Mar 26 2009, 12:46 AM
dunno, maybe it's cynical me, but something's rotten in denmark.
since it's an email, and supposedly not for public consumption, one is tempted to take it at face value, but AIG just hired a publicity firm-- the same people who rep'd blackwater (now, stupidly called, "xe"). so i suspect that this is more a nice high profile con game more than the real deal. i find it rather odd that the writer pauses at one point to say, let me tell you about myself, but then divulges nothing but work related hoo-hah. the writer, if they are real, gets my impression of the world's tiniest violin-- he may have lost his stock value, but why is he bitching? he's undoubtedly gotten more than a million dollar bonus before, since he's been working at aig for years, and is a supervisor of his division, so i don't think he's gonna be on the street this life time, so boo-hoo. if the tax payer didn't bail out his sucky company, he'd have no bonus, no paycheck, and not job, what's more, his stock value would have been nil. so he needs to quit his bitching.
he misses the point:when tax payers are footing the bill, NOBODY should be getting million dollar bonuses. period. that money does not belong to them. so STFU.
Mar 26 2009, 09:45 AM
The writer acknowledges that he has benefited more than the average person and that he has been over paid. There are several different departments in AIG, and there are departments that have nothing to do with "Running AIG into the ground."
What this writer is saying, is that there is a blame game going on in the high ranks of the company and government and instead of giving his bonus back to the government, he is going to allocate it to different charities. He acknowledges that he is loaded and not having it won't break him, but he would rather see the money go to someplace worthy, and know that it is there, instead of trusting it to the government.
Is it a PR scam? Who knows. That's not the point.
This economic crisis is pretty complex and though I don't completely agree with the bailouts, I do think that the American Public is shamelessly showing our ancestral pre-disposition to tar and feather, then burn people at the stake, and I think we should be ashamed. There are many facets to this crisis that Joe Blow doesn't know about, doesn't understand and is totally ready to knee-jerk all over the place, and someone could get hurt.
Here's the deal. This crisis was caused by greed on all ends of the spectrum. Brokers and companies figured out a way to make some quick and easy money, the Government was so up Alan Greenspan's ass (DEMS AND REPS) that they cobnozzled the Deregulation Cock until they choked, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WERE GETTING SUCKED IN BY THEIR OWN PERSONAL GREED AND BORROWING MONEY THAT THEY KNEW THEY COULD NOT AFFORD.
I don't buy that a family who has a mean income of $65K annum, really believes that they can afford a $250K house with nothing down. Yes, they can get lured in by "fancy math stuff" given to them by brokers, which I agree is predatory, but it is also all of our personal responsibilities to completely understand what we are putting our signature on. I believe that many didn't want to believe the truth of their situations, ignorance is bliss, and they wanted that money. Though there were shady business practices involved, they do hold a part of the responsibility for this shit.... they hurt themselves, their neighbors and their community......
BUT, it's way easier to damn a faceless, giant, WHO IS AT FAULT, partially; than it is to accept your own, personal responsibility.
This is the deal. We're here. It sucks. Let's work on making it better, tightening regulations so this doesn't happen again (though it will eventually), and FIXING IT, instead of pointing fingers and bellyaching. We're Americans for fucks sake, we work hard, and we can overcome anything.
Also, Jsmith, tell your grandma to talk to a tax attorney. We have a kinder and gentler IRS these days due to a completely overwhelmed collections department. Look for one in your community, don't fall for the TV adds. If she doesn't owe them anything, they will figure it out. Also, this may be taxes from years before, that they are collecting on, (it can take up to 10 years before they go on active collection), so you need to start talking to the IRS right away. They are swamped, but they have an excellent computer systems that can issue liens at the drop of a hat. If she does "owe", your grandma can fill out an Offers in Compromise. This is all based on a charted system, it's not a negotiating game, but ti can significantly lower her debt, or deem her totally un-collectible.
Best of luck, It can be daunting, but just work with the IRS and an attorney, and do it right away. It will be okay.
In the end, it's just money.
Mar 26 2009, 05:12 PM
while i might agree with you GGG, the problem is complex, the subject here was AIG. but even so, i don't blame your average american. granted, they have taken the consumer thing far as they could, but that's because they've been sold this bill of goods that they are middle class, when since the 80's the middle class has been a dying breed-- and that is the fault of those at the top. they have been siphoning off the paychecks of the middle class to enrich themselves. then, as is the case with aig or the white collars of the auto companies, they act like it is there due. essentually fiddling while rome burns.
do you know how ford kick started the middle class? it wasn't because he streamlined production, it's because he made sure his workers could afford his product-- that they were paid essentially a living wage. when the people at the top stopped caring how much their workers were getting paid, thinking they were somehow more important shuffling paper, it was only a matter of time before that middle class erroded. a term called brazilification-- the rich become the super rich, the poor gets poorer, and what little middle class there is evaporates until it is little more than a shadow. had it not been for that borrowing and living beyond their means that you, and so many others decry, the economy would have collapsed sooner. that borrowing if nothing else was a saving grace. hardly greed, it kept things going with our economy at a time when it was so terribly important-- had it not been for the spending habits of the faux middle class, globalization wouldn't have caught fire probably for another decade or two.
this whole conventional wisdom about how everyone is to blame, i just don't buy. the crooks in this affair are those who so blindly followed the tenets of reagan's free marketeering trickle down theory long after the evidence proved it was bogus. now, granted they were helped along by a mis-educated populice, guided by the right that was rabidly anti-tax, anti-govenment but those two things also gained currency (ha!) during the reagan era, with his government phobia. did the left have a hand in this? absolutely. clinton,(who i'm no fan of), was one of those people who thought being a moderate was a good thing, and followed many of reagan's ideas as well. but again the people at the top rigged the tax system advantaging the weathy, the deregulation in different sectors, the disadvantaging unions, the wage stagnations, and credit avenues (also deregulated) opening to the middle class. all of these things, controlled by those at the top. if anything, the middle and lower classes were along for the ride. if they are to blame it is in their passivity.
Mar 26 2009, 07:25 PM
She and I are going to go see the clown who did her taxes tomorrow, and find out what the mistake is. It HAS to be a mistake. When she was working, her annual salary came to about 60 thousand, maybe a bit more, and she would pay around $500 in tax. Her income for 2008 didn't approach 60 thousand and she's had to pay out more money for her insurance, and suddenly the figure jumps to 5000? Somebody somewhere made a huge, expensive mistake.
I really don't think this is back tax, as she does her return every year. But if her guy is responsible for this current mistake, I don't suppose it's a stretch to believe that he has screwed up in years past. If we can't find out what the deal is tomorrow, I'll try to convince her to go see a tax attorney, or talk to someone in the IRS directly. But the thing is, she won't fight anymore. She's been screwed over by a lot of people financially (insurance companies, investor, etc.), and she just won't put up a fight these days. And I don't know how to motivate her.
I'll keep this "Offers in Compromise" thing in mind too, thanks for mentioning that.
Mar 30 2009, 12:39 PM
Well, it turned out to be a big mistake on the part of that dumbass-moron-retarded-jerkoff Aetna (disability services). I swear, those people have their heads so firmly stuck up their asses that there's no hope for them. I hate those bastards.
Mar 31 2009, 09:30 AM
Hope I'm not jumping into the conversation here, but I just read this and am supremely pissed at the Canadian government, had to share.Canada bans Galloway from entering country for anti-war lecture series on grounds of "terrorist" activity
so much for freedom of speech.
Apr 16 2009, 09:23 AM
Brava to these brave Afghan women!
I hope we see more of this, and that no one gets hurt.
Apr 23 2009, 06:55 AM
on AIDS denial in South Africa, and the dangers of poor science reporting in the media.
Apr 28 2009, 11:26 AM
who fucking cares about anything around here anymore?
May 5 2009, 08:18 AM
May 26 2009, 09:09 AM
Obama nominates new supreme court justice.
May 26 2009, 01:24 PM
I am so anrgy, disgusted, and ashamed of my state
May 26 2009, 03:51 PM
I cannot freaking believe it. I am so angry I can't even describe it.
May 26 2009, 06:44 PM
i don't really know if this is anything to get angry about.
for most people following this, this was exactly what most expected. the court was ruling NOT if they agreed with this amendment, but rather, on the technicality of whether or not this amendment was properly written and followed procedure. one justice who voted to legalize gay marriage said as much in his opinion, and if i'm not mistaken, 4 out of the three voted those years ago for it. we are dealing with the state constitution, and unlike many states (like say washington), the california voting public can change the constitution by vote. that's one of the reasons that they are having such trouble with their funds.
at any rate, the changes in iowa and other states have emboldened the gay marriage side and should they get enough funding, they are looking to put something on the ballot next year. i was listening to someone talk about the subject and she pointed out that the pro numbers change month by month. the change will come, and sooner than we would have thought even 5 years ago. don't worry.
May 29 2009, 11:16 AM
between prop 8 being upheld and pres. obama ignoring it, it's been a tough week for lgbt people. while i'm sad about california's ignorance towards gay marriage, i know that there are important issues that need to be tackled in order to ensure equal rights for all. as dean spade reminds us in this awesome video clip
, social justice trickles up, not down. we need to fight for the rights of the most marginalized people, including queer people of color, immigrants, and prison inmates, to secure rights for everyone.
Jun 9 2009, 07:50 AM
two teens were arrested for setting a dog on fire in baltimore.
Jun 9 2009, 07:53 AM
Now that is scary, two little sociopaths in the making. Sometimes I see where Hamurabi's code would be a usefull tool in justice.
Jun 9 2009, 11:32 AM
Jul 3 2009, 08:22 PM
Palin is resigning
I wonder if she has something up her sleeve... or if she's backing down before some scandal breaks loose.
Jul 15 2009, 06:23 PM
I read that she's got a lucrative (like, a million or so) book deal. It'll be ghostwritten, of course.
Came in here to post this article that says swearing can relieve pain.
Jul 19 2009, 03:07 PM
I just heard that there's a law in place forbidding people who are HIV positive from entering the U.S. Whaaaaat? Is this true?
Aug 5 2009, 07:02 AM
Laura Ling and Juna Lee are back in American now.
girl_logic, I think that is true but I'll confirm it when I have a few minutes.
Aug 5 2009, 12:39 PM
QUOTE(girl_logic @ Jul 19 2009, 04:07 PM)
I just heard that there's a law in place forbidding people who are HIV positive from entering the U.S. Whaaaaat? Is this true?Laws about the HIV+ entering the USA.http://community.worldaidscampaign.net/showthread.php?p=1153
Same site, one just wouldn't open, so if one doesn't work for you try the other.
Also, the are releasing Manson girl Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme
after thirty years. She waved a gun at then President Ford.
Aug 9 2009, 03:42 PM
Japan just had a 7.1 earthquake. Unbelievably it seems to have done almost no damage. Japan seems to be ready for any earthquake.
Aug 27 2009, 09:17 AM
This seems to have virtually squeeked by most media with no one except the CBC taking notice:
"Gender Equality", "Child Soldiers" and "Humanitarian Law" are Axed from Foreign Policy Language http://www.embassymag.ca/page/view/foreignpolicy-7-29-2009
Gender equality is now "equality between men and women" (conveniently omitting the fact that not everyone identifies as a man or woman). Child soldiers is now "children in armed conflict".
In the new docket, the minister's office has removed the words "impunity" and "justice" when calling for an end to sexual violence in the DRC, and is instead calling only for efforts to "prevent" sexual violence.
Mr. Neve said it is fundamentally important that "gender-based violence" be recognized as a particular form of human rights abuse at the United Nations and elsewhere because it reflects the fact that it is women, particularly in the midst of conflict, who disproportionately experience very serious and distinct forms of gender-based violence.
The change of "child soldier" no doubt has a lot to do with the current controversy surrounding Omar Khadr.
You can listen to more about these changes here: http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/current_20090826_19501.mp3
Oct 9 2009, 12:25 PM
Looks like this thread hasn't been active in awhile but i'm just curious, what does everyone think of obama getting the nobel peace prize?
i'm definitely having a "wtf?" moment over this, he was nominated last january, only 2 weeks after he entered the presidency. i think he should have refused it until he actually earned it...
Oct 9 2009, 02:49 PM
well, attempting isn't the same as doing. There isn't an award for attempted phsyics or attempts in medicine, chemistry...
Oct 10 2009, 10:07 AM
exactly what i was thinking. a little premature, if deserved at all. time will tell i guess.
Oct 10 2009, 10:51 AM
I posted on FB yesterday morning that I was kinda baffled at the choice. I mean, it's definitely too soon, the guy hasn't even been in office a year.
Yes, he's made MAJOR headway in restoring some diplomacy after our last administration, he's actively sought communication about reducing the number of nukes, he's actually acknowledged that we do indeed have environmental concerns that need some looking after. But as CH said saying & actually doing . . . he's not been aggressive enough for my tastes.
Of course, not long after I posted this a friend put something up on his wall about how the people that don't understand why he got it need to get their noses out of People magazine & start reading the Economist. Uh, the Economist agreed with me, assclown. And I don't read People.
Oct 11 2009, 03:03 AM
i love that sort of snottiness, aural. since he's such a smart ass i'd love to hear the case he'd make.
but if'in you're asking me, i'm right there with you. he's not been aggressive. hell he hasn't even gotten rid of don't ask don't tell, which is easily in his purview. he doesn't need congress to deal with it, yet he pushes it off, and as fucked up as it sounds, does more shuckin' and jivin'.
healthcare has been fucked up due to his lack of actual participation, and almost immediate acquiescence to the insurance agencies.
no, domestically, he's a dud. he hasn't even tried to regulate the banks, which he should have done when everyone was clear in how much they'd fucked up things for everyone.
i will give him credit for a few things:
1)telling the israelis to stop building settlements, but he fails for not actually putting his $$$ where his mouth was and putting real pressure on them.
2)killing the starwars program for new members of nato (the former soviet countries/neighbors). granted, starwars doesn't work, and bush's plan was a stupid attempt to re-ignite the cold war at a time we really can't handle more conflict
3)ignoring iran's attempt to turn up east/west tension. of course they are testing missiles. if attack (or add further sanctions, for that matter), it only strengthens the government's hand domestically, meaning the protests we saw earlier in the year will be more easily crushed. better to remain quiet. the last thing the us needs is to be cast as a villain
but none of these things would really rise to the level i think would merit a peace prize. if he actually took the money the us gives israel until settlements stop. then i think he'd have earned it. that however would be political suicide in this country.
Oct 11 2009, 04:59 AM
I don't know where else to put this, but reading this discussion has raised my blood pressure about health care once more...
I have a friend who just got her hospital bill for an emergency appendectomy: $43,000. She does not have health insurance, because she has a pre-existing condition (not even anything that major, but something that has kept her from getting any kind of insurance she could remotely afford the monthly payments for) and she's a freelancer.
I cannot wrap my head around the fact that health care and employment are so inextricably linked in the US. I have several friends who, through no fault of their own, lost their jobs in the last year, merely because of the economy. They couldn't afford to keep their health care, and haven't found new jobs, so they're fucked. I live outside of the US, but still pay for my independent health care plan there, because I am uninsurable due to a pre-existing condition. I had the insurance prior to the condition, so if I let it go, I'm fucked if I ever move back.
I'm sorry, but from where I stand, health care is not a "benefit," it's a human right. "They" can say all they want about national health care systems not working, but where I live (UK) if you can't afford private health insurance, at least you can get care without jeopardizing your (probably already tenuous) financial state.
I get so fucking pissed off about this issue. It's been my no. 1 defining issue in who I vote for in the last few presidential elections - any election, really. I'm really disappointed that Obama hasn't had the balls to get in there and really push for REAL change. Hell, any number of people who I'm friends with (me, even) would be glad to testify in front of congress how fucked we are because of the way US health care system works.
ok, end rant.
Oct 11 2009, 05:04 AM
oops, double post. stupid slow internet, making me hit "send" twice.
Oct 11 2009, 10:23 AM
zoya, sorry to hear about your friend's heath insurance issues. I don't understand the point of health insurance if you don't qualify due to a pre-existing condition. That's why we pay premiums, right? So frustrating. Health care reform is a such a class issue in the States it is not even funny. Any mention of reform brings out the crazies 'cause they think it represents socialism. Like that is a bad thing.
on the nobel peace prize, yeah, i see it as a "the most popular" award for obama. he has met with alot of foreign dignitaries, but, what foreign policies has he actually changed to help the States and its citizen. i'm tired of hearing the talk about change and seeing no physical changes in the form of policy, laws, etc.
Oct 11 2009, 12:27 PM
that's the thing that gets me, star. i've said it before, but obama bungled this healthcare thing from day one. we are what 3 months in on this mess and he's still failed to meaningfully step into the fray. he seems perfectly willing-- like most democrats -- to pass some piece of shit bill, slap the phrase "healthcare reform" and call it good, as if the name alone would make people healthier and happier. little do they realize that once they send this thing thru and the system gets worse-- and trust me, it will, there is going to be a migration from the democrats so fast that will make their head spin. they keep talking about how not denying people with pre-existing conditions will be this miracle worker, well you don't have to be a genius to see that the insurance companies will simply take the premiums, reduce or reject what they cover, pay less on the few things they do approve and generally screw people over. worse yet, when people realize that it is going to be illegal NOT to have a shitty insurance plan that screws them out of what little they are making or get fined? all those fucking wackos on the right are gonna be up in arms, but you know what? all those moderates who wanted to believe government can be the solution are going to be joining them. the people on the left are going to be too disillusioned to vote for a democrat, and they are going to be right where the republicans are now.
but the fucked up thing? the most fucked up thing is that all of this bullshit is due to republican policies. from the reagan presidency forward we have been high on this stupid free market horseshit, and this gordon gekko ethic that "greed is good," and it has run this country into the ground. yet here comes obama, all bright and shiny to pass a bill that is going to make everything worse, by giving all that good will moderates had for the democrats, and shitting on people in a way that will make them reject democrats all together. tell me, what sense does it make to push a bill that is going to take federal (read tax) money and literally give it away to insurance companies and banks... along with a nice chunk of that pay check of yours? how can you think that will make people happy?
Oct 12 2009, 06:53 AM
No doubt we need healthcare/insurance reform, but I don't think nationalized healthcare is the solution. I spend a lot of time in Italy (nationalized healthcare) & all I keep hearing about is how long they need to wait, the conditions of the medical facilities, or how rationed the care has become. The "new" thing (been happening for a few years, actually) in healthcare is the doctors opening private offices. The tag line becomes, "...well I can see you at the public office in a couple months, or you can come to my private practice next week." Many with the $ choose the private option. They think we're nuts for going in the direction of nationalized healthcare!
In Obama's defense, I think he is pushing the Congress pretty hard on reform. But he can't sign what the Congress won't deliver. It's their job to present a bill, not BOs. It's a vicious circle with patients sueing for outrageous claims, lawyers getting rich off their "cut" from us, insurance making up their losses through us (& the doctors), and doctors making up their premiums through us (& our insurance for which we pay). Notice who's the common denominator...us. Breaking this cycle is, as I need it, a necessity towards reducing costs.
My solution? I don't have one. I just wanted to toot my horn on this issue. Kind of like the people who take a survey, then check, "I don't know".
Oct 14 2009, 10:58 AM
What people don't realize about many countries with privatized health care is that many of those countries have taken a right wing turn in the past two decades, and as a result their health care (as well as all their other human right nationalized services, such as health care, pensions, unemployment insurance, etc. etc.) has been dismantled slowly--with the ultimate goal that they will all be taken apart and made into a privatized system once globalization and "free trade" has become the accepted norm.
It's the reason why health care in Canada is so poor right now (though for things like a check up--it's as poor as your selection of a practitioner, and your selection of a place to live--there is no equality for things like the cost of care in every province, and that has to be addressed among other things). Compared to the way it was before any of the free trade agreements were signed here, which were designed to eliminate all tax monies being streamed to health care, education, crown corporations, energy, resource ownership, etc. etc. etc. Canadians have pretty much lost all of this stuff as our taxes are no long kept in common trusts for these services, they're tossed in to the country's general coffers and usually go directly to corporate tax relief now (euphemistically referred to as "deficit reduction").
Berlusconi has effectively dismantled private health care in Italy. A greater amount of resistance exists in other countries where people still have the health care they pay for with their tax dollars. Though I suspect France is going to face a similar dismantling soon (the UK, on the other hand, is being steadfast and has actually expanded the NHS to cover alternative medicines as well as conventional medicine).
It's not nationalized health care that's failing--it's people who have dismantled nationalized health care that have created a weakened system of health care in nations who once had full coverage. Nationalized health care works exceedingly well in countries where the public interest is always preserved. Check out Norway and Sweden as comparatives, and not countries where the political will has been focused on eliminating public trusts.
Oct 14 2009, 11:30 AM
Chacha, so good to see you! I was just wondering where you'd disappeared to the other day!
Love the post. As someone with an incurable disease, health care is an issue close to my heart. I'm so thankful I don't live in the states, but Canada has a long way to go too.
Oct 14 2009, 07:42 PM
zoya, i have a pre-existing condition and it's real pain in the ass to work with, but as far as i understand, as long as you're income is below the cap you can always qualify for medicaid, pre-existing condition or not. and from there you can get on a monthly plan, i'm on Healthy NY, an affordable option for those that again fall under a cap but you can make a lot more money than if your on medicaid. i don't know if every state has something like that.
it's (again) a pain in the ass but u do what u gotta do.
Oct 15 2009, 08:43 AM
QUOTE(chachaheels @ Oct 14 2009, 11:58 AM)
It's not nationalized health care that's failing--it's people who have dismantled nationalized health care that have created a weakened system of health care in nations who once had full coverage. Nationalized health care works exceedingly well in countries where the public interest is always preserved.
chacha; So would Capitalism, if not for the greedy.
Pre-existing condition discrimination is certainly a big problem; like the "overweight" baby that was denied coverage due to his size. The insurance company since retracted after the outcry. Turns out they picked on a news reporter who exposed the discrimanatory practice on his newscast. But how many more without his resources get screwed over every day.
Nov 4 2009, 08:06 AM
chacha; So would Capitalism, if not for the greedy.
Well, I think we know capitalism is meant to preserve the privilege of the greedy; and therefore it actually never works; or rather, it's created to work exactly the way it does. We have "booms" (like the 1890's, the 1920's, the 1950's, the 1980's, the end of the 90's) and we have massive depressions/crashes/"corrections"/ "recessions"--ultimately the exact same thing--right afterwards....and to "restart", we have to set up a big war to dole out spondulux to the already wealthy and powerful. This time around, we're calling it "bailouts" for banks, big auto, big pharma, and now, big banking and big pharma's best friend, the insurance companies. Same old same old: the ups and downs of the market exist to create demand and supply for money, a kind of redistribution of wealth only among the wealthiest. The goal is to put more and more money in the hands of fewer and fewer people.
About the only place where it comes close to "working" differently has been Japan (and even there, the fundamental flaws of capitalism pull it down despite millennia-old cultural practices which are far more collective than individualistic). There, it fails miserably but quite reliably every ten years or so; just like here. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer, but at a far slower rate there than they do here.
And, capitalism was supposed to fund health care in all the countries which have a universal system of care while going about it's business of concentrating wealth in the smallest number of holders--despite the fact that many Americans aren't really well versed in political science or theory enough to know the definition of "socialism". Keeping your populace (which, in capitalism, is really your "workforce") housed, fed, educated, and healthy costs a great deal less to a capitalist than actually having to deal with the extremely high cost of a population lacking in any one or more of these human rights. Sick, dumb, homeless, and starving people aren't going to work well for you if making money off their effort is your goal.
My point is: don't compare "universal" health care of the countries where is it no longer universal, such as Canada, and don't use it as a "model". It is no longer accessible, because it has been dismantled in every way except in name. If you want to construct effective universal health care, you have to build that along a model more like countries where the universal health care quality is far more accessible, well funded, well-maintained, and effective. There are plenty of them out there. Canada's health care system is not one of them.
Nov 4 2009, 11:54 AM
[le sigh] chacha.... i'm crushing out on you all over again...
Nov 4 2009, 12:42 PM
ditto for me
Nov 19 2009, 09:45 AM
"it's created to work exactly the way it does"
Nope, gotta disagree completely with that one. Being a student of history, our founding fathers intent mirrors almost nothing of the current capitalist society in america (I won't bore you with a multitude of quotes); but then again, not many current & past political systems do after a while. I mentioned nothing about Canada because I know very little about the Canadian healthcare system, except confliction reports from a multitude of sources. I do know a bit about the Italian system, which is why I cited their system.
Bottom line is, no system is without corruption or change towards chaos (which is, after all, the natural state of the universe). And I'm tired of busting my ass to survive & watching it go to the fat cats in their ivory towers. But I'm also tired of watching politicians take my money & sweat equity & "redistributing" it for the "betterment of society". Fact is, the rich & greedy are going to stay greedy, and the lazy & poor are going to stay lazy & poor. And I'm stuck in the middle funding both their lifestyles.
Dec 1 2009, 12:52 PM
baltimore mayor found guilt of embezzlement. yesssssss.
Dec 7 2009, 09:49 AM
QUOTE(bob4both @ Nov 19 2009, 11:45 AM)
. But I'm also tired of watching politicians take my money & sweat equity & "redistributing" it for the "betterment of society". Fact is, the rich & greedy are going to stay greedy, and the lazy & poor are going to stay lazy & poor. And I'm stuck in the middle funding both their lifestyles.
First of all, the amount of money that goes into social services for the poor is practically zippo compared to corporate welfare and the amount of our tax dollars that go to benefiting the super wealthy. What little bit IS for the poor is there for YOU and ME in case something happens to us. No woman is invincible. I wish more of my tax dollars went to the poor because I am sick of the crime and ignorance that is the product of neglect and poverty. The old saying about if you think education is expensive, try ignorance is the truest thing in the world.
I also would never call poor people "lazy". Many work impossibly stressful, difficult jobs that they work 40 plus hours per week at and they are still waaay below poverty line. That should NOT happen in this country. There is no reason that anyone should work a full time job and be making only 25% of the federal poverty line, but that IS how things are. Some poor folk are lazy, true. Just like any other group of people. But our system thrives on keeping people in poverty so we have lots of workers available and desperate to work for slave wages to feed their families. I don't see any of this "redistributing" that you mention EXCEPT for wall street and huge cops like GM. It certainly does not go to the neighborhoods that need it.
Dec 8 2009, 11:53 AM
Why would anyone who is being taken care of want to change their situation. No, not all the poor are lazy and many want to work. The opportunities are there for all. But I can point out the lazy through the successive generations of welfare recipients that know no other life. If we cared about these people, we would "teach them to fish" rather than giving them a fish. Our tax dollars aren't doing it.
And referencing the "Life after Capitalism" thread; it's the small buisnesses that are making the most inroads to get this done, not the govt. After all, it's the small business owners that live in & hire from these very communities.
Dec 8 2009, 12:08 PM
lol bob, did you even read koffeewitch's response?
you've got to read Nickeled and Dimed by Barbara Ehrenreich. It's about how your everyday poor people are NOT being taken care of. It's about the majority of poor people in the States not the minority that you're holding up who may or may not exist.
Dec 8 2009, 12:15 PM
Socialism also encourages small business. Because of the USSR, people believe that it has something to do with totalitarianism. You can (and should) have a socialist democracy. In a purely capitalist system there are no small businesses, there is only a monopoly and eventually enormous corporations that have complete control of the government at the expense of everyone else.
And people are not "taken care of" in this country, you can't get welfare money if you don't work or go to school (and of course) if you DO work even a minimum wage job you are considered to make too much money. But anyway, by resources, I am not just talking about giving money to people. Poor families need schools, mentors, decent libraries, community vegetable gardens and community centers (hence your "teaching people to fish" idea). But when small business can't pay their employees a livable wage and those employees go to the government for food stamps and health insurance, it is also benefiting the small business. It allows the business to have and keep it's employees. No one ever demands that small businesses pay for health insurance and living wages for their employees...so the govt. picks up the slack in the interest of keeping more small business alive. And again, the jobs that poor people work in, like the food service and hospitality industry and the health care industry, etc. are HARD work. These are not lazy people. Most would love to find a better paying job rather than be poor and collecting the whopping $159 check that government sends to help with their living expenses per month.
Jan 30 2010, 11:12 AM
Did anyone watch the 20/20 episode with Former John Edwards Aide, Andrew Young? It is just amazing how everyone involved in this situation was stuck on stupid. I'm still scratching my head about why the Youngs are crying foul and victim with how they were treated by Edwards. Um, you expected a man who was cheating on his wife, lying to his family and the public...to be honest with YOU?
Jan 30 2010, 11:37 AM
I was just reading about this about a half an hour ago. It's like, you had a HUGE hand in all this (largely poorly executed) subterfuge, you KNOW what the man is capable of & you're surprised?! OMFG! REALLY?