get me started on obamas "tax breaks", he wants class warfare plain and simple, if he gets in he will destroy the economy.

[wowsa0]

Government intervention in the markets creates bubbles, those bubbles WILL burst at some point, they arent saving anything.

Even if you are right and a person born in to a poor family can work hard and get the same job as someone born in to a rich family, so equal opportunity is a reality, the poor then would be the less intelligent. Less intelligent people are less able to get good jobs and will end up poor in a land with truly equal opportunity, and discriminating based on intelligence would be no less wrong than discrimination based on class, hence the evils of capitalism.

Capitalism relies on the exploitation of the poor by the rich. Throughout history this decision about whether you are the exploiter or the exploited has been made based on class or race (or gender). As we get closer to the idea of equal opportunity (although there is still a long way to go before we get here) the exploited become the less intelligent. This is great for the exploiters because the unintelligent are the least able to complain or fight back. You could almost say that society is evolving, as a kind of meme style natural selection, to a situation where the exploited are the least able to complain.

[palo god]

Even if you are right and a person born in to a poor family can work hard and get the same job as someone born in to a rich family, so equal opportunity is a reality, the poor then would be the less intelligent. Less intelligent people are less able to get good jobs and will end up poor in a land with truly equal opportunity, and discriminating based on intelligence would be no less wrong than discrimination based on class, hence the evils of capitalism.

You're an idiot, socialism doesn't work.

[wowsa0]

You're an idiot.

From the lack of quality points in your response I will assume that I have won the argument?

[Desperado[1G]]

Even if you are right and a person born in to a poor family can work hard and get the same job as someone born in to a rich family, so equal opportunity is a reality, the poor then would be the less intelligent. Less intelligent people are less able to get good jobs and will end up poor in a land with truly equal opportunity, and discriminating based on intelligence would be no less wrong than discrimination based on class, hence the evils of capitalism.

You honestly aren't making any sense. Someone who worked from the bottom up is arbitrarily less intelligent than someone born into wealth? Am I reading this right?

And yes, we should discriminate on intelligence when it comes to certain jobs. The last thing we need to do is give dumbasses a position they aren't capable of handling just because we don't want to hurt their feelings.

[Vanno]

Don't even get me started on obamas "tax breaks", he wants class warfare plain and simple, if he gets in he will destroy the economy.

Sounds extreme to me. Besides, a tax raise is almost certain to happen, that or inflation on a massive scale will occur. Even considering the deflationary pressure of failing banking segments, 2% debt is absurdly cheap.

[palo god]

From the lack of quality points in your response I will assume that I have won the argument?

Not really, if you're to stupid to make a decent living then you don't deserve a decent living its that simple, in a socialist society everyone’s poor upset for the government.

GG socialism fails, always has and always will.

[Tharkon Fargor]

3 failed governments?

I know 2 of 'em (the one we have know included). Both of them (well this one is heading that direction) had/will have a financial disaster and both were caused by the Social Democrats (They got the ball rolling, so to speak).
Shows how much you know about your country. I guess you didn't really spend enough time in those schools as I did.
The first one was in the 70's and it failed.
http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riksdagsvalet_i_Sverige_1976
Then the one in 1991 and it failed even more. The government fell appart.
The crisis was not created by the social democrats. The whole world was in crisis in the 1990's. The IT Bubble broke, the eastern countries where falling appart, Thatchers economy had failed completely etc etc.
http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regeringen_Carl_Bildt
Complete and utter fail. Biggest Social Democratic win ever after the failed government.

And then todays government is truly showing its despotic nature by introducing the same "Freedom promoting" ideas like the United States with its Patriot Act (FRA) and increase surveilance while at the same time attempting to sell our schools and our malls for below market prices and thus giving away our hardearned taxkronor.
Its approval rating is currently at 29%. Less than fucking George Bushes. And just 4% approve of it highly.
And free healthcare in Sweden is a fucking nightmare tbh. Have you checked the news? People have had to wait 2 years for a new hip and different types of surgeries. In the U.S. however people can get surgeries rather fast (unless some people here on forumfall are flat-out lieing). Sure you can, if you can pay 700 000 dollars for it. Ellse you don't get it at all. Ellse you fucking die.
My father got a backoperation within 3 weeks because it was critical.
But yeah, hell yeah. There's room for improvement. But reason why the "waiting ques" are longer is the fact that we actually treat everyone in this country compared to the US. Besides, you've had your free education here, learned english and a skill hopefully. Why not move to the United States and gamble a lil bit? If everything goes well, you'll be a rich man. If it doesn't you'll be fucked but you can still come back to Sweden and drain us honest folks of our taxmoney because we'll help you and give you a home anyway.

[wowsa0]

;1718840']You honestly aren't making any sense. Someone who worked from the bottom up is arbitrarily less intelligent than someone born into wealth? Am I reading this right?

And yes, we should discriminate on intelligence when it comes to certain jobs. The last thing we need to do is give dumbasses a position they aren't capable of handling just because we don't want to hurt their feelings.

No in a society with true equal opportunities: after some class reshuffling the poor would end up being the unintelligent because as you say they won't be able to get the high paying jobs, and the rich will be the intelligent because they will be able to get the good jobs. Everyone starts out with equal opportunities which will mean the low paying jobs get occupied by the unintelligent. As intelligence is something you can't change, is this fair?

That is the point I'm trying to get across, even if there are equal opportunities some people won't be able to help being poor, they will be exploited by the rich because of their intelligence.

To summarize: Even in a land with true equal opportunity, working hard would not make the difference between wealth and poverty.

[m0j0mann]

Don't even get me started on obamas "tax breaks", he wants class warfare plain and simple, if he gets in he will destroy the economy.

Taxes control the economy now? Middle class tax cuts is what you wanted, right?

Also, allow me to introduce you to the rest of my post:


Point still stands, there are plenty people who are poor through no fault of their own. And that number appears to be growing rapidly at the moment.


The poor need help too, however. Helping them is much more worthwhile than the other retarded shit government spends money on.

[wowsa0]

Not really, if you're to stupid to make a decent living then you don't deserve a decent living its that simple, in a socialist society everyone’s poor upset for the government.

GG socialism fails, always has and always will.

People can't help being unintelligent, and you can't say: unintelligent people deserve to be homeless. That argument is wrong.

In modern america equal opportunities are not a reality and so the poor are not necessarily unintelligent, but they are not necessarily lazy either. They certainly don't deserve to be homeless.

[palo god]

No in a society with true equal opportunities: after some class reshuffling the poor would end up being the unintelligent because as you say they won't be able to get the high paying jobs, and the rich will be the intelligent because they will be able to get the good jobs. Everyone starts out with equal opportunities which will mean the low paying jobs get occupied by the unintelligent. As intelligence is something you can't change, is this fair?

That is the point I'm trying to get across, even if there are equal opportunities some people won't be able to help being poor, they will be exploited by the rich because of their intelligence.

To summarize: Even in a land with true equal opportunity, working hard would not make the difference between wealth and poverty.

We do have equal opportunity, the thing is though people arent equal. people may have the same rights but they are not equal when it comes to genes or intelligence, and yes it is fair.

[Tharkon Fargor]

Taxes control the economy now? Middle class tax cuts is what you wanted, right?

The dude even completely ignores my posts about the French system that saved that American guys life. I doubt he was really a "uncapable" person.
If he could move to France and work there as a foreigner (you can't just move and become a citizen and geting a job as a foreigner ain't easy) then he probably wasn't "failed".

But he probably wasn't rich enough to pay 700000 USD to pay his operation without having to sell his car, his home and much of what he ownes.
I guess he's unworthy of living...a subperson.

Hmm, who does this remind me of?

[wowsa0]

We do have equal opportunity, the thing is though people arent equal. people may have the same rights but they are not equal when it comes to genes or intelligence, and yes it is fair.

But when it comes down to it, how is discriminating on intelligence (which is what would happen with equal opportunities) any better than racism?

[wowsa0]

Hmm, who does this remind me of?

Maybe palo god is the reincarnation of Hitler?

[Vanno]

;1718840']You honestly aren't making any sense. Someone who worked from the bottom up is arbitrarily less intelligent than someone born into wealth? Am I reading this right?

And yes, we should discriminate on intelligence when it comes to certain jobs. The last thing we need to do is give dumbasses a position they aren't capable of handling just because we don't want to hurt their feelings.

Although muddled, I believe his point was that the rich already have access to assets that increase their likelihood to develop into knowledgeable individuals, further increasing their innate advantage in life. I’m tired of seeing this whole knowledge and labor debate, to be quite honest. Labor simply isn’t as integral a component in production as it once was. There are still some sectors that are labor intensive (medical for example), but nanotech could potentially make inroads on that sector too.

[palo god]

People can't help being unintelligent, and you can't say: unintelligent people deserve to be homeless. That argument is wrong.

In modern america equal opportunities are not a reality and so the poor are not necessarily unintelligent, but they are not necessarily lazy either. They certainly don't deserve to be homeless.

That's the luck of the draw if your born stupid, and I never said unintelligent people deserve to be homeless, don't put words in my mouth.

What I basically said was if you don't earn it then you don't deserve it.

We have equal opportunity, but its your choice to take advantage of that opportunity.

[Vanno]

We have equal opportunity, but its your choice to take advantage of that opportunity.

Again, that is an absurdity. Equality is neither a reality, nor a pragmatic goal.

[wowsa0]

That's the luck of the draw if your born stupid, and I never said unintelligent people deserve to be homeless, don't put words in my mouth.

What I basically said was if you don't earn it then you don't deserve it.

We have equal opportunity, but its your choice to take advantage of that opportunity.

But someone's ability to earn something in a society based around equal opportunities depends on their intelligence. You are saying that because of something people are born with, they deserve to be poor or possibly homeless?

[Tharkon Fargor]

Maybe palo god is the reincarnation of Hitler?

I think he just lacks a brain and no healthcare system can help him with that.
He doesn't realize that in theory there could be a treatment which even he couldn't afford. Now even if he was a hardworking educated man he'd still be dead. Would he then have been unworthy of living just because the treatment is expensive? According to himself he would be.


I mean anyone can be antibiotica against an influensa which if you didn't buy could perhaps kill you. Few people can pay 700 000 dollars for a treatment though.

Now why would a upper-middleclass person who recives an influensa be more worthy of living than someone who has to pay 700 000 dollars for his treatment?

The answer is obvious if you are truly still a human being.

[ZeaL-]

I love it when people go by their usernames and resort to personal insults when they can't argue or just repeat themselves, sorry, but I'm just not interested in epeen wars anymore, I think I pretty much just won this though I told myself I'm not going to post in political threads anymore because of people like you either, oh and I really would love to know what you were doing, was it sitting on a couch and watching t.v or playing a computer game?

I'll just be off and enjoy my quality checked tea, free healthcare and dental thank you :) *ruffles feathers and flies off*

We need more people like you. If we had more caring individuals who sacrificed for others this world would be so much better. I don't understand why people hate each other so much.

The economies of not only the world but also individual nations are all regulated dude. That is a part of free market economics. Free market economics does not mean pure free for all, unregulated economic chaos. Don't read so much into the word 'free' tagged onto it!

In times of economic instability more regulation is needed, not forever, but to return stability to the markets and enable the system to successfully continue. Its just how it works, it's not a new phenomena.


EXACTLY! Free-market never meant free. It was always suppose to be coupled with government because if you didn't do this then there would be no stability just like we see today. Plus free-market types don't understand things very well anymore they believe supply creates demand and all that nonsense. This has already been refuted by economists cuz demand creates supply. Also its sad to see so much poor people. However during economic hardships there have been times where the poor masses were able to revolt and install a government that was actually responsive and cared for the needs of its people. This is just a phase in that order since capitalism is doomed to fail from the start.

[palo god]

Taxes control the economy now? Middle class tax cuts is what you wanted, right?

Also, allow me to introduce you to the rest of my post:

I want a Fair tax or flat tax, class warfare isn't right, people shouldn't be punished for success.

also I want tax breaks for the middle class but not at the expense of tax increases for the rich.

[wowsa0]

Capitalism only works because it is based around people's selfishness. Communism only failed because it is based around people's altruism. Just because capitalism works does not make it any less bad, just more necessary.

[palo god]

Maybe palo god is the reincarnation of Hitler?

Excuse me? when was the last time you helped in a soup kitchen or food bank in your spare time? hypocrite.

[wowsa0]

Excuse me? when was the last time you helped in a soup kitchen or food bank in your spare time? hypocrite.

What and you have helped? What do you say as you serve them, "Hello here's your soup, don't complain about how it tastes because if you weren't so lazy you could buy some decent food".

BTW Hitler was a homeless tramp once, not sure if that is relevant to either of our arguments but it is quite interesting.

[palo god]

I think he just lacks a brain and no healthcare system can help him with that.
He doesn't realize that in theory there could be a treatment which even he couldn't afford. Now even if he was a hardworking educated man he'd still be dead. Would he then have been unworthy of living just because the treatment is expensive? According to himself he would be.


I mean anyone can be antibiotica against an influensa which if you didn't buy could perhaps kill you. Few people can pay 700 000 dollars for a treatment though.

Now why would a upper-middleclass person who recives an influensa be more worthy of living than someone who has to pay 700 000 dollars for his treatment?

The answer is obvious if you are truly still a human being.

Its called health insurance and I can afford it, tough luck for you though.

[Vanno]

I mean anyone can be antibiotica against an influensa which if you didn't buy could perhaps kill you. Few people can pay 700 000 dollars for a treatment though.






That is what insurance and a good lawyer is for. The whole point of insurance is to cover unpredictable, potentially financially devastating health medical expenses. The problem is that most insurance plans tend to cover routine crap, which causes moral hazard and over use (abuse), which leads to higher costs for routine crap, and higher premiums.

Medical insurance needs to be more like car insurance, IMHO.

I want a Fair tax or flat tax, class warfare isn't right, people shouldn't be punished for success.

also I want tax breaks for the middle class but not at the expense of tax increases for the rich.

The fair tax would be a complete disaster. A flat income tax for things like courts, executive, congress, military and interstates, and usage fees for every other government service would probably be the optimal system(gas taxes fairly tax road users and polluters), but cutting spending comes first.

[palo god]

What and you have helped? What do you say as you serve them, "Hello here's your soup, don't complain about how it tastes because if you weren't so lazy you could buy some decent food".

BTW Hitler was a homeless tramp once, not sure if that is relevant to either of our arguments but it is quite interesting.

A few weeks ago I gave about 20 hours of my time to a local food bank packing boxes and handing out charity bags in the parking lot, now I asked you again what have you done?

[Killuminati]

Godwin's law

[Desperado[1G]]

Capitalism only works because it is based around people's selfishness. Communism only failed because it is based around people's altruism. Just because capitalism works does not make it any less bad, just more necessary.

How old are you, and where do you live?

You aren't being rational. We don't live in a utopia. Communism does not work in practice, because it goes against basic human nature.

If you're going to sit here and grumble about how people are greedy, you're going to be grumbling for the rest of your life.

[Knocky]

Its called health insurance and I can afford it, tough luck for you though.

LOL

Blue Cross/Shield hates my family after shelling out close to 2 million for 3 cases of cancer.

[Lethn]

You aren't being rational. We don't live in a utopia. Communism does not work in practice, because it goes against basic human nature.


*coughs* Cuba! *coughs*.... *glances about and slinks out of the thread quickly*

[ZeaL-]

*coughs* Cuba! *coughs*.... *glances about and slinks out of the thread quickly*

Yah, cuba has been around for a long time. I think it would be hard to argue communism doesn't work when theres a country right next to us thats communist. :rolleyes:

[wowsa0]

;1718955']

You aren't being rational. We don't live in a utopia. Communism does not work in practice, because it goes against basic human nature.



That is the exact point I was making didn't you understand my post? How old are YOU?

I said:
Capitalism only works because it is based around people's selfishness, and communism only failed because it is based around people's altruism. Just because capitalism works doesn't make it any less bad, just more necessary.

Now my exact point there is that communism doesn't work in practice because it goes against human nature.

P.S. Yeah there are some examples of it working anyway, like the cuba thing, but most places that used to be communist are now not.

[Desperado[1G]]

*coughs* Cuba! *coughs*.... *glances about and slinks out of the thread quickly*

Yea, and we all know how well Cuba has been thriving ever since, right?

[palo god]

wowsa0, answer my fucking question.

[ZeaL-]

;1718983']Yea, and we all know how well Cuba has been thriving ever since, right?

Thats only because of all the embargoes the US has on them. If they didn't have them they could trade normally.

[Vanno]

;1718955']How old are you, and where do you live?

You aren't being rational. We don't live in a utopia. Communism does not work in practice, because it goes against basic human nature.



What nature are you talking about? I think you might be making a foolish assumption. Self advancement, accumulation and competition are relatively new concepts in the grand scheme of human history.

Communism doesn't work because there isn't a price mechanism; there is no positive feedback that provides the necessary information necessary for organization. The human nature argument is completely wrong.



Now my exact point there is that communism doesn't work in practice because it goes against human nature.



That simply is not the case. Cooperation and social organization is quite human; in fact it has been essential to man's survival as a species.

[wowsa0]

wowsa0, answer my fucking question.

No I haven't helped.

The Government should help.

How can you reconcile you helping homeless people with your belief that they deserve to be homeless for being lazy?

[palo god]

Yah, cuba has been around for a long time. I think it would be hard to argue communism doesn't work when theres a country right next to us thats communist. :rolleyes:

Cuba isn't communist and communism would never work.

[ZeaL-]

What nature are you talking about? I think you might be making a foolish assumption. Self advancement, accumulation and competition are relatively new concepts in the grand scheme of human history.

Communism doesn't work because there isn't a price mechanism; there is no positive feedback that provides the necessary information necessary for organization. The human nature argument is completely wrong.

If we had an inventory system which responded to consumer demand it could work.

[palo god]

No I haven't helped.

The Government should help.

How can you reconcile you helping homeless people with your belief that they deserve to be homeless for being lazy?

Thanks for showing how big of a hypocrite you are, maybe everyone like you who bitches about no one helping poor people should actually got off their fucking lazy ass and do something, if you haven't given up a second of your time you don't get to bitch.

And the government does help, just not to the point where we have socialism.

[Tharkon Fargor]

Its called health insurance and I can afford it, tough luck for you though.

That's really easy to say when you are sick and have to fight a lawsuit and still loose as so many Americans do.
Also if you belive that you should have to fight for your right to treatment even though you are insured then you've kinda missed the point of insurance.


Also normal insurance doesn't cover everything. And "full-cover" insurance is not something everyone who work can afford. And it's definetly not something you can afford if you come from a poor family and have gone into debt for a house and/or an education.
In which case if you get sick your life is only worth so muc that you are insured for.

Which again brings me to the point.
Why should someone who gets an influensa have a higher chance of survival* than someone who gets a sickness that costs 700 000 dollars?
Why is someones life less worth to you just because lady luck played a trick on them?

I hope one day that an insurance company refuses you treatment and that you then loose your lawsuit. It seems that some truly must suffer to know the meaning of suffering.

---Warning TL,DR;
Heck how can you even value life depending only one how much that person earns. Imagine a teachers who instead of having extra studies with rich kids goes and teaches those who cannot afford any education (for I guess you envision a world where even education is not free). She automaticly earns less money despite being a more chivalrous person.
Sadly this also means that she cannot pay for the same insurance herself and risks dying of a disease she cannot afford to cure despite having sacrifised her life and time to help others. Is this right? Doesn't this system in itself go against what libertarians propose as a substitute for state taxation, charity. As Charity in itself becomes something impossible for a lower grade teacher or a nurse.

And what happens if then this teacher or nurse doesn't help these poor children who can't afford even basic education and healthcare? They become criminals, rebels or a general menace for society. In turn society becomes even colder and darker. Not caring for this "menace" that "terrorizes" ordinary, good folks and decides god knows what to get rid of all the shoplifters and thieves that have sprung loose. This is the only result of mans inhumanity to man.

If we had an inventory system which responded to consumer demand it could work.

You don't even need communism. You can collectively as a people decide on what you belive is necessary to finance together so that everyone will stand a chance in life to become what they wish. The more I think about it the more I'm moving to a middle position in socio-economics. Or Social Democracy. A system where everything you need as a person to become something in life is provided by the state but nothing more.
That is housing, education, healthcare, transporation, security, regulations and minimal living support.

Much of the other things should be private but regulated so that it doesn't destroy/hurt nature and humans alike. In an ideal world it is also private as such but owned by the collective workforce of each company driven by market demand.

[Desperado[1G]]

What nature are you talking about? I think you might be making a foolish assumption. Self advancement, accumulation and competition are relatively new concepts in the grand scheme of human history.

Communism doesn't work because there isn't a price mechanism; there is no positive feedback that provides the necessary information necessary for organization. The human nature argument is completely wrong.

Greed is new to human history?

[wowsa0]

Thanks for showing how big of a hypocrite you are, maybe everyone like you who bitches about no one helping poor people should actually got off their fucking lazy ass and do something, if you haven't given up a second of your time you don't get to bitch.

And the government does help, just not to the point where we have socialism.

Yeah well seeing as I'm only 16 I don't really get the time to help, and thanks for ignoring my question.

[palo god]

The fair tax would be a complete disaster. A flat income tax for things like courts, executive, congress, military and interstates, and usage fees for every other government service would probably be the optimal system(gas taxes fairly tax road users and polluters), but cutting spending comes first.

The fair tax would not be a disaster and its much better then the tax system that we have in place, and I agree we need to cut spending.

[ZeaL-]

A flat tax would favor the rich..At least you guys are showing your true colors. Flat means everyone pays the same. Meaning the POOR are hit the hardest.

[palo god]

Yeah well seeing as I'm only 16 I don't really get the time to help, and thanks for ignoring my question.

I started doing community service when i was 12, don't give me bull shit excuses as to why your a lazy hypocrite who only thinks about himself and wants other peoples money.

[wowsa0]

Palo god please answer my question as I answered yours.

[wowsa0]

I started doing community service when i was 12, don't give me bull shit excuses as to why your a lazy hypocrite who only thinks about himself and wants other peoples money.

I don't want other people's money. I want the government to provide more support for the poor, with a free healthcare system etc. (Although where I live in the UK we already have a free healthcare system).

EDIT: I live in the middle of the country in south east england where we don't have a homeless problem, there are no soup kitchens for me to work at.

[palo god]

Palo god please answer my question as I answered yours.

What do you mean? just because their homeless doesn't mean I cant do something nice for them.

[wowsa0]

What do you mean? just because their homeless doesn't mean I cant do something nice for them.

So even though they are only homeless because they are lazy, even though they deserve to be homeless, you still like to help them out with free food and things?

[ZeaL-]

Much of the other things should be private but regulated so that it doesn't destroy/hurt nature and humans alike. In an ideal world it is also private as such but owned by the collective workforce of each company driven by market demand.

I agree, plus worker controlled factories could work similarly to Yugoslavia.

[palo god]

A flat tax would favor the rich..At least you guys are showing your true colors. Flat means everyone pays the same. Meaning the POOR are hit the hardest.

AND WHY SHOULDN'T THEY PAY THE SAME!?!?!?!? why should someone who is smart enough to make more money get punished for his or her success?

My true colors? go live in a socialist country and tell me how that works out for ya.

also everyone would pay less taxes under the fair tax then the current tax system.

[Vanno]

;1719018']Greed is new to human history?

No, but widespread acceptance of it is. For hundreds of years, merchant classes were looked upon with suspicion; usury laws were in place, caste system designed at maintaining not increasing your lot were the norm. Avarice was considered, by all means, a vice to be subdued, not a virtue, and it was subdued for ages. You could use a good reading of the Worldy Philosophers, (http://www.amazon.com/Worldly-Philosophers-Lives-Economic-Thinkers/dp/068486214X/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1222006607&sr=8-1) which gives an excellent recap of human beliefs on nature and economic systems and there evolution over time.

[m0j0mann]

I want a Fair tax or flat tax, class warfare isn't right, people shouldn't be punished for success.

The gains of success far outweigh the losses. If you're making over 600k, you have no fucking shit to complain about.


also I want tax breaks for the middle class but not at the expense of tax increases for the rich.

So what are your priorities? Rich people first, fuck everyone else?

Also, you haven't said hi to the rest of my post yet:

Point still stands, there are plenty people who are poor through no fault of their own. And that number appears to be growing rapidly at the moment.


The poor need help too, however. Helping them is much more worthwhile than the other retarded shit government spends money on.

[wowsa0]

AND WHY SHOULDN'T THEY PAY THE SAME!?!?!?!? why should someone who is smart enough to make more money get punished for his or her success?

My true colors? go live in a socialist country and tell me how that works out for ya.

also everyone would pay less taxes under the fair tax then the current tax system.

I live in a country where the poor pay less and the rich pay more and it works fine. In fact it would be wrong to make the poor pay the same because you are penalizing the poor when they are the ones who are least able to cope financially.

[palo god]

So even though they are only homeless because they are lazy, even though they deserve to be homeless, you still like to help them out with free food and things?

Most of them are homeless because they are lazy, but some of them are homeless to no fault of their own, if I can help one of them then its worth it.

[ZeaL-]

AND WHY SHOULDN'T THEY PAY THE SAME!?!?!?!? why should someone who is smart enough to make more money get punished for his or her success?

My true colors? go live in a socialist country and tell me how that works out for ya.

also everyone would pay less taxes under the fair tax then the current tax system.

Um, because you'll cause poor people to never get out of their poverty. Its evil to want to let the capitalists exploit the poor the whole time without trying to have safety nets for them.

[wowsa0]

Most of them are homeless because they are lazy, but some of them are homeless to no fault of their own, if I can help one of them then its worth it.

Then why can the same argument not be applied to having the government help them out. You are the one being hypocritical here, by working in a soup kitchen when you believe that they don't deserve help.

[Tharkon Fargor]

I agree, plus worker controlled factories could work similarly to Yugoslavia.

Yeah Yugoslavia was the shit. They are trying that in Argentina, Brazil and Venezuela now. We'll see how it goes. It's not easy when you have greedy interests on the side watching, hoping it will go bad so that they can buy it up really fast.

(This since workers who start companies or even small shops together often don't have capital to cover up anything more than the initial cost of starting a business).

[palo god]

I live in a country where the poor pay less and the rich pay more and it works fine.

No it does not work fine.

In fact it would be wrong to make the poor may more because you are penalizing the poor when they are the ones who are least able to cope financially.


What? Under the fair tax they would pay LESS in taxes, everyone wins under the fair tax.

[Desperado[1G]]

Then why can the same argument not be applied to having the government help them out. You are the one being hypocritical here, by working in a soup kitchen when you believe that they don't deserve help.

I've been looking for the past 15 minutes, but for the life of me, I can't seem to find the horse you rode in on.

[ZeaL-]

Yeah Yugoslavia was the shit. They are trying that in Argentina, Brazil and Venezuela now. We'll see how it goes. It's not easy when you have greedy interests on the side watching, hoping it will go bad so that they can buy it up really fast.

(This since workers who start companies or even small shops together often don't have capital to cover up anything more than the initial cost of starting a business).

Yah, hopefully this would cause a sweeping change in how we do things. If not then we will continue to have nefarious corporations do their deeds behind closed doors.

[wowsa0]

;1719084']I've been looking for the past 15 minutes, but for the life of me, I can't seem to find the horse you rode in on.

What do you mean?

[Vanno]

The fair tax would not be a disaster and its much better then the tax system that we have in place, and I agree we need to cut spending.

The fair tax would institute the largest welfare system ever devised with its silly rebate nonsense. Furthermore, a tax on consumption of new goods would create incentives for buying used, blackmarket, or imported goods, stemming production. Furthermore, it would essentially serve as a regressive tax, as lower incomes necessarily consume more of their incomes (part of the issue the stupid rebate tries to address.) The fair tax would be a mess.

A flat tax would favor the rich..At least you guys are showing your true colors. Flat means everyone pays the same. Meaning the POOR are hit the hardest.

They lose the same proportion of their income. I assume you are arguing from the MPC perspective, as I noted above.

[palo god]

Then why can the same argument not be applied to having the government help them out. You are the one being hypocritical here, by working in a soup kitchen when you believe that they don't deserve help.

No I'm not being a hypocrite, helping someone should be a choice, you decided not to help anyone with charity yet you preach like you did, you're the hypocrite.

I never said that they don't deserve help, what I said is I shouldn't be forced to help them through my tax dollars via the government.

[Parabola]

I find it dis-heartening that by the time Darkfall comes out we will be in a full on depression and I wont be able to afford internet after waiting on the game a total of 8 years.

[Tharkon Fargor]

No it does not work fine.



It does. That's the point. That's the whole point. It works and I'll tell you why. I've tried several times but you just keep skipping my posts. Here's the whole thing as short as I can:


State build house + give education to poor student.
Poor student become educationated and have home.
Now poor student is ok and have no worries of big loan.
SO student go and he work really hard with what student wants.
Maybe open store, maybe get job.
Student produce goods that company sells and company make profit and some of profit go to student.
Student not have any loan so student *USE* profit to invest in own company and student make company and become rich.
Now student think "ahh...people help me before, now I help other people." and pay taxes.


Rich student get=Good, stabile unstressed workforce, security, no need to move to a fenced in area, stability in nation(no risk of getting molotov coctail thrown on BMW X3) and if he get sick he and everyone ellse on whole country can get healthcare. EVEN if company fail and go bad.
Sooooo Now he have healthcare but company ruined.
but because he have healthcare...HE GET NEW JOB! OMFGz! 1-0 to SOCIODEMOCRATS-Neoliberals!!!

Self quote r0x

[Desperado[1G]]

I find it dis-heartening that by the time Darkfall comes out we will be in a full on depression and I wont be able to afford internet after waiting on the game a total of 8 years.

Yea, that photo of 12 people living in tents is surely an omen of things to come for all of us :(

[wowsa0]

I never said that they don't deserve help

Yes you did

what I said is I shouldn't be forced to help them through my tax dollars via the government.

Yes you should.

Once again I live in a rural area of south-east england where there is no problem with homelessness, I couldn't help if I wanted to. Maybe the lack of a homeless problem is due to a more left wing society over here?

[m0j0mann]

I never said that they don't deserve help,

You did, numerous times.


what I said is I shouldn't be forced to help them through my tax dollars via the government.


If you weren't forced to help them, the majority would die, turn to crime, or revolt. Charities help, but they cannot take the place of government.

And why is being forced to help them worse than being forced to pay for unnecessary wars and a bloated military? (both are GOP hallmarks)

[wowsa0]

I never said that they don't deserve help

Most of those homeless people decided to be homeless by not getting a fucking job, do you know how hard it is to be poor in the US?

Those bums shouldn't get a dime of my money.

Hmmm... way to contradict yourself.

[Yobaj]

I love how one of you blamed this on "democrats/neocons" and then blame it on the government. Seriously, the Bush administration are a bunch of fuckheads, whatever they do through the power you americans have given them isn't typical socialism or something else, it's capitalism through the state.

And the democrats? What's their part in this?
Obama'08!

[palo god]

Yes you should.

Once again I live in a rural area of south-east england where there is no problem with homelessness, I couldn't help if I wanted to. Maybe the lack of a homeless problem is due to a more left wing society over here?

No I shouldn’t, and you just see it how you want to see it.

Yes you did

No I didn’t, again stop putting words in my mouth.

[wowsa0]

No I shouldn’t, and you just see it how you want to see it.



No I didn’t, again stop putting words in my mouth.

Yes you did read my above post, I quoted you saying it, don't deny it.

[Desperado[1G]]

If you're going to get into semantics, he said he never wanted to hand them money.

That has nothing to do with feeding hungry people on the street.

[ZeaL-]

;1719105']Yea, that photo of 12 people living in tents is surely an omen of things to come for all of us :(

yah, it seems that way, but it can catch up to yah. Greed has its limits in a society.

[palo god]

Hmmm... way to contradict yourself.

How did I contradict myself? All I said was they shouldn't get my money.

[Tharkon Fargor]

No it does not work fine.



It does. That's the point. That's the whole point. It works and I'll tell you why. I've tried several times but you just keep skipping my posts. Here's the whole thing as short as I can:


State build house + give education to poor student.
Poor student become educationated and have home.
Now poor student is ok and have no worries of big loan.
SO student go and he work really hard with what student wants.
Maybe open store, maybe get job.
Student produce goods that company sells and company make profit and some of profit go to student.
Student not have any loan so student *USE* profit to invest in own company and student make company and become rich.
Now student think "ahh...people help me before, now I help other people." and pay taxes.


Rich student get=Good, stabile unstressed workforce, security, no need to move to a fenced in area, stability in nation(no risk of getting molotov coctail thrown on BMW X3) and if he get sick he and everyone ellse on whole country can get healthcare. EVEN if company fail and go bad.
Sooooo Now he have healthcare but company ruined.
but because he have healthcare...HE GET NEW JOB! OMFGz! 1-0 to SOCIODEMOCRATS-Neoliberals!!!

I are use t3h self-quote! :ninja:

[wowsa0]

How did I contradict myself? All I said was they shouldn't get my money.

If that isn't contradicting yourself I don't know what is.

[m0j0mann]

How did I contradict myself? All I said was they shouldn't get my money.

They deserve help but not money. K. :bang:

They're lazy bums who can help themselves by getting a job and only have themselves to blame....And they need our help! But not the government's!

[Vanno]

Nice caveman styled cave picuture you drew there TF

[Desperado[1G]]

Forced charity isn't charity at all, but I wont get into that now.

You guys need to stop thinking in absolutes here. Some folks may not want to financially support bums who don't want to work, but that doesn't mean they want them to suffer.

[palo god]

You did, numerous times.

No I didn’t, quote or it didn’t happen.

Charities help, but they cannot take the place of government.

Helping someone should be a choice, It shouldn’t be forced upon anyone.

And why is being forced to help them worse than being forced to pay for unnecessary wars and a bloated military?

I’m against the war, and the choice should be mine since its my money.

[palo god]

If that isn't contradicting yourself I don't know what is.

You don't know what is.

[wowsa0]

I give up, you libertarians are about as stubborn as religious people when it comes to holding on to your beliefs.

*exits debate*

Enjoy your capitalist society (http://www.f360photo.com/images/poverty23.jpg)

[Vanno]

I give up, you libertarians are about as stubborn as religious people when it comes to holding on to your beliefs.

*exits debate*

The same could be said for you, whatever it is you consider yourself.

[palo god]

They deserve help but not money. K. :bang:

They're lazy bums who can help themselves by getting a job and only have themselves to blame....And they need our help! But not the government's!

Exactly.

[ZeaL-]

Yah, theres no use in debating with people whos sole faith is in greed.

[palo god]

I give up, you libertarians are about as stubborn as religious people when it comes to holding on to your beliefs.

*exits debate*

Enjoy your capitalist society (http://www.f360photo.com/images/poverty23.jpg)

Nice picture at the end, its a good thing I actually gave up some of my time and worked in a food bank unlike yourself.

[wowsa0]

The same could be said for you, whatever it is you consider yourself.

Well I'm happy to admit when I am proven wrong, but palo god blatantly contradicted himself and then denied it, that is the sort of thing that religious people do.

Sorry I am really leaving the debate now.

And palo god I will say again that I live in rural south east england where I have honestly never seen a homeless person. The only times that I have seen homeless people is on the rare occasion that I travel in to London, I don't have the opportunity to help because it is not a problem.

[palo god]

Yah, theres no use in debating with people whos sole faith is in greed.

Its not about greed(at least not for me), its about having a choice.

[Tharkon Fargor]

;1719177']Forced charity isn't charity at all, but I wont get into that now.

You guys need to stop thinking in absolutes here. Some folks may not want to financially support bums who don't want to work, but that doesn't mean they want them to suffer.

Let's say that they start working. How can they afford a house when prices have skyrocketed and when rentable appartments are almost not built anymore by commercial companies?
Should they take a loan?

But didn't we just say that the bank shouldn't grant loans to people who probably can't pay them off and you can't even hope to pay off a loan that big with a minimum wage job.

In libertarian ideal worldview even the most basic education should cost money so this means that if you don't know basic grammar and math you barely can get any job at all. Now how does this great political system of your help with solving this worlds troubles?

Or maybe you just don't care if some people starve to death, freeze to death or die sick and alone in some corner street? Trust me, if your system would become the de jure system of your country then there would be so many starving and freezing to death that they wouldn't just sit there and die in the glutter and then you'd have to either kill them or put them in prison which would cost you money. As that is the only thing you care about then there you have it. It would cost you money.

Not to mention the potential suffering your system would have brought the world.

Its not about greed(at least not for me), its about having a choice. Tests show that even though most people are good and would share and help others that if their fellow neighbours weren't forced to do the same they would be less inclined to keep helping others. That is why we as a society must agree on some basic principles in where we really force each other to finance that which aids the common good of us all.

[Desperado[1G]]

LOL, how did religion get pulled into this?

Anyway, thanks for reaffirming my Darkfall triangle theory;

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v734/ArclytePS/retardfall1.jpg

[palo god]

Well I'm happy to admit when I am proven wrong, but palo god blatantly contradicted himself and then denied it, that is the sort of thing that religious people do.


You never admit you’re wrong even when you are, I did not contradict myself and you know it.

[Tharkon Fargor]

;1719223']LOL, how did religion get pulled into this?

Anyway, thanks for reaffirming my Darkfall triangle theory;

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v734/ArclytePS/retardfall1.jpg

Aha! But if its anti-Americanism to have homeless people in your country, then why don't you all go and help them?! :sly:

[LordTenacious]

That's the stupidest thing said so far in this thread. Well done, good sir.

[palo god]

Aha! But if its anti-Americanism to have homeless people in your country, then why don't you all go and help them?! :sly:

I do and have and will again.

[ZeaL-]

That's the stupidest thing said so far in this thread. Well done, good sir.

stupidest isn't a word, stupid.

[LordTenacious]

stupidest isn't a word, stupid.

Oh really (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/stupidest)? Sorry about that Tharkon. It appears that I spoke too soon.

[Yobaj]

3 failed governments?

I know 2 of 'em (the one we have know included). Both of them (well this one is heading that direction) had/will have a financial disaster and both were caused by the Social Democrats (They got the ball rolling, so to speak).

The financial crisis in Sweden during the 90's was caused by people, not the government per se. The inflation was high (yes you can blame the government for this), but the problem was that people still went ahead and bought houses with bankloans, they even though they didn't afford it. So when the economy overheated and turned into a mega recession, people couldn't pay their mortgage and had to sell their houses for a lot less than they buyed it. This resembles the situation in the US right now, but the US problem is alot worse. However, when people and the banks lost money it fueled the recession even more. And then the Bildt government fucked it up even more by raising the interests for loans to 500% and some other stupid stuff.

You can't blame it on the socialdemocrats only.


And free healthcare in Sweden is a fucking nightmare tbh. Have you checked the news? People have had to wait 2 years for a new hip and different types of surgeries. In the U.S. however people can get surgeries rather fast (unless some people here on forumfall are flat-out lieing).

Lol, yea I like your sources. First off, in what case do you have to wait for 2 years to get a surgery? It's when there aren't any donors, and what can the healtcare system do about that? Buy peoples organs? Kill people and take their organs?

In the US 50 million people, listen to that number, 5 times the swedish population, aren't elligable for healtcare... Yeah there are some hospitals that give people care, and if you come in shot for example, they have to stop the immediate threat. But infections, expensive operations and such, they don't have to give you. The fact that your life hangs on the benevolence of some hospital owner is fucked.

And the education... I think it's ok if we except the fact that noone is allowed to start a school and charge money for it + that kids are getting brainwashed that "Democracy kicks motherfucking asses!" instead of being allowed to think for themselves.
Makes me think of a quote.

Are you joking? Do you even know what you are talking about? You can start a school in sweden and charge students 1 billion bucks if you want to. You can even start a school, let the "state" (more precise the municipality the student comes from) pay for it, AND put some money in the owners pocket.

And what the fuck? You think that our schools should teach that democracy is bad? I have never had a teacher tell me that democracy is the best thing in the world, they have only said that it has worked fine with democracy in alot of countries, compared to feodalism and dictatorship. It has been my conclusion that democracy is the best way to run a country through.

[Bawlin]

For crosscountry we run in the state park, and when we go on the back trails they have all sorts of hobo tents