(February 24, 2011 at 7:02 pm)theVOID Wrote:

HetItsZeus Wrote:BOLD: So does the private sector........... besides government can be reformed. Greed can not be reformed though.

1. No, the private sector in general is far more cost effective. With rules. Again though, that's a red hearing on your part, I am not advocating government control be given to the private sector, I am advocating returning the resources and responsibilities to individuals. When were they taken away?

2. Government isn't immune to greed, as you know. Yeah. Neither are you or I.

3. Greed is fine so long as it doesn't manifest through force, fraud, coercion or negligence. I don't think the fact of someone being greedy should be any reason for punishment, it is how they express this greed that matters. Yes, I agree.

4. The equivalent of government reform in the private sector is demand for their products and services, should that diminish a new executive board and CEO are put in place of the failed ones. It's commonplace. Corporations and large businesses are and have been completely corrupt for a while now... Just like the government. In many case these large businesses infiltrate the government for their own private intentions. The Private Sector doesn't always fix itself. It rarely does. But we must remember that some things I see as corrupt you may not and vice versa.

Quote:UNDERLINED: Stop dreaming.... if it wasn't for regulation big business would really fuck you over!

Again, as long as they don't use force, fraud, coercion or become negligent I don't care what they do - If I dislike a business I don't give them my money. Regulation effects the vast majority of businesses that would do no wrong in order to punish the few who would, rather than so many decent businesses small and large being subject to the added costs of doing business we should have much tougher punishments for those who have done wrong - It's very much alike the bullshit anti-terrorism laws that treat innocent people like they're potential criminals. In order to keep walls standing up we need to renovate them. I'm not saying the regulations in place are perfect. All I'm saying is regulation is a vital part in keeping business fair.

Quote:"....we should have harsher prison sentences to deter people/organisations from using force, fraud, coercion or neglecting their responsibilities." -I completely agree with you there.

That we should have harsher sentences or we should replace some regulation with harsher sentences? I think the latter should be preferred, 1) It doesn't have a negative impact on ethical business owners, 2) It's more resource effective. It just may work if regulated correctly.

Quote:May I ask a question? Do you support lasez-faire (forgive my French spelling) capitalism?

Yeah, but with one distinction, some instances should be removed from the market rather than being kept in the market and then having government interfere. Police, road, power infrastructure, defence, stockpiled resources for disasters, water, prisons, law, Fire services, emergency ambulances, healthcare for the very poor and a few other things - I genuinely believe that a government could be effective with about 1/16th of the activity they are currently involved in - Any government that is in the red is doing something seriously wrong. Obviously, but what is being done wrong is up to interpretation. To our misfortune the answers are not clear.

I cannot answer the poll, as "Welfare" is undefined in the question.

Are the USA's food stamps, used to prop up the price of foodstuffs artificially that farmers produce, a Welfare program for those that might otherwise be able to purchase food, or welfare for the farmer?

Are price supports for ethanol production, in place for forty years, welfare for oil companies and farmers and businesses that produce ethanol-laced gasoline?

Are veterans benefits paid to the disabled veteran injured or sickened in the line of duty welfare?

Are unemployment payments welfare?

Are tax breaks for having children welfare for parents? Is a tax break for being blind welfare for the blind? Is a tax break for medical bills welfare for those who get sick? For mortgage interest welfare for a home buyer?

As such I cannot answer the poll (Do you support welfare) as it is not defined.

And to the post immediately above, private sector is always is more cost effective with rules, well, who imposes those rules? And keep in mind anyone who doesn't like 'em will say they interfere with capitalism.

And since when does cost effective=better? Would you like your town streets to be administered by a private company, and you pay a toll everytime you pull your car or bicycle or even feet out to the street? (See the many articles on the Web about the City of Chicago employing a private company to regulate parking where there was once city-regulated parking, such as this one: http://blogs.suntimes.com/marin/2009/03/...ellio.html (Chicago Sun-Times: Parking Meter Rebellion).

It would be much more cost effective, health-wise, to outlaw tobacco and alcohol, for example. But then there is no income tax on tobacco and alcohol companies, no sin tax on users, and greater costs associated with the new regulations. Prohibition in the USA showed us how to create organised crime, though it could be argued that the general lack of availability of alcohol probably reduced road-accident deaths. (Interesting, I'll have to look around for statistics on that.)

(February 18, 2011 at 3:20 am)theVOID Wrote: I oppose welfare for all but the destitute poor and disabled, people who could work but don't shouldn't be allowed welfare, if it was a small tribe they'd be sent packing off into the wild.

I couldn't agree with you fast enough.

Willful uselessness should not be tolerated and it SURE AS HELL shouldn't be paid!!

(June 7, 2011 at 10:40 pm)Cinjin Cain Wrote:

(February 18, 2011 at 3:20 am)theVOID Wrote: I oppose welfare for all but the destitute poor and disabled, people who could work but don't shouldn't be allowed welfare, if it was a small tribe they'd be sent packing off into the wild.

I couldn't agree with you fast enough.

Willful uselessness should not be tolerated and it SURE AS HELL shouldn't be paid!!

So who defines the poor and disabled? Or a small tribe? Large ones get Welfare (the Sioux), small ones get screwed (the Ponca)?
And who defines Welfare (per my post above).

(June 7, 2011 at 10:43 pm)Anymouse Wrote:

(June 7, 2011 at 10:40 pm)Cinjin Cain Wrote:

(February 18, 2011 at 3:20 am)theVOID Wrote: I oppose welfare for all but the destitute poor and disabled, people who could work but don't shouldn't be allowed welfare, if it was a small tribe they'd be sent packing off into the wild.

I couldn't agree with you fast enough.

Willful uselessness should not be tolerated and it SURE AS HELL shouldn't be paid!!

So who defines the poor and disabled? Or a small tribe? Large ones get Welfare (the Sioux), small ones get screwed (the Ponca)?
And who defines Welfare (per my post above).

Regarding the small tribe vs. large tribe ... that's not what Void meant. I believe his point is that if it were any primitive tribe from any time period - the person not carrying his weight would be sent packin.


As for who defines the poor and disabled. ME! I finally get to judge people for a change. I alone decide your worthiness. If anyone questions me - I'll start up a religion and say that god revealed himself to me and I am now his prophet and your judge! Don't like it? Guess what, you're a heretic and I'm going to have you stoned.

(June 7, 2011 at 10:52 pm)Cinjin Cain Wrote: As for who defines the poor and disabled. ME! I finally get to judge people for a change. I alone decide your worthiness. If anyone questions me - I'll start up a religion and say that god revealed himself to me and I am now his prophet and your judge! Don't like it? Guess what, you're a heretic and I'm going to have you stoned.

You'll have to stand in line behind all the Christians that already want to do that to me.

And behind those who would take my veterans benefits after serving in the Armed Forces seventeen years and becoming disabled.

(June 7, 2011 at 10:55 pm)Anymouse Wrote:

(June 7, 2011 at 10:52 pm)Cinjin Cain Wrote: As for who defines the poor and disabled. ME! I finally get to judge people for a change. I alone decide your worthiness. If anyone questions me - I'll start up a religion and say that god revealed himself to me and I am now his prophet and your judge! Don't like it? Guess what, you're a heretic and I'm going to have you stoned.

You'll have to stand in line behind all the Christians that already want to do that to me.

And behind those who would take my veterans benefits after serving in the Armed Forces seventeen years and becoming disabled.

That sucks - Armed Forces benefits are not considered Welfare. You're not getting something for nothing - you clearly served your country.
I would never support taking those benies from you.

The reason I voted against welfare is because it is being abused constantly, the most famous program, Social Security, is going bankrupt, it sucks up quite a lot of tax payer money, and no politician is fixing it because the voting bloc that supports it(Senior citizens,minorities, etc.).
So, yes, if I had the choice, I would put limitations on food stamps, get rid of Social Security and pensions, and put a spending limit on the amount that is used for welfare spending.

..ummm...Social Security is NOT going bankrupt.

Please post valid citations to back up your claim that SS is going bankrupt.

I meant that it will go bankrupt in a few years and I am sorry if I did not clarify myself the first time. Also I think that only military people who have served a certain amount of years and people who are unemployed(though only if the unemployed people can only be on it for at most 3 months).
Sources: Wall Street Journal, general talk.