To neo-cons who think that welfare recipeints are lazy

You have to, if you are truly a capitalist, also accept that some people will be weeded out of society (i.e. starve to death) due to not having the ability to adapt to new demands for skilled labor, in a truly capitalist society. Whether or not they are capable of working.

 

The federal government has never had the authority to give out corporate or social welfare. Therein lies the problem that's as obvious as the nose on everyone's face. And you know you enjoyed the video.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-conservative

Hardly a meaningless term.

No, although I can understand why you are easily confusing liberals with neo-conservatives because there is barely any difference between the two. The reason Obama isn't a neo-con is because he doesn't pretend to be in favor of the free market like neo-cons do.

If I was targeting Republicans, I would have specified Republicans. I didn't specify Republicans, now did I?

 

Obama is a Neo-Con. Chooses corporate partners of his liking, funded by banksters and global corporations, believes in preemptive war, expanding the Patriot Act, expanding the power of the federal government?

Sounds like Bush's 8 years. Neo-Cons are progressives without a fiscally sane bone in their body or any concern for individual rights and freedom.

 

If these people were on welfare----they would have to make a choice of losing their medical card, food stamps and cash entitlements or taking a raise in income. I turned down raises....just because the fear of losing something I depended on.

Its not so much about laziness...but dependency. Human nature wants to us to gain through hard work. But on the welfare system---you lose through hard work.

It doesn't matter if its corporate welfare or poverty---its the same.

 

I repeated myself several times in the OP. I said bailouts and subsidies are welfare for the elite that neo-cons support.

I said nothing about "conservatives". I was talking about neo-conservatives, and they were definitely in favor of the bailouts and subsidies. But now they pretend like they were never in favor of it, and the neo-con establishment eats it up becuase they have no long term memory capacity.

 

Do I have to explain to everyone, personally, the Weed Out Effect?

If someone works 168 hours a week and isn't making enough in a free market, they're gonna get weeded out and anyone who makes a special/big deal about that would not be truly in support of capitalism.

 

Delusional.

 

What is this eugenic mantra of yours that you go on about in every thread? It's like you get some weird satisfaction at the prospect.

 

That's a load of crap. They'd just learn survival techniques if they truly wish to survive. Aside from volunteers, free food is all round you, you know.

 

That would be the wealthy, that receive government welfare and live high on the hog.

That welfare abuses happen, nobody disputes, though I think the frequency is ridiculously exaggerated. But is that really such an injustice, in comparison to poverty?

What's worse -- someone getting something you don't think they deserve, or something not getting what they need?

 

I'm glad someone addressed this, FINALLY lol.

I am not in support of eugenics, and in fact, I'm not necessarily in support of anarcho-capitalism; that is, I'm not sure if I am or not. I'm undecided about these things.

I wish people would not mistake what I'd like to see, and what I actually see; it's not your fault because I know my posts tend to make it appear as though I'm necessarily an anarcho-capitalist, but I'm clearing this up, I hope.

 

That assumes that no one owns the woods etc. that they'd go to.

 

A quick visit to the library and they can learn where they can go where it's nobody's property. But aside from that, you can actually eat bugs and various wild plants, I'm sure their owners won't mind.

And then there's the ocean, will their owners take kindly to their presence?

 

If they can adapt to living in/on the ocean, then they (*)(*)(*)(*)ed well deserve to survive!

On a serious note, you do understand that jobs become obsolete and thus people go jobless and either adapt or get socially weeded out, right?

 

A serious note, let's get on that. I support welfare for the seriously needy but there needs to be a better system to weed out the one's taking advantage.

 

I'd live in a water town for sure. And how do you define "seriously needy"?

 

Fishermen live in the water now do they? As for seriously needy, I'm satisfied just defining it as anyone not taking advantage of the system (which defines needy). So if you qualify for benefits and followed the rules you're needy. If you somehow got benefits by breaking 1 or more rules then there needs to be a system put in place to prevent that from happening as often as it does.

 

I'll try to make this explanation short but concise.

Anytime the Federal Government runs out of tax revenue, it has to go into debt to continue its services, so it sells treasury bonds. Federal Reserve member banks and corporations purchase the treasury bonds, which gives the government money to spend. Eventually the Federal Government runs into a situation where nobody is buying treasury bonds. At that point, the Fed member banks and corporations sell these treasury bonds to the Federal Reserve for a much higher price than what they are actually worth. The Fed creates money out of thin air to buy them. The banks/corporations are then able to turn around and buy treasury bonds that nobody wants. Eventually the government is going to run out of money again, and the cycle continues forever. Because of this, the government is also able to continuously spend money and grow in size forever, without raising taxes.

Every time the Fed creates money, the government spends it and that newly created money enters the economy and winds up as bank deposits. Banks are able to loan that money out and make profit, but the Federal Reserve has specified that banks must keep 10% of their deposits in cash reserves. So if someone deposits $10, the bank can loan out $9 to someone who will give it to someone else that will come back to the bank and deposit $9 into their checking account, then the bank can lend $8.10 more (90% of $9)...and the process continues until we see that the bank can actually loan up to ten times the original amount that was deposited (although there will never be more than the original amount of money the Fed created in circulation at any given time, so we cannot say that the banks are actually "creating money").

Effectively, the banks can collect interest on up to 10 times the amount of money the Fed has created. But remember, this was money that was created out of thin air - there is no labor attached to it. So the banks are literally collecting interest on nothing from borrowers. And believe me, the interest that the borrowers are paying to the banks is very real indeed (they had to expend labor to get the money to pay the interest).

The money the Fed creates winds up in circulation if the velocity of money is high enough, and dilutes the dollars that are already in circulation. This will put an upward pressure on prices throughout the entire economy (inflation), which all consumers have to pay for in the form of a higher cost of living. So we have a situation where banks and corporations are profiting from the Federal Reserve's money creation while consumers are being harmed. Inflation acts as a transfer of wealth from consumers to the banks and corporations. Of course, rising prices are effectively the same thing as a flat tax, which harms the poor the most.

If dollars were backed by gold, the Federal Reserve would not be able to limitlessly create money out of thin air. Banks would be required to keep 100% reserve ratio of dollars. So there would be relatively no inflation because gold cannot be created out of thin air like paper can. Zero inflation means that this transfer of wealth does not occur because the cost of living isn't artificially raised. Improvements in technology, labor and productivity would push the cost of living downwards, and would thus raise the standard of living of the poor.

 

We're not talking about an anarcho-capitalist system. We're talking about a Constitutionally free market with money backed by gold and silver.

 

haha. The federal reserve doesn't have any gold left!

 

I know. It's based on a gross misinterpretation of the general welfare clause.

The link didn't work.

 

I agree that the dependency is a massive problem. Perhaps we should focus on why people are so dependent on welfare. It's because the cost of living is so high in this country - it can be directly attributed to the Federal Reserve, our banking system, and fiat currency, as I explained in post #47.

I disagree that corporate welfare and poverty cause the same dependency. Corporations are not people, and the failure of a corporation should not be pitied like the poverty of a hard working individual should be.

 

In an anarcho-capitalist system, you could just shoot the property owner and take his land.