It is interesting to pose that question. But of course the "best use" for the people who spend the capital (bureaucrats) is whatever strengthens their political position and has nothing to do with what is "best" for the people who fund or benefit from the spending.
Welfare... Fucking pisses me off
- Thread starter danke
- Start date
It is interesting to pose that question. But of course the "best use" for the people who spend the capital (bureaucrats) is whatever strengthens their political position and has nothing to do with what is "best" for the people who fund or benefit from the spending.
This.
The unalienable rights Jefferson wrote about in the Declaration of Independence are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I think that welfare amounts to forced redistribution of wealth, and that as such it is a violation of my liberty, and yours too.
Yeah, it's bullshit alright. If you're living in another country, you shouldn't have to pay taxes here anymore once you establish residency there.
What I don't understand is, if you're making money in another country, how does the US guv know what you made there if they have nothing to check your income against? You could be unemployed for all they know.
See, it doesnt matter who rules what. Whether it be kings or dictators or governments or advanced alien races. Governments dont have to manipulate the mob. They are the mob. They are their advocates. If it wasnt the mobs vote that secures their shiny spot at the top, they wouldnt give a shit about the mob, but the mob rules, and the ruling body in a society has to be fed. Thats why welfare exists. The mob is the majority and the majority decides whats up, so its welfare.
Another method is to divide and conquer. Its women against men, old vs. young, black vs. white, fat vs. thin, blue collar vs. white collar, married vs. single. The question never is whether these taxes should be taken at all but where they should go, and government and media do their best to spread hatred between different groups. They have to fight for their little share of the tax-pie that they will never see that the whole taxation thing is the problem. The problem is that that other group gets what they deserve.
America just asks nicely. If said country refuses to inform them about your tax income situation, theyll just flex some muscles. On top of that, there are tax treaties, you are just required by the IRS to report your global income and a couple other hurdles.
U.S. gov passed a law that goes into effect next year called FATCA (Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) that requires all banks around the world to report on any accounts held by U.S. citizens, including balances, deposits and withdrawals. Failure to do so means that the U.S. will confiscate (they call it "withholding") some of the bank's U.S. assets. Previously there was just the law requiring individuals to report their foreign bank accounts. This new law tightens the noose. So if you have foreign income that you don't want the IRS to know about you better not have it flowing through any bank accounts anywhere in the world.
By the way to be clear, if you have issue with government assistance programs then you are against all welfare which includes: The GI bill, Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, and Medicare. Because it really bugs me when the Teabaggers start shouting about welfare but call you unpatriotic when you want to cut the GI bill.
I think most people on wf realize this, but most republicans outside of wf...don't.
I think most people on wf realize this, but most republicans outside of wf...don't.
I'll take a stab at this.
So, "best use" is pretty clearly subjective, and consequently, impossible to determine with any precision. I think the best you can hope to do is essentially what's done (ideally) in a democracy, i.e., through the political process form a fuzzy picture that approximates the values of the electorate.
There's an interview with Noam Chomsky floating around Youtube where he talks about all these polls that are done on the American people, and how, while a lot of them might self-identify as conservative, when actually asked about specific government programs, it turns out most are essentially social democrats in terms of their values (i.e., supporting Social Security, Medicare, etc).
If we're going to get all technical and shit social security technically means
OASDI: Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance
so for general discourse when most people, including myself refer to "welfare" we're generally talking about foodstamps and/or medicaid (I don't think medicaid is an issue personally though), which just two of many things OASDI encompasses. (Which is why the "he'll cut social security" political threat is so retarded.)
I do have a big fucking problem with state sponsored unemployment insurance though. HUGE.
I saw a fat ass mother and her pathetic greasy son at 711 using that shit to buy Slushees and Doritos one day. Then she whips out a wad of cash to buy cigarettes. Fucking infuriating.
some of the hottest girls in the world and bitches at the beach are so good. Glad that I'm here.
First neighborhood, where I grew up.
Don't you think it's a problem that you grew up in a place like that? That any kid has to grow up in a place like that? It looks like a bombed out city. But clearly this is in freedom-loving, capitalism-worshiping America. You think you'd find neighborhoods like this in a modern "socialist" European country? You think the average German or Swede feels less free not having places like that in their cities?
You also said you want to make sure your kids and their kids never have to worry about money. I can't help but note the irony here - on one hand, you decry welfare recipients for not having earned their living, on the other you want to ensure that your descendants never have to earn theirs...
The reality is, hustling and busting ass to make it isn't for everyone. It's not for most people. It requires a certain mindset. A lot of people don't have what it takes. A lot of people don't even care to have what it takes. Quite a lot of people would be more than happy to do reasonable work, for a reasonable amount of their time, to earn a decent living. Unfortunately, that's becoming harder to do.
Globalization + technological progress has left a lot of people without jobs, or with jobs that don't pay enough for a decent living. People are getting squeezed down, and now it practically requires hustling and busting ass just to stay afloat for many. Meanwhile, a tiny handful of big-time capitalists are winning hard, and have been for the last 30 years. There's something wrong with that. Things the way they are just aren't working for far too many people.
It's cool that you worked hard, accomplished what you have and changed your life. But blaming people for trying to get by in whatever way they can under forces far larger than them... seems misguided.
Ain't no shame in a plastic "Electronic Benefits Transfer" card that arrives, like magic, from the government.
"Best use" is not subjective. "Best use" is defined as most capital in reserves after said project. The most capital in reserves and most efficient use of capital is through individual, voluntary exchange -- the free market. This can be demonstrated both logically and historically. Socialism is a far inferior use of resources than voluntary exchange in a free market.
Social Security makes retirement more expensive for everyone. Medicare makes medicine more expensive for everyone. All socialism does is distort the market to where less efficient systems are promoted and more efficient systems are demoted.
The only reason people are socialists is because they aren't educated (most people) or they are purposefully using it to their advantage (a few people). There is absolutely no reason to be in favor of planned economies other than for personal gain, which is why it was invented by the super criminals. To be in favor of socialism is to be in favor of slavery. When somebody says I like free education, I like welfare, I like the government taking care of me, they are saying, "I like being a slave". Free markets are more moral, generous, productive, dynamic and they are always going to create a higher quality of life for the participants than barbaric, primitive socialism.
Most people are unknowingly socialists because they're dumbshits. Of course they are socialists. Freedom requires higher intelligence than slavery. Of course majority of people want to be slaves, they can't handle freedom.
Read it: [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Socialism-Sociological-Ludwig-von-Mises/dp/1933550511/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1328290736&sr=1-3"]Amazon.com: Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis (9781933550510): Ludwig von Mises: Books[/ame]
If people want to be lazy and don't want to evolve let em... Just don't allow them force me to wipe their ass. Let them live in their unevolved, primitive caveman societies by themselves. Just don't bring me down with them. I'm not their daddy. I'm not going to help somebody in a primitive way. You don't help people in a mess with the same level of thinking that got them into the mess. And if they don't want better instruction then deal with the consequences. I want nothing to do with sheep stagnating in ignorance walking away from problems. I want to journey to the stars and build a world of growth. I want to align myself with nature and evolve. I don't want to be a freaking Neanderthal that just sits around all day playing with sticks. No thanks.
Hmm, let me check.. The per capita GDP in Singapore is $10,000 higher than the USA and nearly $30,000 higher than New Zealand. The World Health Organization ranks Singapore's health care system as the 6th best in the world.
Maybe that definition of "best use" isn't subjective. I can guarantee that's not most people's idea of what "best use" means, however. Perhaps Jake should have defined his terms before asking the question.
And yet, the US spends far more per capita on healthcare than every other industrialized country - the great majority of which have some form of socialized healthcare that covers a greater percentage of their population, and which also typically have outcomes as good or better than the US? Were what you claim true to a significant degree, wouldn't you expect costs to be higher in socialized healthcare systems? Your claim simply isn't borne out by reality.
Your argument, like Hayek's (as I understand it), seems directed at planned economies. Yet, what exists in every industrialized country in the world is a mixed economy; part capitalism and part socialism. Is anyone here advocating a pure form of socialism? I think you're arguing against a strawman.
Many would disagree. Not having to worry about the cost of medical care or education is a freedom from burden for many. On the other hand, many have become virtually enslaved to their creditors for e.g. medical bills through no fault of their own.
Hypothetically, right? Since a pure free market has scarcely existed in modern times.
Maybe you ought to tell that to those primitive, barbarous Germans, Swedes, Norwegians, Danes, etc. etc.