Tax funded Safety Nets are important.

[Technosoul]

My political opinon today is that tax funded saftey nets are important, I say this not to represent any sort of liberial part or left wing agenda, some as a fact.

The reason is that a lot of people are living on credit and on a month to month budget, most Ameircans in the middle class are only a month or two away from being totally homeless if they lost their source of income and could not find another job with equal pay.

They might feel they are well off and they might believe their jobs are secure, but one CEO who wants to downsize their company could change all of that overnight. And so even if they believe they doing the responsible thing, they could be in for a rude awaken to the reality of bill collectors and foreclosures.

Most people no long use just cash when shopping but now use credit cards. Pressing needs often stress the credit cards so they end up with a large balance to pay back, the sudden loss of employment or a unexpected emergecy event could leave them deeply in the hole, so they get a loan to pay back the credit and that puts them even deeper into debt. Putting them on the edge of loosing everything if they miss their monthly payments and their jobs end up just covering those payments and the basics needed for food and utilities and so forth. The overall economy more or less depends on that type of overspending to keep America active in retail sales.

Umemployment checks cannot pay for all those credit bills and also household expensenses on a day to day bases. And in short order you can no longer collect anymore of those checks - out you go - into the streets of uncertainy. So we really need a strong governmental safety net to bail people out so that they do not loose their house and everything because of layoffs and other economic alterations in the fields of employment.

Nearly half of the voters are women. And women can have babies and they must support their dependant children. If a woman left highschool and spent all her time as a married housewife and had some kids - and suddenly the husband and father vanishes his responsiblities to support the wife and kids, she is "out in the cold' with no work experience to put on an employment application, and little time to take off from caring for the needs of her children. We need a governmental welfare program as a safty net for such women and their dependant children.

Also we have people who might suddenlhy find their self in a wheelchair and not able to work at their regulalar occupations, or who become mentally unstable because they went to fight in some war like they did over in Nam, and become unemployable and "no longer wanted or needed". Hey, we need a safety net for such people to fall back on when something tragic happens to them like that.

and that is just for starters.... I do not see any way not to supply safety nets as responsible taxpayers.

I am sure any of you reasonable people would agree but in case you don't, rave on.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Technosoul My political opinon today is that tax funded saftey nets are important, I say this not to represent any sort of liberial part or left wing agenda, some as a fact. The reason is that a lot of people are living on credit and on a month to month budget, most Ameircans in the middle class are only a month or two away from being totally homeless if they lost their source of income and could not find another job with equal pay. They might feel they are well off and they might believe their jobs are secure, but one CEO who wants to downsize their company could change all of that overnight. And so even if they believe they doing the responsible thing, they could be in for a rude awaken to the reality of bill collectors and foreclosures. Most people no long use just cash when shopping but now use credit cards. Pressing needs often stress the credit cards so they end up with a large balance to pay back, the sudden loss of employment or a unexpected emergecy event could leave them deeply in the hole, so they get a loan to pay back the credit and that puts them even deeper into debt. Putting them on the edge of loosing everything if they miss their monthly payments and their jobs end up just covering those payments and the basics needed for food and utilities and so forth. The overall economy more or less depends on that type of overspending to keep America active in retail sales. Umemployment checks cannot pay for all those credit bills and also household expensenses on a day to day bases. And in short order you can no longer collect anymore of those checks - out you go - into the streets of uncertainy. So we really need a strong governmental safety net to bail people out so that they do not loose their house and everything because of layoffs and other economic alterations in the fields of employment. Nearly half of the voters are women. And women can have babies and they must support their dependant children. If a woman left highschool and spent all her time as a married housewife and had some kids - and suddenly the husband and father vanishes his responsiblities to support the wife and kids, she is "out in the cold' with no work experience to put on an employment application, and little time to take off from caring for the needs of her children. We need a governmental welfare program as a safty net for such women and their dependant children. Also we have people who might suddenlhy find their self in a wheelchair and not able to work at their regulalar occupations, or who become mentally unstable because they went to fight in some war like they did over in Nam, and become unemployable and "no longer wanted or needed". Hey, we need a safety net for such people to fall back on when something tragic happens to them like that. and that is just for starters.... I do not see any way not to supply safety nets as responsible taxpayers. I am sure any of you reasonable people would agree but in case you don't, rave on.

OR we can try to abolish the state in favor of self-managmenet and workers' control. In Kropotkin's words,. this would allow for "the most complete development of individuality combined with the highest development of voluntary associations in all its aspects, in all possible aspects, for all imaginable aims."

Grandpa h.

[Technosoul]

Some companies are organized along those lines, each employee has a share in the profits that can be generated by the company in total. It works sort like a democratic business, workers determine how much time off you can get and so forth, because everyone is involved in trying to make profit for the company, and in the hopes that their company will profit, no one would dare goof off or get lazy, nor make too many errors, because everyone else would be on his case, peer pressure. Such companies are very user friendly for the employees, with day care centers on the property for the kids, and so forth. Indications are that companies like that do better then the standard ones where management is on "one side" and employees are on the 'other side' when it comes to unity.

Any attempt to abolish the state would be out of the question. And would boarder on treason.
However the politcal systems of a state should become more user friendly to the voters and tear down some of the walls of red tape and so forth that keeps people from involvement.

However, you have stated an alternative but did not address the actual topic with a yea or nay comment.

Nor has anyone else for that matter - and I thought the 'feathers would fly' when people read this, but it must be a good idea because no one got mad. Chalk one up for socialism.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Technosoul Some companies are organized along those lines, each employee has a share in the profits that can be generated by the company in total. It works sort like a democratic business, workers determine how much time off you can get and so forth, because everyone is involved in trying to make profit for the company, and in the hopes that their company will profit, no one would dare goof off or get lazy, nor make too many errors, because everyone else would be on his case, peer pressure. .

I have discussed co-ops before in some threads, and I do think they are a viable alternative.

Quote by: Technosoul Any attempt to abolish the state would be out of the question. And would boarder on treason. However the politcal systems of a state should become more user friendly to the voters and tear down some of the walls of red tape and so forth that keeps people from involvement.

I think words like "treason" are a scare-tactic, to be honest. I realize there are even (believe it or not) people in the government who mean well, and that certain government programs are even practical. Like, for example, Upward Bound which is a voluntary program designed to keep kids more interested in college and even offers college-style courses to highschoolers in the summer. I used to work in Upward Bound, and it was (and I'm sure still is) a program that worked reasonably well--not perfectly but well.
However, I think government force through taxation is a terrible means to create such a program. I challenge capitalism, therefore I challenge property and income taxes--all of which rely on coercion and exploitation.

Quote by: Technosoul However, you have stated an alternative but did not address the actual topic with a yea or nay comment.

Fair enough. My take is that social programs are practical so long as there are living expenses. If bosses and landlords have legal rights, why not the working class?
With this specific issue, it's damned if you do, damned if you don't.
I think relying on the state and/or private interests is a trap designed to keep people weak and ignorant of life's possibilities outiside of stringent, life-threatening controls.

Grandpa h.

[Scribbler1]

We will always have people in need of help and as long as this society continues to exist we will have people who need help. If we completely change our country where social programs will be unnecessary that would be fine. However, I don't think many people would want to go through that change lest they have to modify their "I got mine" mentality.

I love to hear the "haves" continuously complain about social programs and advocating private charities should bear that burden. After getting to know them fairly well I get the unmistakable impression these people would be the LAST ones to give one lousy dime to a charity.

But that's not everyone of course. For example, you have Bill Gates giving dozens of millions away on an almost daily basis. But OTOH I don't recall hearing about Donald Trump coughing up anything.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: grandpa Quote by: Technosoul Some companies are organized along those lines, each employee has a share in the profits that can be generated by the company in total. It works sort like a democratic business, workers determine how much time off you can get and so forth, because everyone is involved in trying to make profit for the company, and in the hopes that their company will profit, no one would dare goof off or get lazy, nor make too many errors, because everyone else would be on his case, peer pressure. . I have discussed co-ops before in some threads, and I do think they are a viable alternative. Quote by: Technosoul Any attempt to abolish the state would be out of the question. And would boarder on treason. However the politcal systems of a state should become more user friendly to the voters and tear down some of the walls of red tape and so forth that keeps people from involvement. I think words like "treason" are a scare-tactic, to be honest. I realize there are even (believe it or not) people in the government who mean well, and that certain government programs are even practical. Like, for example, Upward Bound which is a voluntary program designed to keep kids more interested in college and even offers college-style courses to highschoolers in the summer. I used to work in Upward Bound, and it was (and I'm sure still is) a program that worked reasonably well--not perfectly but well. However, I think government force through taxation is a terrible means to create such a program. I challenge capitalism, therefore I challenge property and income taxes--all of which rely on coercion and exploitation. Quote by: Technosoul However, you have stated an alternative but did not address the actual topic with a yea or nay comment. Fair enough. My take is that social programs are practical so long as there are living expenses. If bosses and landlords have legal rights, why not the working class? With this specific issue, it's damned if you do, damned if you don't. I think relying on the state and/or private interests is a trap designed to keep people weak and ignorant of life's possibilities outiside of stringent, life-threatening controls. Grandpa h.

I have not reviewed your comments in other threads as why you do not appove of co-ops. Perhaps they are not for everyone and some people would not like that type of work environment. However, th system is productive and they seem to do well economically. In other situations you have worker unions, who must bargan with the employer on behalf of the employee, at first that system worked well because we ended up with better working conditions, fair breaks. and fair pay for a fair days work. But now the unions deduct for their services, and it is greed verses greed at the barganing tables, mostly having to do with pay rates.

I guess the word treason might seem threatening but we are not talking about changing how the state governments work, abolishment would occur only if some group was able to overthrow the government. It would be nearly impossible to arrange for a way to vote the government out of existance. So you tell, what should we call the act of overthowing a government and leaving no one in charge, except for people who might eventually work together to subdue their bosses in the workplace. ????? Do you think this can be done via a revolution of peaceful protests, or what?

Living like a hermit in a cave and being able to survive by fishing, hunting, and growing an apple tree next to the cave, is cool for the few who can locate such an islolated place deep in the woods. But everyone living in a populated culture is in fact a prisoner of that culture, that is to say, dependant upon most everyone else, and in some way, others are dependant upon him, if he is capable of doing his share.

I do not know what you mean by the phase "self-destructive goals". But among that thought I would imagine you are talking about people who prefer to be just plan lazy, so they try to find a way to live off of public welfare and they they watch TV all day - when in fact they are able to work if they would just get motivated and find a job. The government should view this as a mental-medical problem and we should put our PH.Ds to work on finding a cure for that disorder.

The other mode of operation that you might call a self-distructive goal is when women know that they can only continue to remain on welfare if they have a depdendant child, so they make sure that they have enough children to last them for years, and when their teen daughters are old enough, they do like Mama did and then they support Mama when she is too old to have anymore kids, with the incoming welfare checks, and good household managment. This has been going on for generations, and they even "keep" their men so that they also do not have to work (which would be an automatic cut off of welfare checks). The men do things like buy used cars, tinker with them a bit and then resell them for a few hundred dollar profit, no car lots, just a sign in the window of the car is all they need. The women also request help from the local chruches, and when they go to the store they buy three bags of food, then call the store and ask them it someone left a bag by misstake (which they really brought home) and the manager says "look at your reciet and tell us what is missing, it was probally restocked, and we will replace the items missing". So they go back to store with the reciet and get some free stuff. (basically getting the most expensive items at half price). Tricks of the trade. Each time they shop a different store so no one catches on to their little scams.

Oh oh, someone is going to have a wedding, so they buy and expensive dress to wear at the wedding, then after the next days wedding they run back to the store with some complant about the dress they wore to the wedding. And get a full refund. This is how they live their whole life, one scam after another, and no regrets about it.

So that is the big hangup with welfare programs, it is the scam artists, who know how to do it "within the rules and laws" of that program, they are better informed then the people hired to do the interviews at the department office. They call it "street smarts" which is a form of education for sure., but not the kind that is productive or good for the rest of our culture.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Scribbler1 We will always have people in need of help and as long as this society continues to exist we will have people who need help. If we completely change our country where social programs will be unnecessary that would be fine. However, I don't think many people would want to go through that change lest they have to modify their "I got mine" mentality. I love to hear the "haves" continuously complain about social programs and advocating private charities should bear that burden. After getting to know them fairly well I get the unmistakable impression these people would be the LAST ones to give one lousy dime to a charity. But that's not everyone of course. For example, you have Bill Gates giving dozens of millions away on an almost daily basis. But OTOH I don't recall hearing about Donald Trump coughing up anything.

You're fired.

That was a qoute from Donald.

The government does allow for tax write offs if the rich donate to charity. No doubt Trump has a few of his favoret places to donate those tax write offs too.

As you know the needs must be massive, because with all the donations that people are making to charity we seem to have not made a big dent in the problem or poverity or what not. Perhaps we have but if we did then I would hate to see what our country would look like without welfare and charity organizations.

A lot of the failure of the welfare program is lack of organization, employee training, and just plan wasting a lot of stuff on "overhead" expenses. Like using tons of paper when they could use a computer instead (per Al Gore .... who invented Bill Gates (chuckle).

You would think we could compact all the welfare and charity groups into one big monopoly like they did the homeland security department - and then make it a privately run system with someone intelligent in command. The government would then lower taxes but still allow write off for people who donate to that centrial center of compassion. The "CCC". And any Christian chruch that does not prove they made a qualified donation would have to pay taxes like any other profit making business.



That is my idea, whatcha think?

[Technosoul]

My cat gave out a last mornful wail and died on my living room capet just now, the Prince is gone.

He was about six months old and suffered a dog bite and attack two a few days ago. Which I attempted to treat with pain killer form a vet, and so forth. He seemed to perk up and yesterday seemed well on his way to recovering, but today lost his energy and gave up the ghost. It is sad, at least for me. And I wish people would keep their dogs on a leash, but they don't mind if their dogs run after cats, they think that is just "nature's way". I post this here because you cannot get free medical aid for a pet if you own the pet, they will take a stray and kill it for humane purposes, but they will not treat your cat or pet and then return it to you if you do not pay. Very expensive. At least well over my soc security budget. He did not suffer a lot, just went in his sleep. But the thing is that if we get too practical about welfare and if the budget minded politics cut out emergency care treatment for people, the same thing will happen to children of the poor.

So from now on I will deicate my advocations for welfare to the memory of my cat, a black and white cat that I found living on this house I rented, left behind by a the fomer tenant. A stay cat that was homeless but whom I allowed to come inside, that it could have shelter while ill. May the howls of compassion drown out all the click click sound of the money changers who say "we cannot afford to be nice or compassionate", woe unto them, for they hear not the Prince of peace

[Scribbler1]

Tech, I am truly sorry to hear that. I am a cat lover myself and I think I can understand your loss. I'm sure you provided a good life for him before he passed, which is a lot better than most strays have it.

When faced with a similar situation I find it comforting to know that we made that life a better one for that all too brief time.

[Technosoul]

Thanks for the comforting words. I have had cats around for most of my life and needless to say have lost many of them during my lifespand. This is the 2nd cat I have acturally watch die. Most of the other ones that I had before got run over by a car or died when I was not around.

I still have a nearly unlawful number of cats hanging around here. Three are my own house cats (because the mother cat had two more) and we found that the others were living on our roof after we moved in, the mother cat vanished but three are still here. Two remian outside in the yard, and one we adopted and her name is Minnie the Moocher. We kept the girl cat inside to prevent any more kittens from "arriving" and later got her fixed. Then this female bob cat moved into our yard to take advantage of the food being put out for the two outside cats. It is a rare breed and is the smallest wild cat in North Ameirca. (same size as a regular cat). But very shy. Once I rescued it from the fense and it bit me and my hand was a mess for over a week, had to go to the doc for treatment. But it is still here and all is foregiven.

Alas, even in this city it is still a jungle out there.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Technosoul Thanks for the comforting words. I have had cats around for most of my life and needless to say have lost many of them during my lifespand. This is the 2nd cat I have acturally watch die. Most of the other ones that I had before got run over by a car or died when I was not around.

Understood. I have had the unpleasant task of holding two beloved cats while a vet put them out of their misery. I don't recommend it but you can't let a member of the family die alone.

[Technosoul]

Now back to the topic at hand, is it a jungle out there in our human world? Must humans live by the same standards as do wild animals, in a "dog eat dog" world?

Non domestic animals have no safty net. They must use their own skills and talents to survive, once they are old enough to leave the protection the mother. They are mostly self responsible for what happens to them, good or bad. However not in full control, as luck would have it, if they are in the wrong place at the wrong moment they could become supper for another preditor.

They have two basic responsiblities of self survivial. To avoid getting ate by some other animal, and to hunt for some other living thing to eat so it will not experience hungar. Those motivations leave little room for the evolution of compassion.

Some animals live in herds or social groups, find protection in numbers. They can also hunt together using teamwork to capture their food.

So in nature we see both socialism and capitalism being demonstrated. The lone wolf and the wolf pack organization. But even in herds or packs you still can see evidence of the "survival of the fittest" being demonstrated, especailly when it comes to mating season.

The question is, should human culture use the "law of the jungle" as our standard, or do we have the intelligence and the imagination to upgrade our social system to a alternitive or "better" means - by incooperating group survival into our plans, rather then just personal survival and personal responsiblity as our objective? In other words - we could evolve with the concepts of providing safety nets for the weaker members of the pack, instead of allowing them to be e-lemon-ated for being unfit to make the grade.

Any comments? I will explore this idea futher later in another post.

[Scribbler1]

If humans use "the law of the jungle" as an excuse for anything at all they are admitting we are NOT above the lower animals.

You can't say "dog eat dog" to refer to any human activity and not be considered the SAME as a dog.

[Osborn F Enready]

I think if there is a safety net of any kind, the government shouldn't handle or have access to the money. I also think it HAS to be voluntary, or its extortion, no matter how pretty we dress up the cause with fluff and benevolent intentions.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Scribbler1 If humans use "the law of the jungle" as an excuse for anything at all they are admitting we are NOT above the lower animals. You can't say "dog eat dog" to refer to any human activity and not be considered the SAME as a dog.

What about another term we often used - "The rat race". AKA - the desire to get ahead of others economically.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I think if there is a safety net of any kind, the government shouldn't handle or have access to the money. I also think it HAS to be voluntary, or its extortion, no matter how pretty we dress up the cause with fluff and benevolent intentions.

Do the rich really donate a lot for charity (not counting tax write offs)? Do you personally donate a lot to help those in poverty?

About private welfare system, please read in this message chain - message number 7. Where I proposed already the idea about a non-governmental welfare system. I would like for you to post comments or a repley to that message idea. Scroll up to number 7 and take a peak. Thanks.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Technosoul What about another term we often used - "The rat race". AKA - the desire to get ahead of others economically.

Would YOU honestly want to say you are in competition with rats? I would want to lose that race on purpose than be identified as the fastest rat. No sense calling attention to yourself, eh?

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I think if there is a safety net of any kind, the government shouldn't handle or have access to the money. I also think it HAS to be voluntary, or its extortion, no matter how pretty we dress up the cause with fluff and benevolent intentions.

In principle I am behind you 100%. In reality, however, a society based on greed and excess can't be counted on to assist fellow citizens in hard times. If such a social structure already existed the government wouldn't need to create it, as bad as it is now.

It's like seeing a homeless vet on the side of the road with the "will work for food" sign written on a scrap of cardboard. WE as a society screwed him by sending him into a political war, we screwed him by cutting benefits and we screwed him by not having a job available for him when he came back. This would tell ANY reasonable observer that this society uses people as tools and when we are done with them we throw them away like garbage.

Would YOU trust that society to take care of its own voluntarily?

[Osborn F Enready]

Technosoul said: Do the rich really donate a lot for charity (not counting tax write offs)?

I say:
I don't know as I AM NOT RICH, and I only know one person who is rich, and he is also a shoplifter and a tax cheat. (one of the reasons he is rich, and of course the stock market.)

Technosoul said: Do you personally donate a lot to help those in poverty?

I say:
Everytime I see a valid cause that is being collected for, if I have change in my pocket.

Technosoul said: About private welfare system, please read in this message chain - message number 7. Where I proposed already the idea about a non-governmental welfare system. I would like for you to post comments or a repley to that message idea. Scroll up to number 7 and take a peak. Thanks.

I say:
If it is voluntary by the individual to donate, and no money is handled or distributed by the government, I have no problem with it.

Regardless of what idea it is, if it violates those two principles, I am against it.

[Osborn F Enready]

Scribbler said: Would YOU trust that society to take care of its own voluntarily?

I say:
I don't trust any society unless they trust me with my rights. If they can't they are my enemy, and surely not something I would support.