A Failed Presidency -- The American Problem

Good Luck said:
Well, you MIGHT have a point if it were not for the fact that the riots are taking place at the ANNOUNCEMENT of social services cutbacks. They've lost nothing real yet, their bellies are full, but they riot at the mere IDEA that they might have to make do with less. You're painting your emo argument with a brush of lies.
Click to expand...

Of course they're rioting at the "ANNOUNCEMENT of social services cutbacks". Do you think the government is just saying that and not planning to do so? Maybe they should wait until their children are really, really hungry before complaining?

The facts are that European countries are faced with the reality that socialism DOES NOT FUCKING WORK. They have run their economies into the ground due to SPENDING, not cutbacks on spending. WHY would they be cutting back on spending if cuts were causing the problems? Your diatribe is completely illogical. The way this basic fact eludes you just proves how delusional you are in continued support for your failed ideology. All the countries you have expoused the past several years as showing how socialist programs work are GOING BROKE, just as the U.S. is GOING BROKE.
Click to expand...

I'll spell it out for you. To say and believe industrialized countries can not look after it's ill and poor is nonsense. Rubbish. A damn lie.

There are a number of reasons the countries are going broke but looking after the ill and poor is not one of them. Greece, for example, has wide spread corruption and collecting taxes is one of them. There needs to be a crackdown on tax cheaters.

Another reason some countries are facing financial hardship is due to the number of social programs. Just like in the US, politicians in other countries negotiate and bargain to finally arrive at some sort of social program and it usually ends up being some hodge-podge that costs more to run than it does helping people all because some people don't want to help anyone.

The help offered by one program is squeezed so tight, the requirements so ludicrous, another program becomes necessary. Then that program is tailored so slim that other people are left out. And on it goes until governments end up with multiple programs and the accompanying bureaucracy.

Food stamps. Housing allowance. A little welfare cash. A voucher…..Instead of trying to micromanage people’s lives have one minimum income policy. Someone sitting at a desk figuring out how much food a family is eating is the exemplification of an insane social system.

Each needy person should receive a certain amount and let them decide on what to spend it on. Maybe one prefers better accommodation and less food or they know someone who owns a farm or small grocery and can get food that’s not selling well. But, no. People are so afraid someone will get something for nothing they insist on a program dedicated to every aspect of a person’s life. That’s due to the resentment they have of helping people and that translates into people fighting the system.

Government spending is a problem but spending on the needy is not. Whether it's a bloated military or small communities ripping up perfectly suitable sidewalks and street lighting to "modernize" Main Street while people are going hungry it’s nothing short of a crime.

HOW many times did we hear from you "not one country with universal health care is going back to the old way?" Well, NOW they are going to austerity health care because they can no longer afford those programs you laud so loudly - an end result we have been warning your kind about for over a decade now. We stated "those programs are not sustainable!" and you laughed at us. Yet, despite the fact that these ever-so civilized hero-countries of yours have tax rates vastly higher than ours, despite the fact that they tax their rich in the way you want the U.S. to tax our rich, they are STILL going broke, because as we have said all along, those programs are simply NOT sustainable in the forms you demand over the long haul.
Click to expand...

Again, helping the poor and elderly and ill come first. Why do you have difficulty understanding that? First. Before roads and parks and sidewalks and statues and anything else tax dollars go toward.

One major difference between the U.S. and Europe in expenditures is these self same countries have been depending on U.S. military for their security since WWII (even while demanding we keep it at home - a demand we should have complied with 40 years ago). We could temporarily ease our deficit spending by cutting way back on military spending. We'd still have to cut entitlement spending to get a balanced budget, but it is possible FOR THE SHORT TERM. But the additional facts are that social programs INVARIABLY grow faster than ANY economy could possibly keep up with - as Europe is now in the process of proving. And as such any balance achieved by gutting our military would be overwhelmed within a decade by expanded entitlement spending, in which case we'd be right back where we are today, except no large military to cut back.

Bottom line: you are wrong. Europe IS cutting back on their entitlement spending, WAY back, and the riots are a by product from people who have grown so dependent on them they cannot see a way to survive without them. (Sad that any human should be so dependent on their government's benevolence they cannot envision ways to provide for themselves.) And the fact the other four AAA rated countries are cutting back while the U.S. is not is one of the major reason S&P has given for downgrading the U.S.
Click to expand...

And the other major reason is the government can’t work together. Cutting back what? It is the “what” that is the problem. Some services can be cut but it’s simply a lie to say governments can not provide basic food and shelter and medical care for those in need.

Regarding the US there is enough food to feed all the citizens so sustainability is not in question regarding relieving hunger. Then we move to housing. How many houses sit empty? After a few years animals (The kind with tails, not tales.) damage the place along with rodents and assorted bugs. There are places where unsold, new homes are rejected and people demanding new construction. Perfectly good homes, new homes, have been left to rot rather than let needy families live in them at a reduced rate.

Last, but certainly not least, the problem is how the help is offered. If it’s minimal, if it’s offered begrudgingly, if the people charged with helping are more focused on finding ways not to help then people will abuse the system.

I was a slumlord for a period of time. I’ve heard stories from welfare recipients. If anyone thinks folks on welfare are breezing through life they don’t know any welfare recipients. And one other thing. When I hear people talk about how lazy welfare recipients are and how it must be nice to sleep in every day and not work I ask them why they don’t quit their job and go on welfare. The usual reply is something to the effect it’s not right or moral or the decent thing to do.

I nod my head and ask if they ever paid cash for anything to avoid taxes. In many cases they’re only too happy to relate their great bargain. So much for their right and moral and decent argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top