The Class System

[Razor]

I'll bring up a point I made in another thread about socialism... because that's what we're talking about here... Socialism. Not in the "OMG OBAMA IS HITLER" sense. I don't have my tin foil hat on or anything. Just the textbook, non-emotionally charged definition of it.

We're not arguing complete reallocation of resources. We're arguing that the government, which gets taxes from us anyway, ought to keep the poorest of the poor from starving.

Socialism is cowardice at its worst. It's the belief that the problems we face are too big for us to handle, and it's a lack of faith in ones self and ones peers to fix things on their own. Thus they turn to the government, hand them a huge chunk of their paychecks, and say "Please, rescue us".

Well. I mean, if you're unemployed or working 2 jobs, and still can't get the money together to feed yourself, you need help. Instead of exacerbating the problem for the neighborhood by living off of them, you ask the government to help. Good thing the government takes your taxes so it can help you.

It's not cowardice to ask for help.

Contrary to that sentiment, it's absolutely at the core of everything I believe in that we CAN handle our own problems. Everyone needs to believe in something... don't you think? Something bigger than themselves... something that makes life mean something. For me, that belief is in humanity. I believe people, at their core, are good, kind, and generous. Of course there's the rare exception, but by and large, people in general WANT ... maybe even NEED to help out when they see someone suffering. It's just that people have never really been given that chance.

Sure you can overcome...but sometimes you need help. Working 2, 3 jobs doesn't always cut it.

So are you calling the entirety of people on Welfare lazy? That's rather insulting. In fact, I'd take it as a personal insult, considering my family lived on it until I was in the 5th grade. Was my single mother just too lazy or didn't believe in herself enough to get off of Medicare? WIC?

Take the Civil War... first REAL adversity we ever faced on a national scale in this country. That was also the time the government first levied an income tax... a 3% flat tax. Adversity strikes, out the window goes the Constitution. The Supreme Court stepped in and ruled that unconstitutional, as of course it was, so then we get the 16th amendment.

The Constitution went out the window because of a war?!?! Good thing there are provisions in the Constitution arguing that a President can do just that. Emergency War Powers and all.

Few years later... the next major adversity strikes. This time the Great Depression. The newly ratified Amendment gets its ass kicked by FDR (the worst president in the history of the country) as taxes on those that are still getting by skyrocket and and a series of entitlement programs are initiated... welfare, social security, etc.

Those "entitlement programs" as you called them were there to FEED PEOPLE. Are you against feeding the poor in your own god damn country?

Because of the cowardice of FDR and those of his day who would rather put off their problems on later generations, today those programs are complete messes.

Right. Because starving to death is such an easy problem. You can' work and therefore you can't buy food? Fuck you, we're not an entitlement program.

Yeah. That would have been great if FDR let half the nation starve.

Social Security is a disaster... there's a reason it's the "third rail of politics". Welfare... well, let me put it this way. A couple of months ago, I was in Food City behind a lady who bought a week's worth of groceries on food stamps. She left, I paid for my 6 pack of Sam Adams, and walked out. On the way to the car, I notice her loading her groceries into the trunk of a brand new Mustang with 30 day tags. One incident in a country of 300 million, I know... just an anecdote I thought I'd toss out there. And no, I'm not making this up to support any argument, hand to god I saw this.

I'll toss out an anecdote of my own.

My mother, being a single mother with 3 children, worked 2 jobs for as long as I knew. She barely kept us fed and clothed, but she did. Then she lost her job, and had to take Welfare for a year. She found a new job and got off of Welfare. Along with that, though, she also stayed on Medicare because she couldn't afford health insurance for her 2 children with horrendous allergies and asthma, one of them with a speech impediment that needed to be treated, and a third with eye problems that needed to be treated with surgery. She didn't once overuse the system.

..But, of course, let's use your anecdote. It makes so much more sense, and completely helps your argument.

Point being, it's time people in this country had a little self respect and fixed their own issues rather than expecting someone else to do it for them. It's lazy, it's cowardly, and it's wrong.

So my mother was a coward for feeding her children? Clothing them? She couldn't have done so without the money from the government, or the Food Stamps. You would have rather I, and my family, starve?

 

[Razor]

Exaggerate much? The government provides food (food stamps, WIC), shelter (section 8), and everything one truly needs to survive. I think it's absolutely ludicrous to ask someone to pay more than 40% of their income (and that's just federal taxes, I'm not including state income taxes for you poor saps who have them). The rich have earned the right to wipe their asses with hundred dollar bills. Instead of trying to bring them down a level, you should be striving to get to theirs. I don't care where you started in life. Bill Clinton was dirt poor and Barack Obama wasn't much better off, and look at the heights they've ascended to. Ask Bob Johnson is more welfare is what got him rich. This truly disappoints me. People actually think that the rich need to pay more in taxes. Is there really a reason for someone to give more than half of what they make to the government? Terrible.

Well, no. I was exaggerating. However, I argue that Dexter was exaggerating just as much, if not more. He was arguing for a complete suspension of Welfare programs, as it were. I responded with likewise exaggeration.

I think what you meant was choices. He made poor choices. The programs exist to feed this man, rehabillitate this man, employ this man, and educate this man. He needs to take advantage of them. People need to focus more on what they can do, instead of what they can have or take.

Right. But Dexter was arguing that we shouldn't help him. Come on, FTS. Read what he wrote.

Where's Pip? Orphans live in foster homes, who feed them, send them to compulsory schooling for an education, clothe them, and provide for their needs. No child in America lives in a stone building, eating gruel, and getting whippings. This isn't 1907.

Look at what he wrote. He was arguing that all of the entitlement programs available right now were there because people are lazy. Don't attack me based on statements I made about his post, when you apparently have refused to read what he wrote.

That single mother of three gets $1400 a month cash, plus $400 in food stamps, $100 in WIC, free lunch for the kids during their free education, and free help finding a job. WHat else should we give her? Can't she be expected to provide something for herself? If not, shouldn't she cancel the cable? Shouldn't she be forced to provide anything for herself? Shit, I'm gonna chop my wiener off and get some kids if you're ever President.

Seriously, you should read what he wrote. He said that all welfare programs are not needed. I was asking if he thought the people I listed shouldn't receive help. Come on.

The uncaring upper class that gives billions of dollars to charity every year? It's these captains of industry that realize that giving money to a nonprofit is a more efficient means of helping the poor than giving it a massive government bureaucracy that judges success based on being less in the red than the year before. Thought processes like yours are the ones that create a dependent class that doesn't see the benefit of striving to get better. I have worked in a welfare office, and I will tell you that this government provides the means for everyone to succeed. Those who choose to succeed will seek out the programs that will help them. Those that don't will show up to get their check.

I was arguing fucking Burgeoise and Proletariat, if you would read what I wrote FTS. I wasn't saying this is how it is today, I was arguing the implications of what he was saying. My god.

Back here in the real world, I disagree. 90% of this nation lives above the poverty line. The average household brings in three times the income that is defined as the poverty line. In what society were the people meant to be able to have everything? You get what you work for. If you need help from the government, then you shouldn't be buying Escalades. If you work hard, or even if your father worked hard so you don't have to, you get what you want. It sucks, but if people hate it so much, it should serve as inspiration.

Seriously. Read what he wrote. He said that the programs we have today aren't needed, mainly because people are lazy or something like that. You're attacking my hypothetical points that were made off of his initial comment like I'm describing America as it is today. I'm not.

We can't ensure that that money gets to the people. All that money does now is fund the warlords that steal the shipments of supplies on their way to where their needed. We could send troops to make sure they get where they deserve, but that didn't work in Somalia already, and this country less and less has the stomach for using our military to help people. So, yes, we should stop sending the money to Africa. We should stop, especially, if the DOMESTIC poverty problem is anywhere as close to as bad as you think it is.

If we're going to send anything to Africa, it should be infrastructure. We should build roads, desalination plants, and irrigation. Then we can send them Norman Bourlag's dwarf wheat, and wish them a good day.

But, yeah, the flaming rules are there for a reason. You guys need to be nice.

Seriously. Read what he wrote, then what I responded with. I was responding in complete hypotheticals, none of which were applicable to today's America.

 

[Razor]

What is all of this feeding the poor crap that I am reading in here. When did the United States go from being the fattest country in the world to a nation of people starving in the streets? Boy oh Boy has the perception of this country changed the last year with a democrat in office. We went from fat greedy lazy bastards to poor starving sympathetic people in a matter of a year... How often does a citizen of the United States starve to death in a matter in which they couldn't change their situation. This isn't the out right refusal to eat or hunger strikes, or self pride that won't allow for help, when was the last starvation death to occur in the United States from someone that just couldn't flat out eat because it was impossible?

I would argue that the people aren't starving because of the Welfare programs that are put into place to avoid such a catastrophe.

I hate the steal from the rich, give to the poor mentality that encompasses American life today. Instead of a nation of people taking self responsibility for the financial situations most are in now, they look to pass the blame onto those that worked harder and have earned more income then they have. Most people that are rich in this country are rich for a reason, through years of hard work, self sacrifice, and financial discipline.

And many are poor despite their years of hard work, self sacrifice, and financial discipline.

We now have a nation of people that have outweighed Want with Need. Instead of saving money for future problems, people go out and blow money on excessive cell phones, IPods, Computers, or Plasma TV's. Hell, when New Orleans was suffering during Hurricane Katrina, the poor were robbing electronic stores, what the hell is up with that?

What's with this demonization of poor people? Not every poor person is out blowing their Welfare check on a Plasma Screen TV. There are many, many more poor people that are using the Welfare system appropriately.

The rich are unfairly demonized in America, and it's a shame. These are the people that the poor should be learning from and modeling themselves after, as opposed to wanting to take everything from them that they have earned in their lifetime. The New American way of life and Motto is to pass the buck and not take responsibilty for oneself.

It's more like a "I'm poor, and I can't eat. Someone help me. I'm working 2 jobs and I still can't afford to buy food" mentality. Not a "I'll sit around a live off of the government" mentality.

 

[X]

The sheer fucking idiocy I've seen in this thread is astounding. Thank God we have someone sensible in Razor here to take everyone off their mighty thrones. Sorry to break it to you, but sometimes good people go without food. Sometimes good people can't afford to clothe their children, no matter how hard they work. These people deserve our help, and to say they don't, is just downright fucking insulting. Seriously, do you people have hearts? Just curious, because you obviously threw logic out the window a long time ago. Where is this ridiculous fucking idea that most people on welfare are abusing the system coming from? I know several people on welfare and who receive food stamps, and they work their fucking ass off every day at shitty jobs just so they can have some cold mac and cheese at night.

I had quite the hearty laugh at Dexter's comment about socialism being cowardice...oh please, are you fucking kidding me? It's cowardice to seek out equal and fair treatment for everyone? Here comes the argument "Oh but socialism leads to things like the Soviet Union and the Vietcong xfear!!!!!!1!", no, it fucking doesn't. That isn't socialism, at all. If you actually think the Soviet Union from Stalin's reign onwards was a socialist society, I'm sorry, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Stalinism is not socialism, and people need to realize that.

This whole community outreach idea you have Dexter...no offense, but it's ridiculous. Asinine even. For every church that rakes in the millions (like the one that apparently is near your home), there a hundred that can barely collect enough canned goods to feed a few dozen homeless people. And now you want to put churches and community outreach centers in charge of taking care of the poor? Are you fucking joking? Yes, let's bring back the Dickens-era poorhouses as well!

The government's JOB is to protect and PROVIDE for it's people. Yeah, that includes water and food. No Dexter, you're right, it's not in the constitution. It doesn't fucking need to be, it's the most common sense that any human being could have. People deserve to fucking LIVE, sorry. And all of this corruption and exploitation of our welfare system you speak of...is nothing compared to the amount of people it helps. You don't dismantle a system that works because a few people abuse it, that's asinine.

Wow. Yeah. I had too much coffee this morning, felt like going on a rant.

 

[Dexter]

No Dexter, you're right, it's not in the constitution. It doesn't fucking need to be, it's the most common sense that any human being could have.

This is exactly where I'm heading with this. And no, I'm not just latching onto this one quote so I can say "AHA, YOU AGREE WITH ME, I R RIGHT!"... I'm going somewhere with this. Bear with me.

I'm not going to lecture you on the differences between political philosophies in this country. I'm sure you know all that. I would like to highlight this one thing though as it's crucial to the discussion. The term "Liberal" applies to a liberal interpretation of the Constitution. An easy way to explain it is that they believe the Constitution is a living, malleable document that must change as the times change, and that it's best used as a jumping off point... a frame of reference. (this is in my own words btw, wikipedia probably explains it better than I can)

Likewise, "conservative" is a conservative interpretation of the Constitution. They view it as a more rigid document that must change as little as possible. However, even most conservatives have gotten away from that view lately. They're, for the most part, just as willing to go their own way as liberals are. The dividing line between those two philosophies is all but gone at this point.

The third option, and the one I hold to, is Libertarianism. That's an absolutely strict, unwavering adherence to the document our nation was founded upon. As in, if it's not in there, the government doesn't have the power to do it. Case and point, feeding the poor. It's not in there. The government doesn't have the power to do it.

Now, should they? I say no, you say yes. I think we're both forming our opinions on what we perceive to be the best interests of everyone. However, the fact remains that it's not in the Constitution, thus by my estimation, they can't do it. If you want them to have that power, you need a Constitutional Amendment, ratified by a 2/3 majority of the states. Maybe you'll get that... hell, you probably would, but until that happens, the government is acting illegally in my opinion.

Now, why would I be so rigid in my interpretation? Because it's my feeling that the government should get their grubby hands out of our lives because they suck at everything. A politician, by himself, might honestly have your best intentions at heart, but when you put him into that great governmental machine and he has to play the political game to get anything done, those best intentions get filtered out, watered down, and otherwise abused to the point that no one is really getting helped with any amount of efficiency.

Thus, it's my opinion that we the people, not they the government, are best equipped to deal with these issues. Now, I personally would take that even further and suggest things like schools should be privatized as well but I realize how unrealistic that is right now... it'd take generations to do that and there are more pressing concerns. My point is that I want the government involved in absolutely as little as humanly possible, and I damn sure don't want them involved in anything they don't even legally have the power to be involved in.

Thus concludes my participation in the thread, as I feel I've made my point pretty well and said everything I have to say. Dexter for President on the Libertarian ticket, 2016 (I won't be old enough in 2012).

*edit* X, you posted your "Petty Partisanship" thread after I made this post, but I'd like to retroactively use the thread you just made as a "case and point" as to why the government is ill equipped to handle social issues like we've been discussing here. You're right in that thread, and it directly applies here. Is that who you want feeding the poor?

 

[KKarvox]

I'd say your accomplishments are more defining on your class, but money also does impact one's class. but the common misconception is that the American class system is unfair, when in fact, it is probably the most flexible system around. Capitalism is the only economic system where you have a good shot of moving up or down during your life. A poor man can work his ass off and make a fortune, and a rich man can lose the shirt off his back on one wrong move. in forced class systems (my own name for it), such as a Caste system or a Marxist economy, your going to be on the same step from the day you are born till the day you die, and there is nothing you can do about it. Most people don't realize/acknowledge that Marxism/socialism/communism, what ever name you give too it, is an extreme version of the caste system, except there are only two levels: The working class (those with nothing), and the Government/Leader/Dictator (those with everything), and there is no moving up, because everyone is forced into their group till they die. America is the only country where a black man who was born into poverty, didn't know his father, and grew up with nothing, could go on to be the most powerful man in the country, and then he goes and trashes and belittles this same system that allowed him to succeed through hard work and determination.