Cut spending??!! <GASP!> but....but....what would all the people do without their handouts? They might have to cut back on cable TV, cell phone data plans, alcohol, etc etc etc and start being responsible for themselves!!!

This can not be...

Let's not bullshit ourselves, krellin. The era of limited government died when Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected.

Oh I understand. Hell, just look around the forums; a bunch of people that generally speaking are probably above average intelligence...yet it seems at least 50% + think that confiscating wealth is a great ideas.

Funny...wealth derives from labor...and once upon a time confiscating one's labor was called *slavery*...

lol look at this shitshow

*shits live on stage*

thats my contribution

Its typical hollywood liberals, they demand higher taxes and complain when they have to pay them.

I'm not here to argue, but it's funny how krellin mentions slavery when there is the notion of 'wage slavery' which many leftists might argue exists, something which some leftists might argue a limited redistribution of wealth solves. Fear not, I am not one of those leftists, for wage slavery will always exist in a capitalist society! I just thought it ironic.

I'm going to drop this here. Anyone who wants to argue that the poor in america are actually poor should have stats thrown in their face:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkebmhTQN-4

not even going to watch, haven't you heard of relative poverty or seen the homeless or seen some ridiculously poor people? this is what i hate, most people in the spheres i operate are at the very least a bit under average wealth, at the most a lot lot above average, and they have never truly seen how life is for the people on the very very bottom. if you have a link to something i can read i will probably read it.

read "growing up empty"

"not even going to watch"
Typical lefties refusing to take in new information simply because that new information proves how idiotic their ideology is.

If you would rather read then watch, the youtue video was summarizing this study from the heritage foundation.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-poverty

I prefer videos to actually reading, but thats probably due to my dyslexia.

"not even going to watch, haven't you heard of relative poverty or seen the homeless or seen some ridiculously poor people?"

I have seen the homeless, and for most of the last 4 years, I've earned little enough to qualify myself as "in poverty". Most homeless from my experience are homeless by choice - ironically, because they are too proud to take government handouts (or suffer from mental illness(es)). There is no scarcity of government handouts for the poor, and no sane person in America is starving to death - in fact, "obesity" (not hunger) is considered the great heath/nutrition risk of being poor. Here in California, you can live better off the various welfare programs than you can actually working if you have no or minimal skills. I have seen what life is like for the poor in America, and it is several dozen times better than it is for poor people in poor countries - which you would know if you bothered to watch Fasces' link.

i said i would read fasces so don't be a dick, i just have real problems watching videos now and find it much easier to read, but i wont bore you with my medical problems. people don't starve to death, but there are some people that are ridiculously poor living tough lives and i can't believe you guys can't accept that

' Poverty: A Range of Living Conditions

However, there is a range of living conditions within the poverty population. The average poor family does not represent every poor family. Although most poor families are well housed, a small minority are homeless.

Fortunately, the number of homeless Americans has not increased during the current recession.[6] Although most poor families are well fed and have a fairly stable food supply, a sizeable minority experiences temporary restraints in food supply at various times during the year. The number of families experiencing such temporary food shortages has increased somewhat during the current economic downturn.

Of course, to the families experiencing these problems, their comparative infrequency is irrelevant. To a family that has lost its home and is living in a homeless shelter, the fact that only 0.5 percent of families shared this experience in 2009 is no comfort. The distress and fear for the future that the family experiences are real and devastating.'

@Socrates : Please define for me "a tough life"? Is there a government standard for this? Am I supposed to shed a tear if someone has more or less than me?

Maybe if that suck-wad Thucy was always sucking on the government tit things wouldn't be so bad.

I think tough life has a huge range, but I think it should be admitted that some people do really have a low standard of life - whether you should shed a tear for this or the government should give them anything is a different question, one which I actually think you could argue about.

The government can not "give" without first *taking*. Again...if you take from me, you are enslaving my labor. Whether you

think that's ironic for me to for me to say or not is not relevent. So how much "tough life" is so much that my freedom of labor is to be imposed upon? Because most people *do* have a house over their head and enough food to survive. So what...if they don't have a cell phone with a data plan they need my money so their life isn't so tough?

In other words -- give me SPECIFICS...not just your nonsensical liberal generalities.

It's not really enslaving your labor though, you are more enslaved by the fact that you must work for your employer (maybe not you, I don't know your employment status but generally). The main reason for benefits isn't that people need food and a house over their head - we are thankfully covered in that respect mostly, although if we acknowledged that a few people might need help for that that would be nice. The real point is to redistribute the wealth so that we have true equality of opportunity. And don't be so silly as to call me a liberal, I'm not a liberal at all, even in the oft misused way that goes around in the US

Socrates - I *choose* to work for my employer. If I am am making a choice, it is not slavery. If the fruits of my labor are involuntarily taken away from me *to be given to another for his/her benefit*...then this is slavery.

I don't even mind payign taxes for legitimate government purposes - government is an unfortunate necessity of civilization. Unfortunately, the government has expanded beyond its founding mandate, and has become the parent of far too many citizens, providing the food and shelter to them that I choose to provide for myself -- and often times providing them enough of my wealth that they are living beyond the "necessities" and have entered the comfort zone. THAT I resent. I don't mind helping someone in need with their necessities. I thouroughly resent providng aid and comfort beyond basic needs.

I will call you liberal in this argument, by the way, if you advocate providing comfortable living to those that won't work.

Most people don't truly *choose* to work! And it's not slavery krellin, it's far more akin to theft!

Society has a duty to redress the balances of society, and the founding mandate of a good state is not the nightwatchman ideal of Locke.

Great, but with me you are really conflating a socialist with a liberal, two terms which I hope you agree are not synonymous.

In my house, I provide my kids with the basic necessities I feel they need to live their life and learn how to interact socially, etc. But, if they want comfort items - an iPod or music downloads or whatever, they are expected to contribute to the household chores, etc. the more they want, the more they are expected tobe an active participant in the household. When I ran a small business, they helped me with inventory management and runnign teh business, and they were paid. If they didn't help - they werent paid. In other words - I live my belief..and you know what? My children have a work ethic!

Socrates - actually, yes, throughout human history, humans have choosen to perform labor to EAT and SURVIVE.

I would suggest it's only recently that demented individual have come up with the brilliant idea that it is fair to not work but expect others to feed you

Liberal vs Socialist - flips sides of the same coin.

re: "addressing the balances of society" I can address them for you: If you want more, educate yourself and/or WORK HARDER. If you want more than the necessities, WORK FOR THEM BY CHOICE.

Good for your kids. And working to eat and survive is not true choice, you might as well say the chattel slaves chose to work to eat and survive too.

And whoever would think it is fair for someone to get everything without working is truly demented, but alas it is not acceptable to reappropriate all the wealth of families that pass down their huge fortunes for generations.

And don't be an idiot krellin, social mobility in the US and UK is very low, most people are in a similar wage percentile as their parents. And many people work ridiculously hard in menial shitty jobs for fuck all whilst others earn a lot more doing less.

Liberals and socialists are very different, it's only in America that someone can coherently be a communist liberal muslim president (who may also be a fascist)

@krellin -- "If you want more than the necessities, WORK FOR THEM BY CHOICE."

Define "necessities".

read "Growing Up Empty"

@ SD

"And don't be an idiot krellin, social mobility in the US and UK is very low, most people are in a similar wage percentile as their parents. And many people work ridiculously hard in menial shitty jobs for fuck all whilst others earn a lot more doing less."

What do you propose to improve social mobility?

My solution, without going off into an extreme socialist utopia, would have to be a mixture of increased education provisions - in terms of investment into poorer communities and increased incentives to go onto further education, business start up opportunities for lower income families, extensive job training provisions, and then also a higher benefit provision for people taking advantage of these programmes so that there isn't really a problematic dichotomy of wanting to take these programmes but not being in the position to take the risk/time off etc.

Read "growing up empty"

These discussions are quite ridiculous. Is anyone at all willing to break out of the "right-left" dichotomy? We need a new paradigm here people.

Mainly that post was geared towards krellin, gunfighter, and whoever else is so quick to deem anyone they disagree with a "lefty."

@ Bohonk

Woah woah woah don't include me in the close-minded category. As my last post to SD shows, I'm all for reasoned debate.

@ SD

I would agree with the concept that poor education is the root of many of our societal problems. I happen to believe that the answer lies with a decentralization and voucher-ized privatization of the public education system.

As a temporary, stop-gap solution, I would favor some sort of federal temporary jobs program to repair and modernize our national infrastructure, particularly our railroads, highways, and power grid in the interest of national security.

I would pay for it by eliminating more wasteful spending, starting with foreign aid, welfare, education, and health care. I would halt several money-black-hole military R and D projects and redirect spending to modernize current platforms (especially the Navy and Air Force) to cut defense spending without cutting capability or personnel benefits. I would pull the military out of Europe and out of the Middle East (except for Afghanistan) and refocus on defending the homeland (including redeploying to adequately secure the Pacific)

I would favor an America-first economic policy that would jack up tariffs on anyone with whom we currently have a trade deficit. The free market is great unless people cheat (like China)

I would legalize marijuana at the federal level and pardon any healthy, sane inmate incarcerated for non-violent marijuana-related crimes.

Fair points, Gunfighter. I think one ought to be quite concerned about the corporatization of a culture at the expense of democracy and liberty. For as we have seem privatization naturally leads to corporatization. The free market is great, and from the theoretical standpoint it appears sound (of course so does communism from a purely theoretical standpoint). So I do have my qualms about the radical privatization of such institutions such as education. A necessity for the free market to function properly is having an educated, active population. People need to realize that they are voting with their dollars. Unfortunately having a corporate owned school system in a corporate society seems to potentially incite a conflict of interest. Essentially teaching the students, "Vote for me." Private interests tend to be very self-oriented, concerned primarily with the bottom line. This of course leads them to try to sell products and indoctrinate a culture with their own values, often at the expense of the society at large. Advertizement is a form of social education, and look at what ads and commercials try to get people (especially kids) to do. "Eat this junk food and get fat. Buy this soda. Sit on your couch and watch this show. Buy a car way bigger than you need so you look cool. Vote for this guy. Vote for that guy. Buy this new gadget even though it's barely different than the one you have. Etc. Etc." Are these really the same people we want running our schools?

I find it interesting that the immediate things people put up for cutting are welfare, education, health, the things that actually make a difference to the people the worst off in the country, those that really need a helping hand. Presumably the people that suggest these (and sadly all the people in power) are those who don't need federal handouts, who have health insurance and who can pay for their kids to have a good education. These things should be basic human rights and anyone with a shred of human compassion should surely want their fellow country man to have access to these things.

On the other hand the US spends the highest percentage of it's GDP on military spending of any country except Saudi Arabia (figures for countries spending a minimum of $20 billion per year). It spends over 3 times more than the second highest spender, China, which has 3 times as many people to protect as the US. A logical move would be to slash that budget in half to bring it in line as a proportion of GDP with France, China, Germany and the UK. This is easily enough to effectively defend the USA and would save a lot of money without harming those unfortunate enough to be struggling to get by.

In fact, despite having under 5% of the world's population the US is responsible for 44.5% of the total military spending in the world. Now that looks a bit ridiculous to me.

@ Bohonk

Calling the current education system "education" is a generous use of the word. "Indoctrination" would be more appropriate. My chief argument for privatization is that it can't possibly be worse than even a well-funded public system. Also, the competitive aspect of a private system would in effect punish schools who took corporate-sponsored social learning (advertising) too far. As we've seen in the last 40 years, increases in education spending are not correlated with increased student performance. Clearly, more money is not the answer.

@ DW

The military employs a lot of people (unlike welfare and education). The military is the only part of the government that functions effectively. Military cuts do a lot worse than merely shrinking the size of our military. Not to mention a significant reduction in capability, kids don't go to college, kids don't have an "out" from a bad home situation, and while we may be able to defend our homeland we live in a world where anyone can hit anyone else from across the globe. A global military (even with a low profile, as I recommend) is required for the safety of the homeland.

@gunfighter, look at us coming from a somewhat similar viewpoint and having a civil grown up conversation, rather nice. I definitely agree with the federal jobs, and the legalization of marijuana. I disagree with some of what you call a 'waste' of money, or the privitazation of healthcare, but I feel we are at least on the same page with a similar ultimate end goal, even if we seem to be worlds apart.