Jenos Ridan wrote:Ntetos wrote:Since many people don't take big salaries they would still need a welfare state. And unemployed would still exist, as they exist in US. I bet many people in US need a more socialistic state. Of course you are lucky and think all these are useless. Good for you.
How many is "many"? As for my "luck", I am currently unemployed and have been for some time. Also, all the jobs I have had in the past three years have lasted a few months at most and paid only minimum wage. What I need is an income, a paycheck not a handout. The money can come from Uncle Sam if it involved my working for it: an example would be for a renewed Civilian Conservation Corps or some Public Works Project like Hoover Dam. A paycheck can even come in the form of a veteran's pension or active duty pay. But absolutely not for going nothing at all. If a person were truely unable to work to due to a severe physical or mental condition (and I do mean severe, as in can barely do every day tasks like feed themselves or put on clothes), then maybe some form of stipend would be acceptable, but no stipend for able-bodied people unless they worked a minimum number of hours a week to earn it.
It is a myth that one needs big saleries to be successful; if people learned how to handle what money they had correctly, they can do quite well, all without government interference. If a teenager started putting the twenty bucks he/she got for moving the neighbor's lawn or babysitting the neighbor's kid or whatever, then started adding to that initial deposit twenty bucks every time they earn it rather than blow it on gum or whatever, well, it adds up pretty quick and soon the teen will be able to buy a car or the parts to fix up a car and get in on the road to look for more work, saving money from that job to buy an even better car and so on. If some of that money is set aside for retirement early in life (and the earlier the better), interest will add up over many years and by retirement age will be enough to retire on.
People used to do this alot before the 50's, when people began to buy into the lie that every big purchance has to be bought on credit. Credit is why certain people feel that some socialist nanny-state is what will solve everything: alot of people have made very poor finnancial choices and now seemingly need help. But all that needs to happen is these people need to learn how to handle their affairs. No government inference required.
Now that I am done explaining how people can handle things fine with out the government, how dare you. You self-righteous piece of garbage, where do you get off getting all high an' mighty? I bet you are raking in a big salery.
I agree with much of what you have said, but not all.
Welfare needs to be more restrictive. There is no reason why my friend (I like her, but don't agree with her choices...) should get free housing, health care, food and even free participation in community sports, the YMCS, etc ... all because she was so "unfortunate" as to wind up pregnant (twice ...) and now feels she needs to stay home because the public school system just isn't good enough for
her kids. Oh, and did I add she has a degree in education? On the one hand, society is getting a "better deal" by funding her than by feeding the kids of my drug-dealing former neighbors, who supervise their kids so poorly I LITERALLY ended up pulling them off the street on more than one occasion (and yes, I did make other phone calls...) to name just one of the less provacative incidences. Who's mother, I might add, was offered a free chance to obtain her GED, with childcare, etc provided ... but it was "too difficult" (not the academics... I am not talking about someone with poor learning skills) to get her kids going, etc.
I also FULLLy agree that far too many people feel a big screen TV counts and the latest designer clothing count as "necessities". BUT, what do you do when the collections officers are calling about a medical bill? Or, your gas tank is on empty and you have to take your child to the doctor ... or get milk (the store is 1/2 hour walk each way ... not practical when it is 5 degrees outside). Or, you run out of food... even find that your son has busted his one good belt that he has to wear to school the next day.... Sometimes you end up putting stuff on credit.
As for the old CCC. A decent idea. But, right now we already have a large number of federal employees. I won't get into the whole highly biased pay structure there, but the move has been to push those folks into private contracting. This DOES cost far more, but allows a few people to make some nice profits (Blackwater ring a bell anyone?). Also, a lot of those funds that were once used for projects like WAC and CCC now go to fund those big tax breaks corportations "must" have to survive ... and the tax breaks heavily slanted toward the very rich, so that they are not "unfairly" burdened with the rest of the countries needs. Never mind that those profits
come, in large part,
precisely from our taxes. How dare WE ask for a share?
The real problem is that we need a change in rules similar to what we saw at the turn of the century. Back then, one of the problems was a few folks ... Rockafellar, etc. had gained monopolies. And, outright fraud, poor quality control was rampant. The old "snake oil" sellers were just one example. You had canned goods that were actually poisonous (sometime people just "did not know".. sometimes it was plain disregard). Ergo food safety rules, anti-trust legislation... and yes, income taxes. Now, the biggest problem is that companies are no longer really answering to consumers ... they answer to stockholders, who want stock profits. This is the REAL problem ... ultimately ... behind this whole "mortgage" crisis. The folks who are making the money are far removed from the actual costs of the businesses. In fact, many times they make much more money, in the short term, when businesses LOSE money.
I have said it before, but will say it again. Profit is fine ... as long as it is REAL profit. Profit that is only possible by paying empoyees too little to live (like Walmart ... and many other companies now), requires huge tax breaks, or that causes environmental damage (such as pollution) that our children and grandchildren will be left to clean ... are not legitimate profits. THAT is where the government ... call it "socialism", if you like. MUST come into play.
