Handouts of nominal amounts of money will obviously not decrease poverty. Rather, we should be focusing on what isn't in nominal amount: health care, housing, and energy.
You know, being lower income myself, I might go to the doctor one time every few years. This isn't because of a lack of government aid. It is because of the government "aid." When a system is ingrained that discourages frugality, encourages waste, and builds upon a moral hazard riddled with insurance mandates, you can imagine how healthcare costs became unattainable [for many]. But your solution, to a system by and large exacerbated by the government is
more? You seem to be intelligent. Considering the current state our medical system is in, what on earth would convince you that the answer is more [of the same]. This is aside the fact that you can't do that [provide health care] without destroying a currency [which aggravates the cost of healthcare].
Housing I cover a little below. I am curious as to what exactly government housing entails to you? Price controls as well as Section 8? More? With regards to price controls, you might feel a little bit different if it were your property. Why shouldn't someone be able to sell for what they wish? Price controls have ruined apartment buildings. If the cost of living rises, (i.e. they buy another 85 billion dollars in bonds.. which they will) and the amount someone is charging for rent is capped, it creates an issue of what to fix, and how to fix it (turning many apartments [eventually] into slums [when they don't receive enough rent to keep up with rising maintenance costs and other expenses]). It also creates a deal of contempt between two parties who otherwise should be gaining something from each other.
I'm a little surprised you said energy. Solyndra lobbies millions of dollars, gets billions of dollars in contracts to be squandered away. I mean, are you serious? What on earth should the government have to do with energy? Furthermore why am I being taken [i.e. stolen] from to fund things I do not want or agree with? That's the problem with your supposed solutions. They require [immorally] destroying a currency, and/or aggressing against the Person at large.
You know what would be great? Building homes for the homeless on inexpensive land.
Why can't they build their own? There are organizations and even better, individuals who would be willing to help. Two-hundred thirty million acres of squandered land, city codes longer than the Bible, a populace grown towards contempt...
You can't see the forest through the trees.
Some people want to be homeless? Cool, let them be, but those who don't shouldn't have to be.
Many people are houseless. Many people have a house but not a home. Many people are trying to build a home and are impeded by the government at every step. People want to help pay for healthcare and housing for the houseless? Cool, let them; but those who don't shouldn't be forced (ultimately at the barrel of a gun) to.
If you're going to advocate a capitalist system, then you have to take the responsibility of supporting the creation of the poor class.
I am advocating a truly free market. If that in your mind is capitalism then we are in understanding of terms. The misuse of both terms is widespread.
A warm shelter breaks a barrier for those in extreme poverty, providing shelter and a place of storage, where one can collect and organize themselves.
Well the thing is, if you don't accept government grants (which requires applying and going through the process etc.), the police show up and destroy your shit. I think there is an article on that.. people were trying to provide for themselves, build a home..
Next is increasing employment opportunities[,.......]
The government cannot compete with the private sector in terms of job creation. Why? because they cannot fail. There is incentive to do poorly as that means a bigger budget the next year. The "jobs" the government is creating are bureaucratic positions for the various agencies you advocate. These people are a weight on society and don't produce a damn thing.
[.....] and expanding welfare to support these individuals.
Expanding welfare how? By having A and B vote they want C's money? That is legitimate? Or by printing money thus devaluing everyone's currency and ensuring conflicts around the world? That is intelligent?
What about corporate welfare? Is that what you mean? The [created by government] jobs of building needless weapons of war? The billions in farm subsidies? The billions in oil subsidies? The money sent to Monsanto? To Lockheed? To Solyndra? After all, without the corporate welfare, many would be out of a job.
No need to spend half of a trillion dollars each year fuelling the military/security industrial complexes,
Are you sure? The reason the B2 is spread out in all fifty states is to gain votes through promised jobs. Without that trillion dollars a year, the death builders may have to find other employment.
or providing financial institutions the means to fail for the benefit of their executives.
Well when you have a lender of last resort, which is just about a must for the system you advocate for, some people are going to speculate in ways otherwise considered foolish. Not to mention with your 'give everyone a house' mentality, the bubble created through artificial credit and illusory money schemes, through loans to people who otherwise would not qualify would also prove a catch 22. You don't see the forest through the trees. If you want the government doing all that you do, there is going to be a lender of last resort (i.e. Central Bank). There is going to be malinvestment propagated by the system creating a bubble that will ultimately burst. When it does, the people you want to help, or thought you were helping will lose everything; The banks will gain, and the cycle will repeat.
No need to bail out energy companies that are advocating impractical sources.
How does a bureaucrat in Washington know what is practical or impractical with regards to energy? Are they engineers, nuclear physicists, physicists..
anything? What would they know about energy? Is it possible what determines 'practicality' is the amount paid into the coffers?
This is all aside from what I mentioned earlier of encouraged failure. It's a money pit. Fuck it up, get paid more next year. There is no incentive to do the job right for the best price. They are raping this country, destroying the currency, and not helping the environment or our energy needs in the least. It's so absurd I really have trouble finding a spot to begin.
No need to keep up the costly drug war, and there's no need to keep up funding things like an extensive TSA.
We are in agreement.
It isn't rainbows and sunshine. When you have many more empty houses than homeless and the government spends billions on pointlessly expanding its military, there's something really fucking wrong with your country.
There
is something wrong with this country. People got this idea that because they are in a group, they have authority over the minority. People have become lazy, they've lost their diligence, and have become content with circuses and petty execisings of power over their fellow man. The regulations have crippled industry. The taxes have been squandered shamelessly. Public indoctrination and a victor's brand of history coupled with the theory of American Exceptionalism have perverted the mind. I'll be short with what all is wrong with this country. The correlations between the all in all failures of policy would take pages for me to properly describe.
I'm an anarchist, not a capitalist.
You advocate the use of force against your neighbor because of whimsical ideas of justice. You fail to see a contradiction in beliefs. Whether or not you specifically advocate for a "state", what would ultimately become of your vision would be as tyrannical as any throughout history.
The state may be imperfect,[....]
"Imperfect" is an incredible understatement.
[....] but capitalism (being a hierarchal structure) requires a second hierarchal structure to prevent tyranny by the rich.
My, and every other American's gun, would be a check against "tyranny by the rich." (which I fail to see as better or worse than tyranny by your majority.. if ever could be the case) After rereading this sentence of yours, I'm a little bit baffled. So the second hierarchical structure you see as the solution is an entity with monopolized and legitimized or even normalized use of force? I imagine you wouldn't be an "anarchist" if the status quo held your beliefs. So to me, and forgive me for being frank, I consider you an authoritarian. A disenfranchised authoritarian, but an authoritarian all the same.
What would obviously be better would be to do away with both (but good luck doing that).
Can you please define "capitalism." It's one of those words that has been intentionally misused and bastardized... so much so, in fact, that I usually refrain from using it. (as it has different connotations to different people)
Besides, in the words of Adam Smith: "
Every tax, however, is to the person who pays it a badge, not of slavery but of liberty. It denotes that he is a subject to government, indeed, but that, as he has some property, he cannot himself be the property of a master."
No man is infallible. Needless to say, I would not agree with that sentiment. Perhaps your point is going over my head. Can you clarify the relevance for me? Do you agree with that?
I do commend you for responding to my previous post. Reply as you get a chance, if you wouldn't mind, of course. I apologize for the time it took me to respond. I've been busy lately.
