@James ... "so were concentration camps in Nazi Germany."
Excuse me? What? Did you somehow find Nazi Germany relevant to me saying that social programs are the responsibility of a centralized government?
"oh yes, because capitalism MUST have losers, and those losers MUST be coddled."
Coddling is not the same as providing clean drinking water, making sure everyone eats meals and has a roof over their heads, and providing financial assistance to those who need it in order to live a sustainable and healthy life. Coddling *is*, on the other hand, rich parents passing down millions of dollars to their shit-for-brains kids that drove a brand new Cadillac SUV when they were 16 years old as their first car and have never lived in a home smaller than 5,000 square feet.
"what you MEAN is RELATIVE losers."
Of course that's what I mean. Thank you for speaking to the fact that we live in a world where things are not all equal and relativity is important.
"the poor, the homeless... they're never even given the option of self sustainment"
Sure they are. They could walk a thousand miles to the middle of the woods, pitch a tent, build a fire, craft a bow and arrows and take down a buck and have venison jerky on a line for weeks. Teach a man to fish, amirite?
Oh, you mean within civilization? You're right, often they don't. That's because they're busy surviving. When you have to focus on surviving, or when broken glasses or a cracked phone screen could very easily cost more than you make in two weeks time, you don't have these opportunities. Getting rid of assistance programs won't make poor people more proactive; all that will do is exacerbate the problems they already have.
"as someone who has worked at inner city day shelters, many of these people are mental perturbed, elderly, or have several kids. it's not capitalism and freedom that's keeping them down."
What the fuck are you trying to say here? It's absolutely capitalism that keeps them down. People with a mental illness or other disorder can't work, therefore capitalism devalues them as human beings and declares them useless; ergo, they don't get paid and must live on assistance programs. Elderly people may not be able to work, therefore capitalism devalues them as human beings and declares them useless. People with several kids can still work, but instead of earning enough to be self-sustaining and possibly move up in the world, they have to take care of their kids. They may not have the opportunity to go to school or get that dream job they have always wanted because they are busy making sure their kids don't starve. As a result, capitalism devalues them, not because they aren't worthy or because they don't have the merit to do better or find a higher paying job but because the situation that they are in, whether their fault or not, prevents them from getting out. If these selfless parents with kids they can't afford are content to simply not starve but also not move up in the world, that is their issue, one you seem to have latched onto tightly, but that doesn't mean that we should abolish the programs that allow them and their kids to survive.
"Capitalism is freedom. eliminating freedom means FORCING dependency programs."
Capitalism is freedom for those with money. For the rest, it is enslavement. If you don't buy into exactly what capitalism wants, you will never make it out.
Social programs, or "dependency" programs, as you keep degradingly calling them, are not capitalistic in any sense of the word. This is a very obvious distinction and the fact that these programs have to exist in order for the losers under capitalism to survive is the crux of the argument against capitalism in the first place.
"allowing people to live without others propping them up? gasp. no!"
Sure, for some people it might be "allowing" them to live. For others, it might be a death sentence.
"social security. that's one. eliminate price ceilings on agriculture which will naturally eliminate food stamps. eliminate welfare limits that don't allow for people to buy cars or full time housing and maintain full benefits."
I agree with you on Social Security. Considering the major flaw in its design is that a bunch of rich fucks down the road can leech off of it freely and leave none in the coffers for the generation you and I belong to, it seems like it has been a long-term failure despite its short-term effectiveness.
I don't have any issue with eliminating price ceilings on agriculture; farmers are grossly underpaid, overworked, and disrespected in this country, all things considered.
Eliminating food stamps would be a useful idea, but food stamps take up such a tiny, tiny sliver of the money problems that our government has and do not promote dependency. They do quite the opposite in my experience. If you have ever had a meal on food stamps and you weren't embarrassed as hell, color me impressed. Nobody should enjoy using food stamps or become accustomed to it, though I don't doubt that some do.
Welfare limits are dumb.
You might notice that we radically disagree in principle (translated: you're radically wrong in principle) but that we agree that certain programs are worth eliminating. If you want to talk further about specific programs, let's do so, but casting a broad swath programs that do so many useful things to help people who need help get help under an umbrella of dependency is just so, so out of touch, James. If you want a useful conversation, define what you mean, explain which programs fall under that category, and go from there.
How can I get some of that Putin money like Manafort?
)
)
)
)