Somebody Needs to Be Held Accountable! (Why Not Married?)

[Phatscotty]

You can try minding your own business, since you don't have a clue about America.

[Jenos Ridan 2nd]

Follow up question for Jenos Ridan II: Do you think the improved state of people in "developed" countries is a result of government intervention (or mostly government intervention)?

Question jack! The ridiculously high standard of living the wealthy in post-industrial societies enjoy is certainly a result of government intervention, in that the government intervened in poorer societies to take their resources from them, usually with the help of bombs and/or swords, but sometimes loans.[/quote]

Every "modern" economy requires large amounts of government intervention. Regulations regarding transport and communications, spending on infrastructure (the US of today wouldn't have been possible had we left the contruction of the railroads solely in the hands of private interests), courts to enforce contracts and arbitrate commercial disputes, laws protecting intellectual property, etc. In fact, without government, I rather doubt the economy would have developed much beyond the level of barter and subsistence agriculture.

To cite other points, the post-war housing boom as well as the sub-prime mortgage bubble (not to mention everything which lies between the two points) was actually the result of government policy dating to the FDR administration. Further, the particular types of mortgages being used to day exist only because the Federal Government says they should exist. I'm not even going to mention the FDIC, Job Corps, Social Security and Financial Aid programs.

[Lootifer]

You can try minding your own business, since you don't have a clue about America.

What I said doesn't only apply in America...

edit: You mad bro? >.<

[TheProwler]

Let me clairify what I meant:

Not that government should never help people, rather that safety nets should possibly assist those who fall down to get back to their feet. If they fall to the ground and go limp - the safety net should not help them.

Yeah...but what do you do with people like the lady and kids in the OP? Let them starve to death on the streets? Is that really an option?


It's a very difficult situation and the root of the problem is overpopulation and we need a really good war to solve the problem or maybe a global natural disaster. I can hardly wait for Dec. 2012.

[Phatscotty]

You can try minding your own business, since you don't have a clue about America.

What I said doesn't only apply in America...

edit: You mad bro? >.<

yeah well your set's of rights don't trump mine.

Not at all

[Phatscotty]

Let me clairify what I meant:

Not that government should never help people, rather that safety nets should possibly assist those who fall down to get back to their feet. If they fall to the ground and go limp - the safety net should not help them.

Yeah...but what do you do with people like the lady and kids in the OP? Let them starve to death on the streets? Is that really an option?


It's a very difficult situation and the root of the problem is overpopulation and we need a really good war to solve the problem or maybe a global natural disaster. I can hardly wait for Dec. 2012.

Nobody would let them starve. our society would not allow it. People would give them food. In fact, people have already been giving them free food, shelter, furniture, clothes, utilities, spending money etc....

My whole problem here is that it's attitudes like some shared here that will turn us into a society that would let people starve, and do so by destroying the food market system and distribution.

[Lootifer]

Nobody would let them starve. our society would not allow it. People would give them food. In fact, people have already been giving them free food, shelter, furniture, clothes, utilities, spending money etc....

My whole problem here is that it's attitudes like some shared here that will turn us into a society that would let people starve, and do so by destroying the food market system and distribution.

Wut?

At least explain your assertions...

[Phatscotty]

10 pages about one crazy lady on welfare.

0 pages about incredibly corrupt banks and mortgage companies fleecing the nation and then their executives not having to pay any fucking income tax. No no, we need to protect those people!

Yes Dave, but this crazy lady demanded more help and appeared unappreciative of the help she had already recieved. Apparently that's just about a hanging offense around these parts. I've heard that when banks demand help they're incredibly humble about it.

while only 35% of homeowners were personally responsible for buying more house than they could afford. People carry just as much the blame for signing the contracs as much as the people who tried to make them "affordable to less wealthy people"

THIS IS WHAT THE CONSEQUENCES OF REDISTRIBUTION LOOKS LIKE!

[Phatscotty]

Nobody would let them starve. our society would not allow it. People would give them food. In fact, people have already been giving them free food, shelter, furniture, clothes, utilities, spending money etc....

My whole problem here is that it's attitudes like some shared here that will turn us into a society that would let people starve, and do so by destroying the food market system and distribution.

Wut?

At least explain your assertions...

you aren't even in a position to challenge my assertions. I live in America, you do not. You have zero idea what it is like here, so you are unable to request for an American to have to prove what America is like to a non-American who just knows somehow what America and it's culture is like.

[Lootifer]

THIS IS WHAT THE CONSEQUENCES OF DUMB POLICY LOOKS LIKE!

Fxt.

[Lootifer]

you aren't even in a position to challenge my assertions. I live in America, you do not. You have zero idea what it is like here, so you are unable to request for an American to have to prove what America is like to a non-American who just knows somehow what America and it's culture is like.

Now you have to be trolling me.

I'll try again:

My whole problem here is that it's attitudes like some shared here that will turn us into a society that would let people starve, and do so by destroying the food market system and distribution.

At least explain your assertions... (note this has NOTHING to do with what country you live in, i'm questioning your assertion that some redistribution leads to complete economic collapse).

[Phatscotty]

you aren't even in a position to challenge my assertions. I live in America, you do not. You have zero idea what it is like here, so you are unable to request for an American to have to prove what America is like to a non-American who just knows somehow what America and it's culture is like.

Now you have to be trolling me.

I'll try again:

My whole problem here is that it's attitudes like some shared here that will turn us into a society that would let people starve, and do so by destroying the food market system and distribution.

At least explain your assertions... (note this has NOTHING to do with what country you live in, i'm questioning your assertion that some redistribution leads to complete economic collapse).

some? some redistribution? We are way past some in my country buddy. Redistributionist programs account for well over half of my countries entire budget, if not over 60%. It's also exactly what is bankrupting us and forcing us to borrow trillions that we can never repay (sounds great i know!). Right now the USA's unfunded liabilities is over 60 trillion dollars. There, I have the economic collapse part out of the way and haven't even finished stretching out yet.

Can you rephrase your question from "some redstribution" to "major redistribution"?

[Lootifer]

2010 Data

US GDP: 14.5 Trillion
Total Government Spend: 5.9 Trillion (40.6% of GDP)
Total Government spend on redistribution (assumed as EVERYTHING except defense): 5.1 Trillion
Total Government spend on redistribution (welfare, education, healthcare only): 2.6 Trillion

Percentage of GDP: Between 18-36% of your countries "budget" is spent on redistribution.

Compare to New Zealand:
GDP: 135.7 Bill
Total Spend: 54.8 Bill (40.1% of GDP)
Total spend on Redistributuion (everyting except defense): um, unknown, our defense budget is tiny?
Total Spend on Redistribution (welfare, education, health only): 36.9 Bill

Percentage of GDP: 27% of my countries "budget" is spent on redistribution.

Comparing like for like we spend 27% compared to your 18% (this is not the total spent on redistribution of course but good for comparitive purposes.

Your country is broke (according to your own words, im speaking purely impartially here); ours is not; we are in deficit yes, but largely due to the current world economic climate, we had similar spending in early 2000's (in fact more left wing) and were in surplus. YET we spend more on redistribution.

So how is it you can assert that REDISTRIBUTION AND REDISTRIBUTION ALONE is the issue here?

[Lootifer]

TL; DR version: Redistribution didnt f*ck you; dumb money spent on wars and terrible economic foresight regarding macro-economic spending (sub-prime mortgage bubble) fucked you.

Stop trying to put the blame on WELFARE when welfare had f*ck all do with it.

[Phatscotty]

TL; DR version: Redistribution didnt f*ck you; dumb money spent on wars and terrible economic foresight regarding macro-economic spending (sub-prime mortgage bubble) fucked you.

Stop trying to put the blame on WELFARE when welfare had f*ck all do with it.

A little USA 101



Welfare is redistribution in it's rawest. Of course there are many other reasons and examples, that does not prevent us from focusing on one of them does it? Redistribution, as I have used it, encompasses all redistribution, including personal and corporate welfare.

[Lootifer]

Medicare, Income sec, health, education and social security is still less than NZ's health, education and welfare spend (24.8% of GDP vs 27.2% of GDP). And we do alright.

[thegreekdog]

Let me clairify what I meant:

Not that government should never help people, rather that safety nets should possibly assist those who fall down to get back to their feet. If they fall to the ground and go limp - the safety net should not help them.

Glad you clarified your position, else I was going to ask whether you were of the mindset that the government should be privatized, as a typical Randroid would advocate (or anybody who feels that the 19th century was some sort of golden age, like pretty much all the "conservatives" who work in the media).

I do, however, think the current method of providing safety nets needs to be critically reviewed and reorganized.

Follow up question for Jenos Ridan II: Do you think the improved state of people in "developed" countries is a result of government intervention (or mostly government intervention)?

Question jack! The ridiculously high standard of living the wealthy in post-industrial societies enjoy is certainly a result of government intervention, in that the government intervened in poorer societies to take their resources from them, usually with the help of bombs and/or swords, but sometimes loans.

So you're saying government intervention didn't raise the quality of life of the poor, but the quality of life of the rich? Yeah, that's probably true, although I would argue that government has raised the quality of life of the rich for the past 2,000 years.

[thegreekdog]

So, maybe in contradiction to Phatscotty here, I would say that the amount of dollars spent on corporate welfare far exceeds the amount of dollars spent on "poor people" welfare. There is the obvious one - bailouts. There are other, less obvious ones - tax deductions, credits, and incentives and military spending come to mind specifically. The bottom line is that if one is going to take a hard line on accountability and welfare, one needs to look at more than just a woman asking for more loot; they also need to look at companies that ask for and get more loot through various means.

[Lootifer]

Personally I think the woman is largely irrelevant to the wider issues. Sure she should be condemned, but she is not a valid rationale for scrapping welfare systems world wide.

[Phatscotty]

Personally I think the woman is largely irrelevant to the wider issues. Sure she should be condemned, but she is not a valid rationale for scrapping welfare systems world wide.

do you think the mother should hold herself accountable?

[Phatscotty]

So, maybe in contradiction to Phatscotty here, I would say that the amount of dollars spent on corporate welfare far exceeds the amount of dollars spent on "poor people" welfare. There is the obvious one - bailouts. There are other, less obvious ones - tax deductions, credits, and incentives and military spending come to mind specifically. The bottom line is that if one is going to take a hard line on accountability and welfare, one needs to look at more than just a woman asking for more loot; they also need to look at companies that ask for and get more loot through various means.

I mention corporate welfare along with personal welfare all the time.

I guess it's impossible to have a thread dealing with personal welfare so long as corporate welfare exists.

[Army of GOD]

Medicare, Income sec, health, education and social security is still less than NZ's health, education and welfare spend (24.8% of GDP vs 27.2% of GDP). And we do alright.

How much does NZ spend on defense and shit?

[Phatscotty]

Medicare, Income sec, health, education and social security is still less than NZ's health, education and welfare spend (24.8% of GDP vs 27.2% of GDP). And we do alright.

How much does NZ spend on defense and shit?

haha he's actually trying to compare?

Loot! Social security alone takes up almost 25% of our budget. nice try to switch to GDP. Looks rather desperate

[Lootifer]

Medicare, Income sec, health, education and social security is still less than NZ's health, education and welfare spend (24.8% of GDP vs 27.2% of GDP). And we do alright.

How much does NZ spend on defense and shit?

haha he's actually trying to compare?

Loot! Social security alone takes up almost 25% of our budget. nice try to switch to GDP. Looks rather desperate

I did compare (tried and succeeded) and if you weren't a complete moron you would understand that my comparison is valid.

@ AoG: like nothing, less than nothing. Our Air Force has made the news like twice in the last 30 years and on both occassions it was probably to do with sexism/womans rights and nothing to do with the actual armed forces.

Oh but incidently our special forces division (SAS) are one of the best in the world.

[Phatscotty]

Medicare, Income sec, health, education and social security is still less than NZ's health, education and welfare spend (24.8% of GDP vs 27.2% of GDP). And we do alright.

What is Greece's? Are they doing alright?