# Socialism



## 46Young (Jul 18, 2009)

I saw this post on FH.com and found it interesting. Any thoughts?

 Socialism - A Simple Analogy 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before but had once failed an entire class.

That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism. All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A. 


After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. 

The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. 

As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little. 

The second test average was a D! No one was happy. 

When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.


The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. 

All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.


Could not be any simpler than that.

*****EMS Related Disclaimer!***** >>> The socialism concept could be applied to emergency services and  universal healthcare.


----------



## EMT11KDL (Jul 18, 2009)

I got that in an Email last week


----------



## Shishkabob (Jul 18, 2009)

Socialism will fail because it's stupid.








In theory, it's great.  In practice, it's unrealistic and will never succeed.  You can't have EVERY SINGLE HUMAN to never want more power or more privilege than someone else. 

The very thought of a socialistic government is an oxymoron.


----------



## Maya (Jul 18, 2009)

This is an interesting analogy and it does point out one of the major flaws of Socialism, but the problem with it is that the analogy is too simplistic to apply to a much more complex socio-economic system.  Don't get me wrong -- this is *one* aspect of why Socialism failed in the former Soviet Union, but it was really much more complicated than just that one reason, which many people cite as being the *one* reason -- failing to account for the fact that Capitalist economies with Socialized health and education services have been extremely successful in many other countries.

It also does not point out the flaws in the opposite -- an unregulated Capitalist system, favoring Monopolies and Oligarchies -- allowing companies like Lehman Brothers and AIG to gamble with the livelihoods of millions of Americans, creating the greatest economic collapse since the Great Depression.  Who suffers the most from this economic crisis?  Those on the lowest tiers of society -- creating poverty, higher unemployment, an increase in crime, and further economic stagnation as a result.


----------



## Shishkabob (Jul 18, 2009)

I already told you why socialism in the Soviet Union failed


"The very thought of a socialistic government is an oxymoron."


----------



## Maya (Jul 19, 2009)

'Since 1973 the average income of the top 1% of Americans (income at least $90,000) has doubled, and the income of the top 0.1% (145,000 taxpayers with income at least $1.6 million) has tripled. (from Class in America series in the New York Times, May 2005).

'The top ten percent of the U.S. population owns 81.8 percent of the real estate, 81.2 percent of the stock, and 88 percent of the bonds. (Federal Reserve Bank data in Left Business Observer, No. 72, Apr. 3, 1996, p. 5).

'One percent of the U.S. population owns sixty percent of the stock and forty percent of the total wealth. (Hawken, Paul, The Ecology of Commerce: A Declaration of Sustainability. New York: HarperBusiness, 1993).'

-- These are the people who get tax-cuts under Trickle-Down Economics.  Does the wealth actually trickle-down to the rest of the Economy?  If it did, would the divide between rich and poor be so much greater than it was in the 1970's?  Human beings are greedy by nature, as the Schoolroom story, by the OP. showed.

As the figures stated, the income of the top 1% of the population has doubled, and the top 0.01% has tripled since the 1970's.  That indicates to me that wealth has accumulated amongst the rich and has, in fact, not trickled-down.

From seeing the most recent stories in the news of acts bordering on Corporate fraud by the CEOs of Lehman Brothers, AIG, and others; as well as Ponzi-schemes by people like Madoff and Stanford -- something tells me that the SEC has given these guys way too much slack.  We´re all paying for it now and will continue to pay for it for a long time to come.

On another note, wasn't it President Reagan who essentially created the current homelessness problem by cutting spending on social services and taking mentally ill patients out of mental hospitals?  These homeless people are the same people taxing our 9-1-1 service to a virtual breaking point now.  I'm curious as to what people's opinions are on how that changed EMS -- those of you who have been around long enough to have witnessed the change.


----------



## Shishkabob (Jul 19, 2009)

Maya said:


> 'Since 1973 the average income of the top 1% of Americans (income at least $90,000) has doubled, and the income of the top 0.1% (145,000 taxpayers with income at least $1.6 million) has tripled. (from Class in America series in the New York Times, May 2005)



My family is part of that 1%.  Both my parents also started out in poverty.  It can be done, and my family is proof of such.




> On another note, wasn't it President Reagan who essentially created the current homelessness problem by cutting spending on social services and taking mentally ill patients out of mental hospitals?  These homeless people are the same people taxing our 9-1-1 service to a virtual breaking point now.  I'm curious as to what people's opinions are on how that changed EMS -- those of you who have been around long enough to have witnessed the change.



On another note, wasn't it Clinton who created the current terrorist problem we have today because of the massive cutbacks in military spending?  Wasn't it also under Clinton that 9/11 was planned, along with the  USS Cole?  And the '93 bombings?  And the Marine barracks bombings?  And the embassy bombings?  Those same cutbacks put us back militarily pretty far, and as such we're playing catchup now to put terrorist where they should have been years ago--- the extinct list.


See, I can twist things too


----------



## Maya (Jul 19, 2009)

Linuss said:


> My family is part of that 1%.  Both my parents also started out in poverty.  It can be done, and my family is proof of such.



Oh, in that case I agree with you...  Are you single?


----------



## mycrofft (Jul 19, 2009)

*Linus, mil cutbacks really got started under repubs post Vietnam.*

Ford, then Carter under BRACC. Reagan reversed it then Bush put it in overdrive, Clinton continued it. 

I only know what I experienced as a service member in those times.


----------



## Shishkabob (Jul 19, 2009)

Maya said:


> Oh, in that case I agree with you...  Are you single?



Yes.


You'll have to move to Texas if you want to be my mistress.  Bad experience in Cali. ^_^


----------



## phabib (Jul 19, 2009)

These analogies are always way too simple. The students in the class still missed the major point. If they study then they will gain the knowledge, that is the point of school.

Same thing with socialism in society. Will you want to work in a coal mine or at McDonald's just because you know you have the basics taken care of? Of course not. You'll work hard to have that dream job still but now money won't be your inspiration. Maybe under a socialist system you'll actually have the chance to go to college or even medical or law school. It's sad that entire societies think socialism will fail because they won't get to be the next millionaire. If all they get out of work is a paycheck then these people live pathetic lives.


----------



## minneola24 (Jul 19, 2009)

Linuss said:


> In theory, it's great.  In practice, it's unrealistic and will never succeed.  You can't have EVERY SINGLE HUMAN to never want more power or more privilege than someone else.




Get rid of greed and it would work just fine.


----------



## Shishkabob (Jul 19, 2009)

minneola24 said:


> Get rid of greed and it would work just fine.



When you figure out a way to rid human kind of "The Jones' " syndrome, you let me know.


It's quite naiive to think every person in the world will want the same exact things as every one else, no matter how hard they worked for it.  Impossible.


----------



## mycrofft (Jul 19, 2009)

*Don't take it all, lock, stock and barrel.*

Wealth can reach critical mass where it becomes a black hole, consuming all. Some levelling has to take place in any system or it becomes too concentrated and social cohesion breaks down. We are seeing it starting in Africa and the Middle East/SW Asia; the have-nots will have it, one way or another, when they have nothing.


----------



## minneola24 (Jul 20, 2009)

Linuss said:


> When you figure out a way to rid human kind of "The Jones' " syndrome, you let me know.
> 
> 
> It's quite naiive to think every person in the world will want the same exact things as every one else, no matter how hard they worked for it.  Impossible.



I remember watching this movie in school about an African tribe and they all went about their work, they created food for each other, worked for each other, etc. One day they found this coke bottle that a westerner dropped out of his plane, the tribe found it very useful as a tool and increased productivity dramatically. Soon they all wanted the tool and it created loads of issues.

My point is that an equal society CAN occur, but most Americans want the latest and greatest right now. 

Kind of upsetting considering many don't even have basic necessities, but hey its a fact of life.


----------



## SeeNoMore (Jul 23, 2009)

Socialism is a big concept, with many potential applications as well as pitfalls. I don't find this story that insightful.


----------



## Sasha (Jul 23, 2009)

You know, America prides itself on being capitalists, but we employ many social programs. Welfare, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, public school systems... If everyone is entitled to basic education, why not basic healthcare? I am not saying that it should ann be free, but it should all be affordable to everyone.


----------



## Meursault (Jul 23, 2009)

Ooh, a politics thread! I can hardly wait!

Actually, this has been decent so far, except for the analogy. I've been reading John Rawls (_Justice as Fairness: A Theory of Justice Revised_), and his take is interesting. Essentially, he argues that society should be structured in such a way as to guarantee a certain acceptable minimum quality of life and to ensure that improvements above that level don't come at the expense of others. He shies away from discussing any practical solutions, but he is critical of welfare capitalism.

The problem with individual taxation as a means of ensuring a minimum quality of life is that it unduly punishes achievement. Beyond that, naive implementations of welfare and universal healthcare can make their recipients dependent on them, which if anything reduces their quality  of life and locks society into a cycle of increasing taxation and decreasing economic output. 

On a more specific note, implementing any sort of  healthcare on a national scale is, I suspect, going to be a mess. There's too much diversity, too many compromises that need to be made, and too much administration needed. I had a lecturer who supported the idea of state-level healthcare programs as a way of allowing more customization and more flexible funding.

I honestly have no idea how we'd go about establishing programs that provide basic healthcare without bleeding large segments of society dry, making a lot of healthcare providers very unhappy, and trapping people in dependence on the system. I'm afraid that it's going to require that the systems (healthcare, government, and Erathis knows what else) collapse and be rebuilt.


----------



## EMTinNEPA (Jul 23, 2009)

Why is healthcare seen as an entitlement, and not a privilege?  Because people need it to live?  People need food to live too, but if I just go to Burger King and say "I'm hungry", they'll say "Ok, you can have this burger for this price."  It's a business... period.


----------



## fma08 (Jul 23, 2009)

Some of those social programs need to be cut back a little, then it might be more motivation for some people to actually do some work. My personal belief is that how much support you get should depend on whether you are a productive member of society or not. A great example are jails. We're paying for inmates to get an education?? I'm sorry, but they screwed up. They are there to serve a punishment, not to go to school. They can do that when they get out. How many people do you see on disability that are there because they are obese? I know full well that several medical conditions can cause that, but where is the motivation to try and lose some weight or be healthier if all of their needs are payed for? Free power scooters because you don't want to stand up an walk? C'mon... (Let the bashing begin )


----------



## Shishkabob (Jul 23, 2009)

minneola24 said:


> My point is that an equal society CAN occur, but most *HUMANS* want the latest and greatest right now.



Fixed for ya.


----------



## SeeNoMore (Jul 23, 2009)

I am for universal health care and education for prisoners. I believe there is enough produced by the working people of the world to provide jointly for our needs, and I think a failure to offer positive rehabilitation to prisoners is a very grave mistake. 


This conversation makes me want to start a general poll of the EMS community. My impression is that conservatives would be a very high percentage of the profession.


----------



## Shishkabob (Jul 23, 2009)

SeeNoMore said:


> This conversation makes me want to start a general poll of the EMS community. My impression is that conservatives would be a very high percentage of the profession.



It's actually been done before(nationally), and in the military, police, fire and EMS, conservatives are the vast majority.


----------



## SeeNoMore (Jul 23, 2009)

"It's actually been done before(nationally), and in the military, police, fire and EMS, conservatives are the vast majority.'

Yeah that was my impression, but I had no data to back it up. Thanks


----------



## Shishkabob (Jul 23, 2009)

Well, neither do I but I did see it in several places within the past year.  ^_^


----------



## SeeNoMore (Jul 23, 2009)

To be fair, I am of the belief that most people have more in common than not, despite being conservative or left leaning. I would supsect that firefighers for example might have some more liberal leanings in regard to labor and union politics. 

I have conservative friends of the sort that value independence and hard work along with upstanding moral values. I have a great deal of resepect for this and think along the same lines. I am often critical of liberal ideololgy that erodes personal responcibility or denies personal freedom. 

In this sense, I can see how a tradesperson or farmer would see socialism as a threat to their way of life. By the same token, a worker in a large factory or say a Mcdonalds might feel very hopeful about the possibility of basing workplace practices on cooperation with his or her fellow employee. 


My major disagreement with conservative thinking is the idea that it is desireable to have a society where one individual can get far ahead of any other. I respect the need for citizens to be productive, but think one would be hard pressed to find an area of society where one or two people truly were responcible for the maintenacnce and advancement of our way of life. I would like to see much more community democracy and options to share resources, like a type of socialized healthcare program. VT has a pretty neat history of robust town meetings, which is a practice that is less and less common in the US.


----------



## firecoins (Jul 23, 2009)

Basically resources are limited.  Socialism won't work because it will be run by a slow moving and self serving beurocracy who will decide how use those limitied resources based on _perceived_ needs. 

Of course unseating such a beuracracy from power will be near impossible, they control the resources.


----------



## Sasha (Jul 24, 2009)

EMTinNEPA said:


> Why is healthcare seen as an entitlement, and not a privilege?  Because people need it to live?  People need food to live too, but if I just go to Burger King and say "I'm hungry", they'll say "Ok, you can have this burger for this price."  It's a business... period.



No, but there are foodstamps, soup kitchens, and foodbanks to help meet your nutritional needs if you have no food. However what is there for people who have no health care? Medicaid? A very broken system.


----------



## Shishkabob (Jul 24, 2009)

Sasha said:


> No, but there are foodstamps, soup kitchens, and foodbanks to help meet your nutritional needs if you have no food. However what is there for people who have no health care? Medicaid? A very broken system.



No.  Foodstamps are for those who can't afford to eat, not for everyone who wants to eat.

THAT is where the difference is.  People are saying free healthcare should be for EVERYONE.




Either everyone gets the necessities for free, or they don't.


----------



## Sasha (Jul 24, 2009)

So because someone is not fortunate enough they should suffer?

Sorry, no thank you. I'd rather pay higher taxes so those that need it get the health care they need.


----------



## Shishkabob (Jul 24, 2009)

Sasha said:


> So because someone is not fortunate enough they should suffer?
> 
> Sorry, no thank you. I'd rather pay higher taxes so those that need it get the health care they need.



Where did I ever say that?  Where did I ever say people who need it shouldn't have it?



But if (generic)you're going to use the same old tired excuse that free healthcare is a right, then you need to explain why food, water and shelter are not given to every single person for free, no matter how much they make, whenever they demand it.


----------



## ffemt8978 (Jul 24, 2009)

Sasha said:


> So because someone is not fortunate enough they should suffer?
> 
> Sorry, no thank you. I'd rather pay higher taxes so those that need it get the health care they need.



Good for you...make sure that when you file your tax returns next year, you don't get a refund but instead give it back to the government.  Otherwise, stop trying to raise my taxes to pay for your beliefs.

Government run health care is NOT the end all, be all that people think it is.  Take a look at ANY, and I mean ANY, government program that took tax money in an effort to "help those that need it."  Name one program that has worked, without turning into a black hole of spending.  

I don't have the answers to this problem, but I do know the answer doesn't lie with the government.  To quote President Reagan, "The scariest words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"


----------



## minneola24 (Jul 24, 2009)

ffemt8978 said:


> Good for you...make sure that when you file your tax returns next year, you don't get a refund but instead give it back to the government.  Otherwise, stop trying to raise my taxes to pay for your beliefs.
> 
> Government run health care is NOT the end all, be all that people think it is.  Take a look at ANY, and I mean ANY, government program that took tax money in an effort to "help those that need it."  Name one program that has worked, without turning into a black hole of spending.
> 
> I don't have the answers to this problem, but I do know the answer doesn't lie with the government.  To quote President Reagan, "The scariest words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"



You may not want to pay higher taxes but I don't know (or want to know for that matter) what your salary is. 

But if someone is making 400,000 + a year they should be paying higher taxes than someone who makes 12k and can barely get by.


3 kids are playing with toys,

First kid has 5 new toys
Second kid has 1 old toy
Third kid has 0 toys

I think the first kid should share toys with the second and third kid, but the second kid should keep his toys.


----------



## ffemt8978 (Jul 24, 2009)

So how much more should the person in your example pay?  This is why I support a flat tax, something that would take our existing tax code and reduce to a one page document.  No deductions, no exemptions.

10 percent of $400,000 is $40,000...which is still more than what a person making $12,000 per year would pay.

As to your example about the kids with toys, do you make your kids give their toys to people who make less than you?  It's easy to say that people who have more than you should give more, but I'm willing to bet that when it comes down to you giving up your property/belongings in this scenario you take on a different viewpoint.

But let's continue down the road of your example for a moment...so that we can expose one of the biggest fallacies of socialism.  Socialism takes away any motivation for an individual to better themselves and become a more productive member of society.  After all, why should you work hard all of your life if the government is only going to come and take all of that away in order to give it to those who don't have as much as you?


----------



## Shishkabob (Jul 24, 2009)

minneola24 said:


> But if someone is making 400,000 + a year they should be paying higher taxes than someone who makes 12k and can barely get by.



Depends.  Do you mean by percentage, or by pure quantity?

If they should pay a different percentage, then HELL no.  Why punish someone for doing well?

If it's the SAME percentage as everyone else, but just a higher amount becuase of such, I don't think anyone is against that.




> First kid has 5 new toys
> Second kid has 1 old toy
> Third kid has 0 toys
> I think the first kid should share toys with the second and third kid, but the second kid should keep his toys.



Also depends.  Does Kid #3 not have toys because he blew them all on cocaine and other illicit items?  Then he has to deal with the consequences.  Is he a lazy kid who takes naps all day instead of fingerpaint like the others?  Then again, he should deal with the consequences.

Did he fall on rough times, get sick and laid off?  Then yes, give the kid a slinky.


----------



## Hockey (Jul 24, 2009)

ffemt8978 said:


> Good for you...make sure that when you file your tax returns next year, you don't get a refund but instead give it back to the government.  Otherwise, stop trying to raise my taxes to pay for your beliefs.
> 
> Government run health care is NOT the end all, be all that people think it is.  Take a look at ANY, and I mean ANY, government program that took tax money in an effort to "help those that need it."  Name one program that has worked, without turning into a black hole of spending.
> 
> I don't have the answers to this problem, but I do know the answer doesn't lie with the government.  To quote President Reagan, "The scariest words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"



Well said.  

For those that actually understand socialized medicine, and the way people are in this country vs other countries such as Canada and a few others, they know it would not work here.

We're being taxed enough already.  The Government needs to get their priorities straight


Something I know the educated people here will enjoy



> From the 1961 Operation Coffee Cup Campaign against Socialized Medicine as proposed by the Democrats, then a private citizen Ronald Reagan Speaks out against socialized medicine. There is no video because this was an LP sent out by the American Medical Association


[youtube]fRdLpem-AAs[/youtube]


----------



## CAOX3 (Jul 24, 2009)

Sasha said:


> So because someone is not fortunate enough they should suffer?
> 
> Sorry, no thank you. I'd rather pay higher taxes so those that need it get the health care they need.



Yeah.......not fortunate enough.  Ever been to the projects it looks like a LEXUS dealership.


Keep thinking you tax money is going to the less fortunate, I'm sure our elected officials are thrilled that your buying that load of crap.


----------



## CAOX3 (Jul 24, 2009)

minneola24 said:


> You may not want to pay higher taxes but I don't know (or want to know for that matter) what your salary is.
> 
> But if someone is making 400,000 + a year they should be paying higher taxes than someone who makes 12k and can barely get by.
> 
> ...



How about  kid number three has no toys because his dope head mom put it up her nose, or his absentee father thought it was more important to by some bang'n rims, pair of the new Jordan's or is down the block soaking his liver with the money he should be using to provide for his children

I am all for helping the less fortunate when their parents are on the same page.  If you cant get your priorities in order it isn't my fault nor is it my responsibility to help.


----------



## Hockey (Jul 24, 2009)

caox3 said:


> yeah.......not fortunate enough.  Ever been to the projects it looks like a lexus dealership.
> 
> 
> Keep thinking you tax money is going to the less fortunate, i'm sure our elected officials are thrilled that your buying that load of crap.




+10000000000


----------



## minneola24 (Jul 24, 2009)

Yeah many poor people go the drug route, however there ARE hard working Americans that are still living in poverty. Especially Immigrants.


----------



## paccookie (Jul 24, 2009)

minneola24 said:


> Yeah many poor people go the drug route, however there ARE hard working Americans that are still living in poverty. Especially Immigrants.



Without even considering immigrants, what about people who work at jobs that don't offer healthcare?  My husband is a producer at a tv studio but he isn't offered healthcare through his job.  Tying healthcare to jobs is a mistake.  Tying healthcare to big business is a mistake.  I don't know how to fix it, but our current system is very, very broken.  Drugs should not cost thousands upon thousands of dollars.  The elderly should not have to choose between medications and food.  Children should not be without healthcare because their parents can't hold down a job.  There are so many things wrong with the current system that it's hard to figure out where to fix things.  I'm not saying that socialized healthcare is the answer, but what we have right now is not working.  Call me a liberal if you want (and yes, I am), but when my health insurance premiums are increasing every year and my benefits from that insurance is decreasing, we have a big problem.


----------



## el Murpharino (Jul 25, 2009)

I just find it ridiculous that health insurance company profits continue to rise...I guess the millions and millions of dollars in bonuses to the CEO's aren't enough.  

http://vancouver.injuryboard.com/miscellaneous/private-health-insurance-profits-soar.aspx?googleid=230780

http://www.4ibew.com/2009/05/27/health-insurance-profits-soar-as-industry-mergers-create-near-monopoly/

http://juanhijo.com/2009/07/12/top-5-health-insurance-company-net-profit-2007/


----------



## Sasha (Jul 25, 2009)

paccookie said:


> Without even considering immigrants, what about people who work at jobs that don't offer healthcare?  My husband is a producer at a tv studio but he isn't offered healthcare through his job.  Tying healthcare to jobs is a mistake.  Tying healthcare to big business is a mistake.  I don't know how to fix it, but our current system is very, very broken.  Drugs should not cost thousands upon thousands of dollars.  The elderly should not have to choose between medications and food.  Children should not be without healthcare because their parents can't hold down a job.  There are so many things wrong with the current system that it's hard to figure out where to fix things.  I'm not saying that socialized healthcare is the answer, but what we have right now is not working.  Call me a liberal if you want (and yes, I am), but when my health insurance premiums are increasing every year and my benefits from that insurance is decreasing, we have a big problem.



Plus one!!


----------



## Shishkabob (Jul 25, 2009)

paccookie said:


> Without even considering immigrants, what about people who work at jobs that don't offer healthcare?



I said this in a previous thread and I'll say it again--- Get a job that DOES offer it.  Truly, there is no excuse.  


Having said that;

If people keep going to jobs that offer no benefits, then complain there are no benefits, but make no steps to get said benefits, then there will never be benefits.  If you want something, work towards it, don't demand it of the rest of the country.


----------



## Sasha (Jul 25, 2009)

> I said this in a previous thread and I'll say it again--- Get a job that DOES offer it.



SOMEONE needs to work those jobs, and it is usually those who are happy just to be getting a regular pay check.

Health care shouldn't be contingent on a job, insurance should be affordable, not cost pver half a person's rent payment a month.


----------



## DV_EMT (Jul 25, 2009)

Socialism - a good idea untill you run out of other peoples money


----------



## Shishkabob (Jul 25, 2009)

Sasha said:


> SOMEONE needs to work those jobs, and it is usually those who are happy just to be getting a regular pay check.



Then let them--- but they can no longer complain that they no benefits.   If you want a job with benefits, find a job with benefits, or force your current job to offer it.



If I choose to jump across a creek everyday instead of walking to a bridge, I can't complain when my legs get tired.


----------



## Sasha (Jul 25, 2009)

Linuss said:


> Then let them--- but they can no longer complain that they no benefits.   If you want a job with benefits, find a job with benefits, or force your current job to offer it.
> 
> 
> 
> If I choose to jump across a creek everyday instead of walking to a bridge, I can't complain when my legs get tired.



If you can't use the bridge because of outrageous costs, then by all means, complain! 

People can't get health care because they are confined to those jobs (many are not qualified for other jobs, and like I said, our economy NEEDS people in those jobs. ) and because it's not affordable. 

So, because they can't use the bridge, they must jump across the creek. They have no other recourse but to do so.


----------



## Shishkabob (Jul 25, 2009)

So I should feel bad because someone decides not to better their own life, and instead demands that we accommodate them?


Nope.


----------



## DV_EMT (Jul 25, 2009)

Linuss said:


> So I should feel bad because someone decides not to better their own life, and instead demands that we accommodate them?
> 
> 
> Nope.



Esp illegal aliens... they're not even legal citizens and yet our cash will go to them... sorry.... not my cup of tea


----------



## Sasha (Jul 25, 2009)

DV_EMT said:


> Esp illegal aliens... they're not even legal citizens and yet our cash will go to them... sorry.... not my cup of tea



Have you looked at the requirements to enter this country legally? Most Americans wouldn't make the cut. 

How dare they try to better their life by running from oppression and unemployment and work jobs that many Americans consider themselves above working.


----------



## Shishkabob (Jul 25, 2009)

Sasha said:


> How dare they try to better their life by running from oppression and unemployment and work jobs that many Americans consider themselves above working.



No see, this is where your logic fails.  I have yet to meet anyone who thinks like you just proposed.



But how dare someone do it ILLEGALLY, while others spend their lives trying legally.  How dare they take advantage of the system.  



It's called "illegal" for a reason, and as such if you do nothing to curb it, you're REWARDING illegal activity.  You're REWARDING doing things wrongly.


----------



## Sasha (Jul 25, 2009)

> It's called "illegal" for a reason, and as such if you do nothing to curb it, you're REWARDING illegal activity. You're REWARDING doing things wrongly.



Good for them! Until entrance requirements are reformed to make it easier for them to come over legally, then I will applaud whoever comes over here, illegal or not, to make a better life for themselves or their families.


----------



## paccookie (Jul 25, 2009)

Linuss said:


> So I should feel bad because someone decides not to better their own life, and instead demands that we accommodate them?
> 
> 
> Nope.



Those jobs that don't offer health insurance benefits are not always bad jobs or even low paying jobs.  They may be small businesses that can't afford to offer benefits to their employees.  There isn't always a cut and dried solution to these problems.  Perhaps they should just marry someone who has good benefits?  LOL  Worked for my husband.    (and no, before someone asks, he is not an immigrant!)


----------



## Shishkabob (Jul 25, 2009)

paccookie said:


> Those jobs that don't offer health insurance benefits are not always bad jobs or even low paying jobs.  They may be small businesses that can't afford to offer benefits to their employees.  There isn't always a cut and dried solution to these problems.  Perhaps they should just marry someone who has good benefits?  LOL  Worked for my husband.    (and no, before someone asks, he is not an immigrant!)



My family owns one of these small businesses.  40 employees.  We don't offer insurance, because if we did it would mean having to cut close to half our workforce.


If an employee wants benefits, they are more then welcome to find a new job.  They get hired knowing they don't exist, so they have no reason to complain.




Don't get me wrong, I wish everyone did, but it is NOT the governments job to provide it.


----------



## paccookie (Jul 25, 2009)

Linuss said:


> No see, this is where your logic fails.  I have yet to meet anyone who thinks like you just proposed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It may be illegal or whatever you want to call it, but I'd rather see someone who is working and just happens to be in this country illegally receiving benefits from the government than someone who was born and raised here sitting on his/her butt and collecting benefits because they are just too lazy or sorry to work.  Don't tell me you've never seen this, I see it daily.  How many medicaid patients have you picked up this month?  How many of those could work, even if it was a low-paying, crappy job like McDonalds?  I know someone personally who was on food stamps.  He went to buy groceries with the food stamps and also bought a video game with cash...on the same shopping trip.  That's the kind of crap that pisses me off, not the family of illegal aliens who are receiving some sort of government benefits.


----------



## Shishkabob (Jul 25, 2009)

paccookie said:


> It may be illegal or whatever you want to call it, but I'd rather see someone who is working and just happens to be in this country illegally receiving benefits from the government than someone who was born and raised here sitting on his/her butt and collecting benefits because they are just too lazy or sorry to work.



Either way, they both receive something from the government without putting in their share.  Both are bad, just one makes my tasty breadsticks at the local restaurant.  



If you provide a service, but it's illegal, then guess what?  It's still illegal.


----------



## Sasha (Jul 25, 2009)

> Either way, they both receive something from the government without putting in their share.



How are they not putting in their share? They are WORKING and recieve pay much lower then Americans are willing to work for. If all these immigrants working at their jobs for five dollars an hour demanded minimum wage, that would spell trouble for are already troubled economy!


----------



## Shishkabob (Jul 25, 2009)

Sasha said:


> How are they not putting in their share? They are WORKING and recieve pay much lower then Americans are willing to work for. If all these immigrants working at their jobs for five dollars an hour demanded minimum wage, that would spell trouble for are already troubled economy!



They are getting paid cash under the table, they aren't paying income taxes, they aren't paying social security.


And I hate that argument-- "They are doing jobs Americans don't want"

 They are doing jobs for half the legal payrate, and as such will get the benefit of job choice over an American who has to provide for his family.   But lets screw the American family just because the illegal has family in a bad country, right?


----------



## DV_EMT (Jul 25, 2009)

i completely agree...

they arent paying welfare or social security or any taxes... 

therefore

they dont deserve my money

same with the bloody homeless (esp here in SB). Look, I'm all up for helping the homeless... medically or with food. But giving them cash. Come on... really.


----------



## minneola24 (Jul 25, 2009)

DV_EMT said:


> i completely agree...
> 
> they arent paying welfare or social security or any taxes...
> 
> ...




Yeah, never give a homeless person cash, MOST LIKELY they'll just go to the gas station and get some beer. Food/water/clothing is all good thoe.



And about illegal immigration, I mean... Mexico is pretty bad, I've been to Tijuana before, I would never want to live there. So I understand why they come over here.

However everyone says they want to come here for better lives for their families, I completely understand but I don't think the kids really care. I really don't want to sound racist right now but I don't usually see alot of Mexicans try that hard in school. They just fool around like most others and don't do their work. At least in my school from what I see.

Not to say there no Mexican kids that try really hard, we had some kids a few years ago pretty much straight from Mexico and our school has classes like "History for English learners" and they attended those and went after school for help etc. so there are some that try hard but many don't care. And by trying I mean when Mexicans get C's but try their best, that is great. Coming to a new country with a new language must be tough stuff. But then there are the Mexicans that get F's and don't give a crap. 

I want to separate my comment by not trying to sound racist by ending off on the note that there are not only Mexicans that don't try in school. PLENTY and I mean PLENTY of white folks don't care about school.


----------



## SeeNoMore (Jul 26, 2009)

"Socialism - a good idea untill you run out of other peoples money"

I believe most Socialists advocate abolishing money, and view the the resources of society as belonging to those that directly produce, distribute, and sell it. 

But it's hard to tell what people mean by socialism. I hear people say Obama is a Socialist. 


Re: Immigrants, this topic always makes me very emotional so I will not say too much, but I have known immigrant workers that work for less than minimum wage, are treated terribly by their bosses, live in crowded apartments and still send money to their families. I know their are a lot of opinions on this, but I have a hard time embracing the notion that people living north of the border deserve a different lifestyle than those that live south of it.


----------



## firecoins (Jul 26, 2009)

SeeNoMore said:


> "I know their are a lot of opinions on this, but I have a hard time embracing the notion that people living north of the border deserve a different lifestyle than those that live south of it.



So we should improve the lives of those South of the border as opposed to reducing the lifestyle of those North of the border.


----------



## JPINFV (Jul 26, 2009)

Illegal aliens need ot be kicked out as soon as they are found as long as there is a waiting list. If you want to argue that it should be easier to  immigrate to this country, then make that argument, but the difficulty to immigrate to America (which my understanding is that even under the current system is still vastly easier than most other developed countries).

Also anyone who thinks that any sort of work is 'above them' should have their benifits immediately stripped. No job is above any one person, especially one living off of the dole.


----------



## Cory (Jul 26, 2009)

phabib said:


> These analogies are always way too simple. The students in the class still missed the major point. If they study then they will gain the knowledge, that is the point of school.
> 
> Same thing with socialism in society. Will you want to work in a coal mine or at McDonald's just because you know you have the basics taken care of? Of course not. *You'll work hard to have that dream job still but now money won't be your inspiration.* Maybe under a socialist system you'll actually have the chance to go to college or even medical or law school. It's sad that entire societies think socialism will fail because they won't get to be the next millionaire. *If all they get out of work is a paycheck then these people live pathetic lives.*



The problem is, not enough people are passionate about growing up and working. I myslef have dreamed of being a paramedic for years. IT is  my ultimate goal. When I think of my future, I don't think about who I will be with, or what my children will be like. I think about what jpb I will be doing, and if that is my dream job then I am excited. If that isn't, then I am also pathetic.

But not too mny people see it that way. It is hard to believe for someone who has a drwam job. But a lot of people's drem is to sky dive, or have a big family. Work has become just work. It is almost taboo to be a 15 year old like myself, and actually think about what I wan to do for a job. 

So more than hlf the people who go to good schools are going just because their dadies can afford it, and they will end up making good money somehow. But whe money is taken out, why would non-passionate people want to work hard to get a good job?

The problem with socialism is from the gradual developement of total apathy towards one's future of employment that has so plagued modern generations.


----------



## SeeNoMore (Jul 26, 2009)

"So we should improve the lives of those South of the border as opposed to reducing the lifestyle of those North of the border."

I agree. How to do this is the question I suppose. Personally I think some Americans live lifestyles that are hard to justify in the face of global poverty, but they are in the extreme minority. There  is no reason that everyone can not have housing, sustenance, medical care, education etc. 

And of course it's not like its all the fault of affluent Western citizens. The terrible corruption in many poorer nations leads to many people suffering while resources are given to Tyrants.


----------



## Shishkabob (Jul 26, 2009)

JPINFV said:


> Illegal aliens need ot be kicked out as soon as they are found as long as there is a waiting list. If you want to argue that it should be easier to  immigrate to this country, then make that argument, but the difficulty to immigrate to America (which my understanding is that even under the current system is still vastly easier than most other developed countries).
> 
> Also anyone who thinks that any sort of work is 'above them' should have their benifits immediately stripped. No job is above any one person, especially one living off of the dole.



Am I in 100% agreement with JPINFV?

What the heck?


----------



## Guardian (Jul 26, 2009)

ffemt8978 said:


> So how much more should the person in your example pay?  This is why I support a flat tax, something that would take our existing tax code and reduce to a one page document.  No deductions, no exemptions.
> 
> 10 percent of $400,000 is $40,000...which is still more than what a person making $12,000 per year would pay.



I agree with your views on socialism.  Flat tax is a different story.  First, the government can make you do something by pulling out a stick or using carrots.  Tax deduction incentives allow governments to have a carrot option.  For example, why else would a business install a bunch of handicap accessible crap?  Not out of the goodness of their hearts.  Tax deductions offer governments ways to provide incentives without having to go straight to coercion or the "stick."  

Secondly, the accounting that is required to maintain our progressive tax system is a great way to maintain order, fairness, and standards in the system.  We keep track of transactions and prevent illegal activity this way.  One of the reasons why our financial system has been trusted more than any other in the world is accountability.  That accountability in large part has come from all those complicated tax laws and supreme court tax law decisions that flat taxers hate so much.  Having a simple flat tax might very well bring about a tyrannical government.  In that complex tax law, their is much precedent that protects individuals.  Just look at the major decisions and you will see the court sides with individuals just as often as it sides with government.  If its too good to be true, it is.  Just some food for thought.


----------



## JPINFV (Jul 27, 2009)

Linuss said:


> Am I in 100% agreement with JPINFV?
> 
> What the heck?



Damn, it's cold in hell tonight.


----------



## mycrofft (Jul 27, 2009)

*FFEMT said I needed to look in...*

Giving a homeless person $10 is a nice gesture. What they really need is a hefty stipend, help getting medical dental and psychological help, then an apt. and a job.

Ditto ex-cons.

The majority of undoc aliens are invisible because they are earning a living, howsoever marginal, and paying sales tax, Soc Sec witholding, etc. Ditto many homeless folks.

This is not BS, this is direct observation working in jails and working as a medically indigent program medical case manager. I oppose people illegally entering, but once here or once someone has lost their home it makes little sense not to help them try to become productive unless you plan to kill them.


----------

