jhaag Posted October 14, 2010 Report Share Posted October 14, 2010 they are just getting dried out from that horrible flood and you wanna vaporize them? it will just take a little longer to vaporize since they are so waterlogged now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cg2112 Posted October 14, 2010 Report Share Posted October 14, 2010 I always kind of chuckle when I see "get rid of government programs" and the like (almost always social programs). If these programs weren't generally successful, that would make sense. But the fact is, they are. For some reason, I can't recall ever seeing Republicans opposed to expanding programs for space exploration, airport security or faith based initiatives, but plenty of objection to medicare, welfare, social security, and the like. They seem to, for some reason, only oppose programs that clearly work, and immediately help people.Please note that that is a general "they," used broadly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vulcan_Rider Posted October 14, 2010 Report Share Posted October 14, 2010 I always kind of chuckle when I see "get rid of government programs" and the like (almost always social programs). If these programs weren't generally successful, that would make sense. But the fact is, they are. For some reason, I can't recall ever seeing Republicans opposed to expanding programs for space exploration, airport security or faith based initiatives, but plenty of objection to medicare, welfare, social security, and the like. They seem to, for some reason, only oppose programs that clearly work, and immediately help people.Please note that that is a general "they," used broadly.Your 3 examples or programs that work are medicare, welfare, and social security? Your definition and my definition of work must be totally different, If a program is in the red then I would not say it is working.On a side note I really wish they would implode NASA, only down fall would be the jobs lost which unfortunately is a lot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vulcan_Rider Posted October 14, 2010 Report Share Posted October 14, 2010 double post I fail Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted October 14, 2010 Report Share Posted October 14, 2010 I always kind of chuckle when I see "get rid of government programs" and the like (almost always social programs). If these programs weren't generally successful, that would make sense. But the fact is, they are. For some reason, I can't recall ever seeing Republicans opposed to expanding programs for space exploration, airport security or faith based initiatives, but plenty of objection to medicare, welfare, social security, and the like. They seem to, for some reason, only oppose programs that clearly work, and immediately help people.Please note that that is a general "they," used broadly.well, i'm not a republican...the elephant is way too liberal.space exploration in the persuit of science is the only thing on your list that I would support...airport security? airport's job... if LAX needs more security then they better raise their prices."faith based intiatives"? is this some sort of code word for indoctrinating people into believeing nonsense? that's the church's job, and they should be taxed just like any other business.medicare, charging healthy, verile people for the medical care of the sick and weak... absolutely rediculous.welfare? don't want to work? you don't have to.social security, an entire generation of people stealing from their children's piggy banks.. apalling... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cg2112 Posted October 14, 2010 Report Share Posted October 14, 2010 Your 3 examples or programs that work are medicare, welfare, and social security? Your definition and my definition of work must be totally different, If a program is in the red then I would not say it is working.Being in the red is irrelevant. Those programs do not have the purpose of saving money, being profitable, or being financially efficient. The successes of these programs are not measured by monetary metrics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted October 14, 2010 Report Share Posted October 14, 2010 The successes of these programs are not measured by monetary metrics.I guess you measure success by how detatched they are from american capitolism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vulcan_Rider Posted October 14, 2010 Report Share Posted October 14, 2010 Being in the red is irrelevant. Those programs do not have the purpose of saving money, being profitable, or being financially efficient. The successes of these programs are not measured by monetary metrics.I don't give a fuck how much help these programs supposedly give, if it is going to run our country into the ground then all they are doing is driving more people to use these programs which have to be paid for by someone. So as long as my car gets me from a to b that is all that matters. Whenever something goes wrong with my car I should just fix it and move on without ever considering the financial effects. The effectiveness of my car is measured by its ability to get me from a to b, so as long as I keep throwing money at it no matter how much money it costs me I will be ok? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cg2112 Posted October 14, 2010 Report Share Posted October 14, 2010 I don't give a fuck how much help these programs supposedly give, if it is going to run our country into the ground then all they are doing is driving more people to use these programs which have to be paid for by someone. So as long as my car gets me from a to b that is all that matters. Whenever something goes wrong with my car I should just fix it and move on without ever considering the financial effects. The effectiveness of my car is measured by its ability to get me from a to b, so as long as I keep throwing money at it no matter how much money it costs me I will be ok?Luckily, they aren't running our country into the ground, so that's a non-issue.Your car analogy is flawed, though an interesting choice.An accurate analogy would not be a program to keep your car on the road - rather, it would be a program to continue to give you the ability to get from point A to point B. Interesting that you use your car going from A to B as an analogy, though - considering that we all pay for that ability. You may pay for your car repairs, but we all pay for the infrastructure upon which you travel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cg2112 Posted October 14, 2010 Report Share Posted October 14, 2010 I guess you measure success by how detatched they are from american capitolism.Capitalism.That has nothing to do with. Success of social programs should be measured by how effective they are at meeting their objectives. These programs are very successful in that respect. If you want to measure success based on how much money is saved, on how much profit is earned, etc, then you'd need to create programs which have those as goals. Social programs such as welfare (this has nothing to do with jobs, by the way - welfare doesn't pay you not to work, many employed people get welfare assistance - you may be thinking of unemployment, which is by no means a hand out of any kind), social security, etc, do not have those goals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted October 14, 2010 Report Share Posted October 14, 2010 Social programs such as welfare (this has nothing to do with jobs, by the way - welfare doesn't pay you not to work...please clarify welfare... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cg2112 Posted October 14, 2010 Report Share Posted October 14, 2010 please clarify welfare...WIC, housing assistance, child care assistance, food stamps, health care aid, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted October 14, 2010 Report Share Posted October 14, 2010 WIC, housing assistance, child care assistance, food stamps, health care aid, etc.these are not "freeloading on taxpayers expense?"getting for free, that which the rest of us must pay for? (and are taxed on)is that capitalism?Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for a private profit; decisions regarding supply, demand, price, distribution, and investments are made by private actors in the market rather than by central planning by the government; profit is distributed to owners who invest in businesses, and wages are paid to workers employed by businesses and companies.or does that sound more like socialism? perhaps on it's way to communism? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cg2112 Posted October 15, 2010 Report Share Posted October 15, 2010 (edited) these are not "freeloading on taxpayers expense?"getting for free, that which the rest of us must pay for? (and are taxed on)is that capitalism?or does that sound more like socialism? perhaps on it's way to communism?Capitalism, socialism and communism have nothing to with it at all. It only takes a very basic understand of these economic and political systems to understand that these programs have nothing to do with the type of economy we have.They pay for these things, too. Maybe not as much as when they are not using those programs, but people don't stay on those programs forever. People making the sort of income to qualify for these programs end up putting much more of their paycheck into local taxes than the middle class and especially the rich.Capitalism doesn't come in to play here - capitalism is an economic system, and has no relationship to public assistance. Neither does socialism really, for that matter. When people call these programs "socialism," it really just shows that they don't really know what socialism is. I always find it a little odd when people on the right, people who generally profess a deep love to the Constitution, get bent out of shape about these programs. Making sure the poor can eat and that children can get health care, and that people can get a place live, to me, seems almost like a dictionary definition of providing for the general welfare of the people, which is only one of the two reasons that the Constitution allows Congress to collect taxes for. Edited October 15, 2010 by cg2112 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tblade Posted October 15, 2010 Report Share Posted October 15, 2010 sure, capitalism is an economic system, socialism is a political one.I can understand a short term need for social assistance, but ingraining these programs into society to a point where they are abused (even by the few) is destructive at bestwhen the 'greater good' is touted as a mechanism to continue proliferation of inequitable rewards, it has a very real impact on economics as well as government. the democratic form of govt runs the risk of turning into a socialist/fascist entity.the point has already been made that we continue to punish fiscally responsible people, and vice-versa. govt really has no role of playing robin hood, but fostering an environment where a strong capital-based economy makes this situation unnecessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cg2112 Posted October 17, 2010 Report Share Posted October 17, 2010 govt really has no role of playing robin hood, but fostering an environment where a strong capital-based economy makes this situation unnecessary.The Constitution doesn't agree. The government collects taxes for only two reasons - to fund defense, and to provide for the general welfare of the people. Meanwhile, the Constitution says absolutely nothing about any branch of government fostering an environment where capitalism, or any other economic system, succeeds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.