quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

I believe that the USSR was the inevitable attempt at those societal shifts you discuss.

You are wrong again. the USSR was a terror-based totalitarian state imposed by Lenin in order to secure power for himself and his small group of followers, and it required the destruction of the nascent communist structure that was emerging with the local soviets. lenin wanted complete control, and the only method he accepted for gaining control was through terror. he was, in short an old school tsarist autocrat, the only difference was he wanted to be the autocrat.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini

One of the main problems with our current system in the states, is the fact there is almost no "safety" net for many people.

For those seriously struggling but still in the middle or lower middle class, assistance for adults that don't have dependents {one of my main pet peeves}, those that work and can't afford to put a roof over their heads, SAFE basic shelter for those that are homeless, affordable housing, and more programs, housing and assistance for lower income seniors, etc.

setting aside for a moment marini the debate as to who is most responsible for a "safety net"---oneself, friends, family and local communities, or the state & federal governments, im really hard pressed to believe you think we're greatly lacking in that area.

We are ALL entitled to our points of view.
I have paid taxes all of my life, and I have an issue with the government only helping some, when all of us might need assistance in our lives.
If I follow your reasoning, there should be NO assistance to anyone.

The United States helps people all over the world, including sending money to rich nations, and I have to see veterans begging on the streets, people working full time and can't afford anywhere to live, people working hard every day and running out of food.
I could go on and on.

Whatever bounty, whatever

quote:

in 2015 the federal and state governments spent ~800 billion dollars on such programs.

despite that however, and more and more money put towards these things, the % of the "poor" remains constant.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

http://federalsafetynet.com/safety-net-programs.html

in 2015 the federal and state governments spent ~800 billion dollars on such programs.

despite that however, and more and more money put towards these things, the % of the "poor" remains constant.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

I believe that the USSR was the inevitable attempt at those societal shifts you discuss.

You are wrong again. the USSR was a terror-based totalitarian state imposed by Lenin in order to secure power for himself and his small group of followers, and it required the destruction of the nascent communist structure that was emerging with the local soviets. lenin wanted complete control, and the only method he accepted for gaining control was through terror. he was, in short an old school tsarist autocrat, the only difference was he wanted to be the autocrat.

The irony of it all is that Lenin's financiers in NY told him to change the name from Bolshevik revolution to the communist revolution.

When he asked why, he was told that the west won't fear a 'Bolshevik' revolution but could be made to fear a 'communist' revolution. So the plan was for the Soviets to be the bogeyman, starting about the time of WWI.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

http://federalsafetynet.com/safety-net-programs.html

in 2015 the federal and state governments spent ~800 billion dollars on such programs.

despite that however, and more and more money put towards these things, the % of the "poor" remains constant.

What if they just gave that out as cash to those a certain percentage below the poverty line

You know, those folks who can only afford last years' smart phone, two big screen tvs and three cars, and air conditioned houses with only a few spare rooms

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini

One of the main problems with our current system in the states, is the fact there is almost no "safety" net for many people.

For those seriously struggling but still in the middle or lower middle class, assistance for adults that don't have dependents {one of my main pet peeves}, those that work and can't afford to put a roof over their heads, SAFE basic shelter for those that are homeless, affordable housing, and more programs, housing and assistance for lower income seniors, etc.

setting aside for a moment marini the debate as to who is most responsible for a "safety net"---oneself, friends, family and local communities, or the state & federal governments, im really hard pressed to believe you think we're greatly lacking in that area.

We are ALL entitled to our points of view.
I have paid taxes all of my life, and I have an issue with the government only helping some, when all of us might need assistance in our lives.
If I follow your reasoning, there should be NO assistance to anyone.

The United States helps people all over the world, including sending money to rich nations, and I have to see veterans begging on the streets, people working full time and can't afford anywhere to live, people working hard every day and running out of food.
I could go on and on.

Whatever bounty, whatever

perhaps my wording could have been better. when I say "im hard pressed to believe you think," what im really saying is, "its hard to truly believe that, could you elaborate."

either way, im not sure how that ends up with "whatever bounty, whatever" which reads dismissively.

there will always be poor---and its not because there isn't a "safety net" or other options for them. its because there will always be poor.

also, I would contend the examples you mention are rare ones and not truly indicative of a lack of a "safety net."

homeless shelters abound, as do food pantries, food stamps, housing for homeless programs, job training programs, free education, etc.


http://federalsafetynet.com/safety-net-programs.html

in 2015 the federal and state governments spent ~800 billion dollars on such programs.

despite that however, and more and more money put towards these things, the % of the "poor" remains constant.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

No, I do not think that the tipping point has been reached, far too many still cling to the idea that they too might be able to somehow worm their way into the exploitative class, however, it is approaching with increasing rapidity. The wealth inequality crisis will be the trigger, it is the inevitable downfall of every exploitative system.
and as for why the system matters, well not all systems are equally amenable to an exploitative class. Capitalism requires it, it is based on the existence of an exploiting minority and an exploited majority. Socialism makes it more difficult for a single interrelated exploitative class to arise, rather it is prone to the danger of multiple exploitative groups, but they will share less of a class consciousness. Communism, makes it even more difficult, and the exploitative elements to which it is prone would be very diverse, and thus less inimical to the health of the whole body politic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
in 2015 the federal and state governments spent ~800 billion dollars on such programs.

despite that however, and more and more money put towards these things, the % of the "poor" remains constant.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

http://federalsafetynet.com/safety-net-programs.html

in 2015 the federal and state governments spent ~800 billion dollars on such programs.

despite that however, and more and more money put towards these things, the % of the "poor" remains constant.

What if they just gave that out as cash to those a certain percentage below the poverty line

You know, those folks who can only afford last years' smart phone, two big screen tvs and three cars, and air conditioned houses with only a few spare rooms

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

that's not really true danemora.

many of the "poor" in America do indeed have the things he's mentioned, are better off than much of the rest of the world and are better off than the "middle class" from a couple of generations ago.

yes "desperate" poverty exists in America, but its rare compared to the amount of people whom the government deemed as "poor" simply based on household income.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

that's not really true danemora.

many of the "poor" in America do indeed have the things he's mentioned, are better off than much of the rest of the world and are better off than the "middle class" from a couple of generations ago.

yes "desperate" poverty exists in America, but its rare compared to the amount of people whom the government deemed as "poor" simply based on household income.

People below the "poverty line" in the USA very often have all of that, and more.

Funny how in her ignorance she thinks its others who are ignorant, and how that's usually the case with idiots

(Okay, maybe just one car):

The typical poor household, as defined by the government, has a car and air conditioning, two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR. By its own report, the typical poor family was not hungry, was able to obtain medical care when needed.The typical average poor American has more living space in his home than the average (non-poor) European has.

But in my defense I was clearly being sarcastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka
I mean... why bother using your brain?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Danemora

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

that's not really true danemora.

many of the "poor" in America do indeed have the things he's mentioned, are better off than much of the rest of the world and are better off than the "middle class" from a couple of generations ago.

yes "desperate" poverty exists in America, but its rare compared to the amount of people whom the government deemed as "poor" simply based on household income.

People below the "poverty line" in the USA very often have all of that, and more.

Funny how in her ignorance she thinks its others who are ignorant, and how that's usually the case with idiots

(Okay, maybe just one car):

The typical poor household, as defined by the government, has a car and air conditioning, two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR. By its own report, the typical poor family was not hungry, was able to obtain medical care when needed.The typical average poor American has more living space in his home than the average (non-poor) European has.

But in my defense I was clearly being sarcastic

Bounty, I dont deny that *SOME* might do that...but in general, not every poor person deserves the brush coating Bosco paints them with.

Speaking of Bosco, I wouldnt expect you to hold a big boy conversation that uses big words you dont understand. Its okay, no one expects much. You are utterly underwhelming, sweets. Like a fart in a windstorm