The myth of Entitlements and Freeloaders

[FayeforCure]

Isn't that what we do on this site in regards to other cities?  I mean don't we bitch and moan about how great other cities are doing it?  How we should be doing this here or that here?

Sure.  Some more, some less.  Almost every post that I read anti-jacksonville, thought, is not about how much a shithole our city is but what other things we should be doing here to up our QOL.  A majority of the 'discussion' here isn't strictly about j'ville v/s [insert city], but about how a decent mass transit system like the one in San Diego would help us out.  How a medical university downtown like the one in Indy would be great.  How if we developed our riverwalk like the one in Houston, wouldn't that be awesome.  It's mostly about incorporating other ideas here, for us.

Not this:

Take a look at the first line of her post:

There is nothing to be had in the US.

And my general sentiment is, if that's the way you feel, then why are you here?  Seems a pretty relevant question.

Well, I'm pretty sure the "nothing to be had in the U.S." was a direct reference to the idea that entitlements lead to freeloaders.  Not a general "nothing in the US...ever, for anything".
I think Faye takes the same approach with this as we do with comparing other cities.  Albeit, it comes across sometimes a little frantic, but so can a lot of other posters about trains, or waterways, or the homeless.  I believe her main idea is, this works there why not try it here.  You may disagree about what "this/that is" and whether it would work here, but it's not the same as saying "well just go there".

Yeah exactly........there is very little for freeloaders to even latch onto, because even those with legitimate needs are very under-served in the US!!

Do the people on this board that gripe about freeloaders think it is alright to cut services for the needy beyond the deplorable state they are in already in the US, because of the the myth of the socalled "freeloaders"?

Do they realize they've been had with those buzz words of welfare queens and freeloaders when the reality is that there is very little to be had for those with legitimate needs in the US?

We will all eventually become disabled, old or sick!!!

But the US will leave you in the dust when that happens.

We are all disposable people in the US.

[FayeforCure]

  Could we improve a few things?  Yep.  But copying the failing European socialist democracy system ain't one of them.

'Failing socialist democracy' I find it's the socialism and government that works fine. It's the finance/corporate structure (and deregulation) that destroys a working system.

Really?  So the riots and protests against various European governments for cutting government "redistribution of wealth" is because of the finance/corporate structure?

When you work for your property and your benefits, you not only appreciate what is required for them, but you build self worth in at least partially providing for yourself.

Now, before you start, I realize that there will be (few and far between) cases where some simply must be provided for due to various disabilities.  But entitlements and freeloaders are not a myth.  I see them every day.  And yes, some are corporate and some are governmental.

The red bolded is the other myth put out by people who begrudge the help provided to the needy.

But they actually live in fantasy land.

Don't they know that EVERONE will eventually become disabled, old or sick?

Should we turn our backs on everyone at their time of need ie when they become old, disabled or sick?

Some kind of civilized society we live in!!!

A society where people in need are reduced to beggars for scraps..............not much different from a third world country.

It can be done........that is to have a truly civilized society........in a prosperous country. All western European nations are considered prosperous countries and they do far better for their citizens.

[FayeforCure]

I stand by my statement that everyone should have a stake in society.  The goal should always be to earn what you recieve.  While I accept a certain level of "safety net", I will not accept the government taking the majority of what I earn to provide a "nanny state". 

I agree that wages are much too low in this country.  We could debate why that is for pages in another thread.  I'm also sure that we would disagree on how to ensure wages increased.

Wow another buzz word: "nanny state"

Actually we have a "nanny state" for Wal-mart and all other companies that don't pay their workers living wages, because we the tax-payer need to provide foodstamps for Wal-mart's workers!!

How is that for a nanny state for corporations?



A country keeping minimum wage deliberately below a living wage creates a nanny state for corporations.

This is sooooooo easy to solve. To start NEVER revisit the minimum wage issue (another bait issue for Republicans). Set it at a living wage standard to eliminate the nanny state for corporations (that currently use the handouts of foodstamps for their workers), and then index it for inflation.

THAT is where it is set in Western Europe and they have maintained their competitiveness over the years on par with the US. Why can't we be just as civilized.

For those who have raised the irrelevant issue of my supposed dual citizenship: I have been trying to get my dual citizenship, but the Dutch won't take be back because I wasn't married to an American when I "gave up" my dutch citizenship ( so much for discriminating against unmarried women).

But my children do have dual citizenship because I was still Dutch when they were born in the US.

[finehoe]

European governments are in trouble because they are in deep, deep debt.  They have borrowed too much money to pay excessive social programs. 

"The assertion that Europe’s crisis proves that the welfare state doesn’t work comes from many Republicans. For example, Mitt Romney has accused President Obama of taking his inspiration from European “socialist democrats” and asserted that “Europe isn’t working in Europe.” The idea, presumably, is that the crisis countries are in trouble because they’re groaning under the burden of high government spending. But the facts say otherwise.

It’s true that all European countries have more generous social benefits â€" including universal health care â€" and higher government spending than America does. But the nations now in crisis don’t have bigger welfare states than the nations doing well â€" if anything, the correlation runs the other way. Sweden, with its famously high benefits, is a star performer, one of the few countries whose G.D.P. is now higher than it was before the crisis. Meanwhile, before the crisis, “social expenditure” â€" spending on welfare-state programs â€" was lower, as a percentage of national income, in all of the nations now in trouble than in Germany, let alone Sweden.

Oh, and Canada, which has universal health care and much more generous aid to the poor than the United States, has weathered the crisis better than we have.

The euro crisis, then, says nothing about the sustainability of the welfare state."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/11/opinion/legends-of-the-fail.html

[FayeforCure]

European governments are in trouble because they are in deep, deep debt.  They have borrowed too much money to pay excessive social programs. 

"The assertion that Europe’s crisis proves that the welfare state doesn’t work comes from many Republicans. For example, Mitt Romney has accused President Obama of taking his inspiration from European “socialist democrats” and asserted that “Europe isn’t working in Europe.” The idea, presumably, is that the crisis countries are in trouble because they’re groaning under the burden of high government spending. But the facts say otherwise.

It’s true that all European countries have more generous social benefits â€" including universal health care â€" and higher government spending than America does. But the nations now in crisis don’t have bigger welfare states than the nations doing well â€" if anything, the correlation runs the other way. Sweden, with its famously high benefits, is a star performer, one of the few countries whose G.D.P. is now higher than it was before the crisis. Meanwhile, before the crisis, “social expenditure” â€" spending on welfare-state programs â€" was lower, as a percentage of national income, in all of the nations now in trouble than in Germany, let alone Sweden.

Oh, and Canada, which has universal health care and much more generous aid to the poor than the United States, has weathered the crisis better than we have.

The euro crisis, then, says nothing about the sustainability of the welfare state."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/11/opinion/legends-of-the-fail.html

The buzz words, and lies just seem to work better in the "America is better than the rest" fallacy, and with the status quo defenders.

What if the poor performing students in our schools had the attitude of not wanting to improve their lot?

Is that the example we want to set for our young generations?

That we have to fight tooth and nail AGAINST trying to improve things in the US because we are already "better than the rest"

I think it has downed on our youth that they've been lied to.

Shelton Hull said it best at the first Occupy Jacksonville event:

http://www.youtube.com/v/SFeJe6dXfcI

[NotNow]

   Again, our system is designed to allow individual independence and individual freedom.  Citizens should be able to plan and prepare for themselves and design their own retirement.  The only argument that you have is that the people are too stupid to run their own lives and therefore must pay the government to provide a lesser safety net than they could provide for themselves. 

The "civilized" country allows its citizens to think for themselves, and does not require 60-75% taxation to pay for a bunch of government employees to provide substandard services.  All of those government "services" are bought with other peoples money.  In this country it is still fashionable (at least in some circles) to keep at least a majority of your own income. 

I agree that compensation in this country needs to be looked at.  I would not use the power of government to mandate any wage limits of course, as that is dictatorship.  The salary issues in this country are due largely to government regulations and mismanagement in a number of areas already.   Our Federal government overstepped its authority years ago, and we should rein it in, not continue to turn our backs on our Constitution and allow the socialist takeover that some here seem to want.

[FayeforCure]

   Again, our system is designed to allow individual independence and individual freedom. 

Yeah you're perfectly free to exploit the 99%

My definition of freedom includes opportunity for upward mobility secure in the knowledge that injury and disease will not bankrupt you.

There are no bankruptcies in Europe due to illness or injury.

Here people are disposible.........if society has no use for you, it's ok for you to perish!

How morally bankrupt is that!!

[FayeforCure]

The salary issues in this country are due largely to government regulations and mismanagement in a number of areas already.  Our Federal government overstepped its authority years ago, and we should rein it in, not continue to turn our backs on our Constitution and allow the socialist takeover that some here seem to want.

Ah, the non-specifics in sentence one in the quote above.............Please extrapolate what you mean.

On the contrary, our government abdicated it's proper role of oversight and demanding accountability of corporations, at the expense of the people.

You must understand that the complexity of regulations were deliberately put in place to make them completely ineffective, so as to make the appearance that government is useless or only a burden.

HAMP is a symbolic gesture to the people that is completely useless as it is based on voluntary compliance by corporations to help homeowners get modifications when faced with foreclosure.

Remember that we need to have government of the people, by the people and for the people?

By not setting clear and unambiguous rules the people have no protections from exploitation and abuse by the powerful mega corporations.

The fact that we allow minimum wage to decrease (after inflation) from its already abysmal level is ludicrous.

Do we actually encourage the exploitation and abuse of people that cannot afford to buy a lobbyist?

[NotNow]

No Faye, we made the lobbyist so powerful by allowing the Federal government to centralize so much power thousands of miles away from us.  What made this country the dream of world immigration was decentralized power as envisioned by the founders of our country. 

I can't make it any more specific for you because you apparently have either not read or you do not understand that our Federal government is limited in its powers.  I don't blame you because we have so many people who seem to want to invest unlimited power in that same government in direct contradiction of ALL of our founding documents.  But there will always be people like me, demanding that we remain a free and unfettered people, not just enjoying our liberties but bearing the burden of responsibility for our own lives. 

Your right, it's not like Europe.

[FayeforCure]

No Faye, we made the lobbyist so powerful by allowing the Federal government to centralize so much power thousands of miles away from us.  What made this country the dream of world immigration was decentralized power as envisioned by the founders of our country. 

I don't blame you because we have so many people who seem to want to invest unlimited power in that same government in direct contradiction of ALL of our founding documents. 

Your right, it's not like Europe.

Oh, you mean to say the Tallahassee lobbyists aren't every bit as powerful?

But only for those that can afford to buy a lobbyist.

Your disabled adult child will not be able to buy a lobbyist, neither can a cancer-stricken middle class person who cannot afford to pay for COBRA.

If we all could "bear the burden of responsibility for our own lives" throughout our lifespan, none of us would need any type of insurance.  A federal insurance program based on ability to pay as in social security (except for the rich who pay a lower percentage of their income into social security), is to protect our elderly.

Why weren't you there to protest raiding the social security fund when they used it for everything else including wars?

Why didn't you support the Gore proposed lock box for the social security fund.

Do you want our elderly to perish........just die because they are no longer able to "bear the burden of responsibility for their own lives"

Please answer those questions, because so far you have avoided answering these questions.

An effective federal government can protect the citizens of crazy states that elect folks like Rick Scott, who shamefully tried to take away what little disabled people get in terms of (3hours of) respite care for the families that care for these disabled people.

To me local control is often much more corrupting than a federal government taking on its proper responsibility of protecting its people from dangers outside our country as well as dangers within our country.

A more equitable protection for all Americans. Security at home!!

"Necessitous men are not FREE men"

FDR's Economic Bill of Rights

http://www.youtube.com/v/czvHtOh_Xew?

True civilization. Lets join other advanced nations and provide our people the securities they need to be truly FREE.

Freedom without security is not freedom at all.

[NotNow]

Faye,

I know you are passionate about your issues, and I don't mind discussing facts here with you.  Your "where were you" accusatory questions are out of line.  As is the "you want the elderly to perish" trash talk.   I don't think you want to do that with me.  So, I will consider those statements a moment of getting carried away from you.  I hope that you understand and agree.

As for the rest of your statement, it was answered much better by a great man of our past:

"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin

[FayeforCure]

Faye,

I know you are passionate about your issues, and I don't mind discussing facts here with you.  Your "where were you" accusatory questions are out of line.  As is the "you want the elderly to perish" trash talk.   I don't think you want to do that with me.  So, I will consider those statements a moment of getting carried away from you.  I hope that you understand and agree.

As for the rest of your statement, it was answered much better by a great man of our past:

"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin

Of course you don't want to answer those questions just like you don't disclose your age, or if you are male or female. That's all too close for comfort.

We are talking about domestic safety............economic security.............the hallmark of a civilized society.

Civilization and security is not a temporary thing, it is what we have when we are truly free from the threat of economic destruction due to illness, age or disability.

[avonjax]

   Again, our system is designed to allow individual independence and individual freedom.  Citizens should be able to plan and prepare for themselves and design their own retirement.  The only argument that you have is that the people are too stupid to run their own lives and therefore must pay the government to provide a lesser safety net than they could provide for themselves. 

The "civilized" country allows its citizens to think for themselves, and does not require 60-75% taxation to pay for a bunch of government employees to provide substandard services.  All of those government "services" are bought with other peoples money.  In this country it is still fashionable (at least in some circles) to keep at least a majority of your own income. 

I agree that compensation in this country needs to be looked at.  I would not use the power of government to mandate any wage limits of course, as that is dictatorship.  The salary issues in this country are due largely to government regulations and mismanagement in a number of areas already.   Our Federal government overstepped its authority years ago, and we should rein it in, not continue to turn our backs on our Constitution and allow the socialist takeover that some here seem to want.

For millions and millions of people the idea of saving and working for your retirement just doesn't exist anymore.
Call me when you are forced out of your job, sit on the curb unemployed for several years and get turned down for every job you apply/interview for. Cut back to the barest of essentials, deplete all your assets, be forced to sell your home and earn either no wages/ or poverty wages.
Oh and be middle aged. That helps a lot.
Then listen to people carry on about entitlement programs like "Medicare" and "SS" which you have paid into for 40 plus years. Oh and don't forget about all those people who leech off the system.
When this happens to you, let me know if some of the safety net programs are Socialist.
(Especially since you have helped pay for them.)
Making sure people aren't starving and destitute is NOT evil.
Trust me as many wealthy people leech off the system as the poor and disabled and elderly.
It's just a different style of leeching.

[NotNow]

Faye,

I know you are passionate about your issues, and I don't mind discussing facts here with you.  Your "where were you" accusatory questions are out of line.  As is the "you want the elderly to perish" trash talk.   I don't think you want to do that with me.  So, I will consider those statements a moment of getting carried away from you.  I hope that you understand and agree.

As for the rest of your statement, it was answered much better by a great man of our past:

"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin

Of course you don't want to answer those questions just like you don't disclose your age, or if you are male or female. That's all too close for comfort.

We are talking about domestic safety............economic security.............the hallmark of a civilized society.

Civilization and security is not a temporary thing, it is what we have when we are truly free from the threat of economic destruction due to illness, age or disability.

(Sigh) I don't see what my age or sex has to do with anything.  I will say that when President Johnson opened the SS funds to be raided, I was alive but too young to know anything about it.  I would bet that is true of most of us.  I think "social security" is not the responsibility of the Federal government but the responsibility of state governments.  As it stands, I believe that SS funds should be separated from the federal budget and that individual "accounts" should be set up.  Deductions for SSI and other programs would then be visible to every FICA taxpayer.  I did not support Mr. Gore for a variety of his policies.  I support an elderly family member (in my own house with my own funds), but I have provided for my and Mrs. NotNow's retirement and elderly care, as well as our final arrangements. I am male.  I have never been arrested.   I am the sole provider for my family and I make a working man's wage.  Without the details I had what many would consider a "hard childhood".  Part of that I suppose was that there was very little money or other basic needs.  Through the grace of a couple of wonderful people (not the government) I graduated from high school.  Through the GI Bill I completed a B.S. degree at a major state university (while working two jobs and raising a baby).  I have been employed (by others, meaning paying FICA and other taxes) every day of my life since I turned fifteen years old and I worked "off the books" well before that.  I hope to retire by sixty five or so.  I started defending this nation at eighteen and I have been sent to a lot of %&$# holes on this planet.  It was in those places that I met some of the finest Americans I'll ever know and I learned not to belittle the political or religious beliefs of others and that people who appear very different from me aren't.  I have served in law enforcement since leaving active duty and once again found that most of  those who choose to put themselves in a position to defend others are some of the finest people on the planet.   I am thankful to GOD for all of his blessings and I consider myself to be a lucky man. 

I hope this answers some of your personal quesions about me. I hope that I have answered your questions.  I am entitled to my opinions and I have done the hard things, the things that others WOULD NOT in developing them. 

While there are some who belittle the occupations that I have been honored to have, this has been MY way and I am proud of it.  I assume that others here are good people who are seeking truth and other opinions.  I appreciate it when others assume the same about me.  When some posters don't, and want to belittle me, any further discussion with that person becomes...difficult.

[NotNow]

Fayes remarks are completely in line, notnow.

Just becuase it makes you uncomfortable to have your own inconsistencies discussed doesnt mean that its out of line.  It just sucks for your point of view.

And its pretty cheeky to print that quote of Franklin's considering that you supported the destruction of Habeus Corpus by Bush, support the Patriot Act, deny that the use of torture by the bush administration was illegal or immoral, and support unwarranted surveillance into the lives of ordinary americans----all in the name of national security.

You are an intellectual fraud, my friend.

I am of the opinion that you are not completely informed on the subjects that you mentioned, and that you lack the training and education to speak intelligently on the matters.  With that said, the terror attacks of 9/11 presented this nation with unique challenges and the steps to counter that threat were necessary and immediate.  As we move forward, we have the luxury of better intelligence and a more robust counter terror infrastructure.   Perhaps this will lead us to more agreement in the future.

It always amuses me when YOU call ME an intellectual fraud!