News Stories

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

It's not the Government's job to take care of you. It's not my job to take care of you. If I decide to help you with my time and money, that's up to me.

Just like Police are not required to protect you, I'm not required to take care of you. I know I sound like an asshole, but frankly, I'm sick and tired of the Government taking money from my paychecks and gives it to people who don't do anything to deserve it. It's redistribution of wealth, and it's going to be a leading cause of a revolution someday.

As inhumane as you think it is, making the Government go bankrupt is even worse in the long term.

As much as I can agree or disagree with you, you're still avoiding the question. What do you think will happen if social programs are scrapped?

Originally Posted by Kaijo

You may want to look at some European countries, like the Netherlands. The safety net is even bigger there, and the whole country is better and more able to ride out these depression times because of it.

Scandinavian countries are even better. To me, they're the best examples of how social programs should work in a country. They have some of the best healthcare programs as well, on top of that. I've always been under the opinion healthcare is a basic human right. They are a great example of how government does what it should do and take care of its people, both the employed and unemployed.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

It's not the Government's job to take care of you. It's not my job to take care of you. If I decide to help you with my time and money, that's up to me.

Just like Police are not required to protect you, I'm not required to take care of you. I know I sound like an asshole, but frankly, I'm sick and tired of the Government taking money from my paychecks and gives it to people who don't do anything to deserve it. It's redistribution of wealth, and it's going to be a leading cause of a revolution someday.

As inhumane as you think it is, making the Government go bankrupt is even worse in the long term.

it is not the government's job to take care of someone long term unless that person is disable. but it is the government's responsibility and for society own interest to provide a temporary safety net for people who ran into some bad luck. provide a way for those down on their luck to get back on their feet.

[Kaijo]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

It's not the Government's job to take care of you. It's not my job to take care of you. If I decide to help you with my time and money, that's up to me.

Just like Police are not required to protect you, I'm not required to take care of you. I know I sound like an asshole, but frankly, I'm sick and tired of the Government taking money from my paychecks and gives it to people who don't do anything to deserve it. It's redistribution of wealth, and it's going to be a leading cause of a revolution someday.

As inhumane as you think it is, making the Government go bankrupt is even worse in the long term.

I've been working since before I had my driver's license. When everybody else around me didn't have money, I had money from working. I also have made sure that where ever I got hired, they had some form of health insurance. I've done fairly well for myself having not even finished college. With the housing market finally coming back down to realistic levels, I even have gone halves with my father for a house in Lake Havasu, Arizona. A nice 3 bedroom 1900sq place. Should make a nice vacation home for the spring and fall when it's not so hot there. I'm also debating going back to school to finish my degree, or get a second job just to pass the time. Scouring Craigslist there's hundreds of jobs available for those who want to work(I'm only referring to San Diego where I live). I'm waiting to find one that I want to work with the hours that I can do(since I have a full-time job already). If I can succeed, anybody can. So pardon me if I don't feel sorry for most people. I've been contributing to my community and to my country in some fashion for half of my short life, and will continue to do so for another 30-40 years. I also vote in every election, and am involved in the politics of my area.

Okay, then. I'm going to track you down (trivially easy to do when someone goes online), and take everything you own and beat the crap out of you. The police aren't required to protect you, after all.

This is okay with you, right?

You didn't respond to my post. I wanted a job, and I looked everywhere, even craigslist. I sent my resume off to HUNDREDS of craigslist ads over the course of a year I was out of work. I usually got back that the position was filled. And once I did get a job, I was no longer on "government handouts" but earning my own keep again. If I didn't have "Government handouts" I probably would have turned to crime, and just taken what I wanted from you to keep myself afloat.

You want to live in a nation of criminals? Because that's the REAL end result of what you are proposing.

And the government is not going to go bankrupt. They'll just print more money, which will deflate your value.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo

As much as I can agree or disagree with you, you're still avoiding the question. What do you think will happen if social programs are scrapped?



Scandinavian countries are even better. To me, they're the best examples of how social programs should work in a country. They have some of the best healthcare programs as well, on top of that. I've always been under the opinion healthcare is a basic human right. They are a great example of how government does what it should do and take care of its people, both the employed and unemployed.

the sacandinavian countries aren't really a good example. The majority of thier funding for thier social programs comes form oil money. people can talk all they want about thier high tax rate but you can tax everyone at 100% and it still wouldn't have pay for all those programs without the oil money. Once the oil and oil money runs out they are going to have serious problems.

[hinakatbklyn]

Originally Posted by Kaijo

I was unemployed for a year. If I didn't get food stamps and unemployment checks, I would have become homeless, and now be on the streets, begging. I tried to get a job for the longest time, but someone else always got hired (too many other people looking). I eventually got a job, and am now off unemployment and food stamps, so I can be a productive member of society.

Without that "safety net" I'd be begging you for change on the streets. Or maybe I'd turn to crime and rob your place or mug you. Do you want that? Because that's the alternative. What do you suggest for someone like me? What should I have done if the safety net wasn't there?

Do some people live on handouts? Yep. But the solution is not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but learn to identify these people and work with them.

Lastly, what's causing our debt is massive military spending. If we stopped playing world police and invading countries, and cut down our military spending, we could wipe out the debt in a decade or two, easy. Military spending is almost 800 billion a year. And our adventures overseas are costing us an extra several billion a day. Medicare/Medicaid is the other big chunk at 650 billion or so, and Social Security is about the same.

Cut a couple billion from the military first, and we can easily afford the programs that make life better for millions of Americans.

Maybe the current "safety net" is not working because both scenarios are occuring: (1) those who want to contribute to society but are falling on hard times and (2) those who are taking advantage of the safety net because they can.
Cutting the safety net would end up putting both the good and bad in the same boat. I can say for certain that without my job years ago, my family would of been in that same scenario including myself.

If another country asks us for help from say a natural disaster, I wouldn't be against it. But first things first, we should worry about supporting ourselves before starting wars with anyone else especially if they don't want our help in the first place. Even if the debt can't be eliminated, at least it would go to keep the safety net operational, or some other worthy cause.

[JMvS]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

the sacandinavian countries aren't really a good example. The majority of thier funding for thier social programs comes form oil money. people can talk all they want about thier high tax rate but you can tax everyone at 100% and it still wouldn't have pay for all those programs without the oil money. Once the oil and oil money runs out they are going to have serious problems.

While Norway and Denmark owe some of their prosperity to the riches of the North Sea seafloor resources, Sweden and Finland have virtually no oil.

But yet they all are highly industrialized nations with the World's highest standards of living and education, despite obvious disparities in the distribution of natural resources.

It's true that the Swedish Social Democracy has it's limits regarding the Socialist component, especially when taxing over 100% drove away a fair share of the country's elites.

I think their relative success relies more on cultural values, particularly on how competition and the individual and its place within the society are considered. Social Democracy comes into varying blends across Scandinavian and Germanic countries, yet they all share a same "atmosphere": that of an almost absolute safety, but for some the set tracks can be perceived as constraining (my point one view is from Switzerland, the southernmost Germanic country, which is also the lowest on the Socialist component, with a % of federal revenue on GDP being only a few points over that of the US).

It's especially clear when you compare them with neighboring Latin and Slavs countries and even Anglo-Saxon.

And last time I checked, the United States of America had way more oil and other natural resources than several highly developed European countries, and were even spending more money per capita on health or education programs, yet...

[0utf0xZer0]

Originally Posted by JMvS

While Norway and Denmark owe some of their prosperity to the riches of the North Sea seafloor resources, Sweden and Finland don't have oil.

But yet they are all highly industrialized nations with the World's highest standards of living and education, despite obvious disparities in natural resources.

But it's true that the Swedish Social Democracy has it's limits regarding the Socialist component, especially when taxing over 100% drove away the country's elites.

I got the feeling it has to do with differing perceptions on the values of community and the Law of the Jungle.

And last time I checked, the United States of America had way more oil and other natural resources than several highly developed European countries, and were even spending more money per capita on health or education programs, yet...

Yeah, Sweden and Finland combined produced less that one 225th the oil Norway did in 2007. And if I remember the OECD stats correctly, Norway is the only country that spends more government money on health care than the United States.

I think it's also interesting to note that some of the European social safety nets aren't actually that generous to freeloaders - one of the Dutch guys I worked with a couple years back told me that you lose eligibility for social benefits (although he didn't specify which) after turning down three job offers.

[mg1942]

Dr. Ron Paul wins CPAC straw poll

so... is Barry Goldwater type of conservatism fashionable again?

[cors8]

Originally Posted by mg1942

Dr. Ron Paul wins CPAC straw poll

so... is Barry Goldwater type of conservatism fashionable again?

Doubtful. There was a very vocal chorus of boos at the announcement.

Fiscal conservatives need to separate from the social conservatives for any real impact, imo.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

It's not the Government's job to take care of you.

Yes and no.The government's job is what the people say it is. More or less.

Besides, even from a purely selfish point of view, there are reasons to have social safety nets:
- social unrest costs money. Balancing that against the money cost by social programs is, of course, not an exact science.
- having an available workforce when the economy picks up is better for the industry than having lots and lots of homeless beggars.

[mg1942]

Originally Posted by cors8

Doubtful. There was a very vocal chorus of boos at the announcement.

Fiscal conservatives need to separate from the social conservatives for any real impact, imo.

i see...

neocons still not purged?

[cors8]

Originally Posted by mg1942

i see...

neocons still not purged?

I never understood how neocons could be considered "conservative".

[Tiberium Wolf]

4chan founder defends online pranks

Nice

[justinstrife]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/navy-...ory?id=9921378

This is a bad, bad, bad idea...

[justinstrife]

Originally Posted by Kaijo

Okay, then. I'm going to track you down (trivially easy to do when someone goes online), and take everything you own and beat the crap out of you. The police aren't required to protect you, after all.

This is okay with you, right?

You didn't respond to my post. I wanted a job, and I looked everywhere, even craigslist. I sent my resume off to HUNDREDS of craigslist ads over the course of a year I was out of work. I usually got back that the position was filled. And once I did get a job, I was no longer on "government handouts" but earning my own keep again. If I didn't have "Government handouts" I probably would have turned to crime, and just taken what I wanted from you to keep myself afloat.

You want to live in a nation of criminals? Because that's the REAL end result of what you are proposing.

And the government is not going to go bankrupt. They'll just print more money, which will deflate your value.

Come and take everything I have, and you'll be eating .45acp hollow points. I've been busting my ass for everything I own. Nothing I've done, was to the cost of someone else. Where I live, the nearest Sheriff station is 15+ miles away so good luck calling the police for help. They'll get here in time to take notes and drag the body away. You are responsible for your own safety. As I've said, our own Supreme Court has ruled the Police are not responsible for yours. I will protect myself and my property from anyone who tries to unlawfully take it. You will die. There'll be no warning shots, there'll be no shoot to injure.

Crime is not just a byproduct of homelessness or being poor. It is a result of lack of values, mental instability, or just flat out lack of goodness in a person. I don't care how poor you are. You do not have the right to take from someone else.

Keep supporting your social programs. It'll just speed up this country's economic collapse.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/navy-...ory?id=9921378

This is a bad, bad, bad idea...

just make sure all the female crew members look like arnie

Originally Posted by justinstrife

Come and take everything I have, and you'll be eating .45acp hollow points. I've been busting my ass for everything I own. Nothing I've done, was to the cost of someone else. Where I live, the nearest Sheriff station is 15+ miles away so good luck calling the police for help. They'll get here in time to take notes and drag the body away. You are responsible for your own safety. As I've said, our own Supreme Court has ruled the Police are not responsible for yours. I will protect myself and my property from anyone who tries to unlawfully take it. You will die. There'll be no warning shots, there'll be no shoot to injure.

Crime is not just a byproduct of homelessness or being poor. It is a result of lack of values, mental instability, or just flat out lack of goodness in a person. I don't care how poor you are. You do not have the right to take from someone else.

Keep supporting your social programs. It'll just speed up this country's economic collapse.

Let me ask you a question

which is cheaper.

1. giving someone like Kaijo a bit of help when he was unemployed for 1yr, so he has a chance of becoming a tax-paying productive citizen again

or

2. sentence Kaijo to 10 yr in prison for arm robbery for trying to rob a convenience store to pay for food.

i not asking about right or wrong and whether kaijo should have save more or spend less.

But which option cost society less?

[Kaijo]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

Come and take everything I have, and you'll be eating .45acp hollow points. I've been busting my ass for everything I own. Nothing I've done, was to the cost of someone else. Where I live, the nearest Sheriff station is 15+ miles away so good luck calling the police for help. They'll get here in time to take notes and drag the body away. You are responsible for your own safety. As I've said, our own Supreme Court has ruled the Police are not responsible for yours. I will protect myself and my property from anyone who tries to unlawfully take it. You will die. There'll be no warning shots, there'll be no shoot to injure.

Crime is not just a byproduct of homelessness or being poor. It is a result of lack of values, mental instability, or just flat out lack of goodness in a person. I don't care how poor you are. You do not have the right to take from someone else.

Keep supporting your social programs. It'll just speed up this country's economic collapse.

Ah yes, thinking a gun solves everything. Here's the big problem you'll have: I am also armed, have staked out your place, know where your bed room is. I wait until you fall asleep, spray your room with bullets, take my leisurely time taking everything you own.

You can't stay awake 24/7; you will be vulnerable. Someone who wants to do you harm, and take your stuff, CAN do it. You can't stop them, no matter how much you'd like to believe it would.

Or hell, I just make some pipe bombs, smash your bedroom window and toss them through to land on your bed. Before you realize what they are, you just lost your legs. A gun may stop a bumbler, but to someone who actually spends a few minutes to think things out, it's useless.

I especially like your " I don't care how poor you are. You do not have the right to take from someone else" line. Dude, have you listened to yourself? You're basically proposing that MIGHT MAKES RIGHT. If I can take your stuff and blow you in half, that's my right. Why? Because I can do it and you can't stop me.

You haven't really worked out this "Anarchy " line of thought, and where it leads. Hell, I'm as anti-government as they come, and I still realize what benefits the government provides. I'll probably be first on the line if a new revolution comes, and may even help instigate one. But at least I can see clearly how things are and recognize the good that government still does.

[mg1942]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

Come and take everything I have, and you'll be eating .45acp hollow points. I've been busting my ass for everything I own. Nothing I've done, was to the cost of someone else. Where I live, the nearest Sheriff station is 15+ miles away so good luck calling the police for help. They'll get here in time to take notes and drag the body away. You are responsible for your own safety. As I've said, our own Supreme Court has ruled the Police are not responsible for yours. I will protect myself and my property from anyone who tries to unlawfully take it. You will die. There'll be no warning shots, there'll be no shoot to injure.

what if he's a member of the MS-13 or 18th street etc and you nailed him?

just get out of califas cause his clique/subset will likely hunt and ambush you...

[Urzu 7]

Justinstrife, you seem to have a selfish regard about social programs, such as welfare and food stamps. I feel they have some value to them, but all you can say is "I am sick of the government taking some money from my paychecks to help some people who don't deserve it". What about those that do quality for such aid and do deserve their services? And there are many that fit in that category. Not everyone milks it for all its worth or abuse the privilege of having these services. If we were to scrap all of these social programs, I'm sure it would lead to a lot of bad results, as others have mentioned. Maybe people shouldn't be too reliant on the government, but I do see some value with these social programs.

JustinStrife, what if you ever became injured or disabled and then felt you needed some social aid for daily living? It could certainly happen. I'm sure there have been many who were against social programs who fell into that predicament and then sought aid from a social program and then felt that there is some value to these programs afterall. Unfortunately, it takes extreme circumstances and things personally affecting oneself for things to really change ones mind sometimes, no?

Edit: Some people suggest that ending such social programs could lead to a big increase in crime across the nation. I'm sure that deduction is correct. That'd be one of many bad results from scraping them. If anything, maybe they should just be stricter on who qualifies for aid. Why be so extreme as to out-right end it when the middle ground and fair course of action could be to minimize the recipients of such aid and only give it to those who truly qualify (or at the least, the government can try harder to ensure this as much as possible).

Originally Posted by justinstrife

If you're not contributing to Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid, you should not be able to draw from it. You are not a contributor to society. You are a leach. Living off the work and sweat of others.

First, not all people on those programs are leeches; only those who abuse it and don't try to get off those programs are leeching the system. Second, you wanna deal with leeches in this country, we should really focus more on illegal immigrants who leech off the system. Deal more with them and minimizing that problem. If you feel that way about illegal immigrants, we see eye to eye on that.

[LynnieS]

If I may say, the tone of the discussion on the social programs in the U.S. has gotten a bit out of hand, IMHO. Perhaps a time-out would be good?

Experts say the U.S. must do more to secure the Internet

WASHINGTON – The government must take a more active role in securing the Internet, industry experts told Congress Tuesday, arguing that as businesses and governments rely more on cyberspace the prospect of a serious attack grows.

Comparing the digital age to the dawn of automobiles, analysts said more government regulations may be the only way to force the public and private sectors to adequately counter cyber threats. They compared the need for new oversight to regulations for seat belts and safety equipment that made the highways safer.

On one hand, I'm not too happy about having a "Big Brother" type organization getting involved, but at the same time, people are already abusing the system through bot nets, tools for the script kiddies and so on. This will happen, IMHO. It's too risky to rely on either the users to actually maintain their own security or the software firms or developers to watch over things.