I just love it...
 

On 7/30/13 9:04 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
m...

On 7/30/13 8:04 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
m...


What do you propose to make up for the lack of jobs, the lack of jobs
with benefits, the lack of jobs with decent pay, the lack of health
care, the lack of affordable higher or vocational education, the lack of
the ability to put enough aside for a retirement? Soylent Green?

===================

If we keep going the way we are heading the fictitious "Soylent
Corporation" will be replaced by the very real federal government, at
least until it collapses.

I think we need to balance government investments in both social welfare
and industry areas with accountability for results.
If it doesn't work, don't continue to invest the taxpayer's money in
it. That's the problem with entitlement programs. Once started, it's
almost impossible to end them, regardless of how ineffective they are.

Most importantly, any government subsidized program must have an "exit"
plan so to speak. We simply can't afford to pile entitlements on top of
entitlements that robs the recipients of any incentive to work to
improve their own station in life. Unfortunately, with few exceptions,
that's how it is today and is heading to get even worse.



Let's keep this simple, just for the sake of keeping it simple.

Posit, that an increasing number of employers are paying wages that are
relatively flat, that they are cutting way back on benefits such as
health care insurance and a defined retirement program, that jobs
themselves are more disposable than ever and new jobs are hard to find,
to the point that workers, faced with these circumstances, can barely
support themselves and their families, even with two paychecks.

So, in the absence of employer supplied healthcare and an employer
supplied pension and in the face of lousy wages and poor employment
possibilities, what is the equitable solution for the average middle
income or lower income worker? Being dropped off by the side of the road
to die is not something my "socialist" heart is willing to accept.

Seriously. If the private sector isn't supplying, if the workers can't
make enough to support themselves with food, housing, clothing,
education, health care and a retirement, despite their best efforts,
where do you see society going?

------------------------------------------

I am surrounded by young people who are living with those challenges
right now. Although apprehensive, most are doing fine despite the
economy because they have taken steps to seek opportunities or otherwise
improve their financial situations. Remember, if the "real"
unemployment rate is around 16 percent as some economists believe, it
still means that roughly 84 percent of the working population is employed.

I can't argue the big business angle with you because I just don't think
businesses have a unique social welfare responsibility that exceeds
basic supply and demand. They exist to make a profit or they don't
exist period. You disagree, probably because of your close ties to
union activities.
It's interesting that although I personally don't think businesses
should be straddled with providing health care plans, overall they have
historically been more successful at it than the federal government.

We've just emerged from an unprecedented period of government financed
bailouts, unemployment extensions and federal stimulus programs.
Has it worked? Barely. The federal reserve is still pumping borrowed
$$ into the "economy" to the tune of $85 billion a month.

Again, I'll repeat that I believe everyone should have an opportunity
and if they need help in getting that opportunity or taking advantage of
one, I am all for it. But the "help" should be only that, and not a
method of living.







I have no problem with private corporations making reasonable profits.

But...you haven't responded to my posit. I also know people, young and
older, who are "doing fine," but I also know many people who, through no
fault of their own, are not doing fine. I suspect the numbers of those
"not doing fine" will only increase.

So, if those who are employed and are not doing fine and cannot afford
health care insurance or who don't have access to a defined benefit
retirement need significant health care or are at retirement age, and
they've never made enough to save enough...I ask again, what are these
people (and there are many tens of millions of them) supposed to do, sit
by the side of the road and wait for the Soylent Green truck?

You don't think corporations are in the social welfare business and you
don't think the government should be...

So we just let the less fortunate among use...die.

I just love it...
 

On 7/30/2013 6:25 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 7/29/13 10:32 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
m...

On 7/29/13 9:20 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
m...

...when sanctimonious Republican assholes don't live up to the standards
they want to shove down everyone else's throat.

Rick Santorum Files for Divorce, Blames Gays
Jul 29, 2013


Great gag. Love it.

-----------------------------------------------

I guess you had to be there to appreciate the humor.

It must really drive you nuts to watch all the "sanctimonious Republican
assholes" in so many states and at the federal level exercise almost
complete control over what legislation is passed and what isn't. Even
with a Democratic president, a Democratic Senate and, for the first two
years, a Democratic House, the sanctimonious Republican assholes have
played the game of political maneuvering and have pretty much won every
legislative contest. Really doesn't say much for your party.

I find it fascinating how the demagoguery and hate spewing of the
Republican taliban is destroying this country and turning everyone but
the rich into serfs who only exist to further enrich the rich. The
Republican taliban is waging an economic and societal war on women,
students, middle income earners, minorities, gays, everyone except upper
income white men. They're taking away the vote, they want to do away
with the social safety net entirely. At some point, the citizenry will
wake up and either shoot the Republican taliban perpetrators or vote
them out of office. I probably won't be around to see it, but it will be
an interesting revolution.

The Dems simply don't hate as much, and they still care about this
country. The Republicans only care about power and their wallets.

-------------------------------

I see it differently, recognizing that there are extremists represented
on each side who I disregard.

I see the conservative side being the "tough love" guardians. They care
just as passionately as the Democrats but see the solution to economic
problems as having to face the reality that simply throwing borrowed
money at problems will never solve them. To the contrary, it will cause
more dependence on the government which at some point won't be able to
sustain the very help that people become more dependent upon.

The Democrats' over protective plan is that more spending, more
government programs, more federal aid will somehow make everyone self
sufficient someday. History proves otherwise. Since the 1960's
spending for federal entitlement programs has risen by over 500
percent. We are rapidly approaching the point when it will become
unsustainable. Then what happens? That economic collapse will make
the last five years look like the "good old days".

Americans have to stop thinking about what the government can do for
them and start thinking about what they can do for themselves. Sounds
cruel to a Democratic Socialist like yourself, but it's reality.






Have you noticed in recent months that when the two of us discuss
something political in nature, I for the most part refrain from making
it personal about you, yet after a short while, if I don't agree with
your side of the argument, you start making personal remarks about me?

I am indeed a Democrat, a registered Democrat, in fact, and although I
have a number of actual Socialists as friends and colleagues, I am no
more a Socialist than you are a plutocrat, and I don't call you one.
I do admire some aspects of modern European socialism, however, but I
have no admiration for a plutocracy which, basically, is what the United
States is devolving into.

Middle income lifestyles are disappearing, jobs are becoming more and
more short term, workers are becoming disposable, and many families
workers and multiple jobs still cannot make it in this country because
pay has fallen so far behind the cost of living. And what is your
expectation for these people who cannot move forward through no fault of
their own? That they live in crappy housing, that they eat only fast
food, that their kids aren't decently clothed, that they don't have
access to good and convenient health care, that their hopes for a
reasonable retirement are disappearing, all so the rich can continue to
suck the wealth out of the country and make these disparities even worse?


You could just as easily blame the unions for sucking the life out of
the economy, for the benefit of relatively few.

I just love it...
 

"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
m...


You don't think corporations are in the social welfare business and
you
don't think the government should be...

So we just let the less fortunate among use...die.

--------------------------------------------------

I didn't say the government shouldn't be in the social welfare
business. (actually, it's the tax payers of the country being in the
social welfare business.) I don't disagree with that.

I am suggesting that accountability for the programs has to exist.
If they aren't helping, end them or try something else. As
previously stated, government (taxpayer) financed entitlement
programs have increased over 500 percent since the 1960s. Have they
helped? Some, but certainly not all. But once initiated, it's damn
near impossible to end them. They just keep getting modified,
increased and abused.

There also should be accountability on the backs of the recipients.
The only true "entitlement" I have ever received was financial aid
under the GI bill to continue going to school when I left the
military. I am not sure it was truly an entitlement since it was a
benefit package that existed for military service, but call it what
you want. There was accountability on my part in the respect that I
had to maintain a minimum grade point average in order to continue
receiving the benefits.

I just love it...
 

On 7/30/2013 9:13 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 7/30/13 9:04 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
m...

On 7/30/13 8:04 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
m...


What do you propose to make up for the lack of jobs, the lack of jobs
with benefits, the lack of jobs with decent pay, the lack of health
care, the lack of affordable higher or vocational education, the lack of
the ability to put enough aside for a retirement? Soylent Green?

===================

If we keep going the way we are heading the fictitious "Soylent
Corporation" will be replaced by the very real federal government, at
least until it collapses.

I think we need to balance government investments in both social welfare
and industry areas with accountability for results.
If it doesn't work, don't continue to invest the taxpayer's money in
it. That's the problem with entitlement programs. Once started, it's
almost impossible to end them, regardless of how ineffective they are.

Most importantly, any government subsidized program must have an "exit"
plan so to speak. We simply can't afford to pile entitlements on top of
entitlements that robs the recipients of any incentive to work to
improve their own station in life. Unfortunately, with few exceptions,
that's how it is today and is heading to get even worse.



Let's keep this simple, just for the sake of keeping it simple.

Posit, that an increasing number of employers are paying wages that are
relatively flat, that they are cutting way back on benefits such as
health care insurance and a defined retirement program, that jobs
themselves are more disposable than ever and new jobs are hard to find,
to the point that workers, faced with these circumstances, can barely
support themselves and their families, even with two paychecks.

So, in the absence of employer supplied healthcare and an employer
supplied pension and in the face of lousy wages and poor employment
possibilities, what is the equitable solution for the average middle
income or lower income worker? Being dropped off by the side of the road
to die is not something my "socialist" heart is willing to accept.

Seriously. If the private sector isn't supplying, if the workers can't
make enough to support themselves with food, housing, clothing,
education, health care and a retirement, despite their best efforts,
where do you see society going?

------------------------------------------

I am surrounded by young people who are living with those challenges
right now. Although apprehensive, most are doing fine despite the
economy because they have taken steps to seek opportunities or otherwise
improve their financial situations. Remember, if the "real"
unemployment rate is around 16 percent as some economists believe, it
still means that roughly 84 percent of the working population is
employed.

I can't argue the big business angle with you because I just don't think
businesses have a unique social welfare responsibility that exceeds
basic supply and demand. They exist to make a profit or they don't
exist period. You disagree, probably because of your close ties to
union activities.
It's interesting that although I personally don't think businesses
should be straddled with providing health care plans, overall they have
historically been more successful at it than the federal government.

We've just emerged from an unprecedented period of government financed
bailouts, unemployment extensions and federal stimulus programs.
Has it worked? Barely. The federal reserve is still pumping borrowed
$$ into the "economy" to the tune of $85 billion a month.

Again, I'll repeat that I believe everyone should have an opportunity
and if they need help in getting that opportunity or taking advantage of
one, I am all for it. But the "help" should be only that, and not a
method of living.







I have no problem with private corporations making reasonable profits.

But...you haven't responded to my posit. I also know people, young and
older, who are "doing fine," but I also know many people who, through no
fault of their own, are not doing fine. I suspect the numbers of those
"not doing fine" will only increase.

So, if those who are employed and are not doing fine and cannot afford
health care insurance or who don't have access to a defined benefit
retirement need significant health care or are at retirement age, and
they've never made enough to save enough...I ask again, what are these
people (and there are many tens of millions of them) supposed to do, sit
by the side of the road and wait for the Soylent Green truck?

You don't think corporations are in the social welfare business and you
don't think the government should be...

So we just let the less fortunate among use...die.


The laws of nature supersede the laws of man. All your huffing and
puffing won't change that.

I just love it...
 

On 7/30/13 9:35 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
m...


You don't think corporations are in the social welfare business and you
don't think the government should be...

So we just let the less fortunate among use...die.

--------------------------------------------------

I didn't say the government shouldn't be in the social welfare
business. (actually, it's the tax payers of the country being in the
social welfare business.) I don't disagree with that.

I am suggesting that accountability for the programs has to exist. If
they aren't helping, end them or try something else. As previously
stated, government (taxpayer) financed entitlement programs have
increased over 500 percent since the 1960s. Have they helped? Some,
but certainly not all. But once initiated, it's damn near impossible to
end them. They just keep getting modified, increased and abused.

There also should be accountability on the backs of the recipients. The
only true "entitlement" I have ever received was financial aid under
the GI bill to continue going to school when I left the military. I am
not sure it was truly an entitlement since it was a benefit package that
existed for military service, but call it what you want. There was
accountability on my part in the respect that I had to maintain a
minimum grade point average in order to continue receiving the benefits.




There are plenty of entitlement tests for medicaid.

I just love it...
 

F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 7/30/13 9:35 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
m...


You don't think corporations are in the social welfare business and you
don't think the government should be...

So we just let the less fortunate among use...die.

--------------------------------------------------

I didn't say the government shouldn't be in the social welfare
business. (actually, it's the tax payers of the country being in the
social welfare business.) I don't disagree with that.

I am suggesting that accountability for the programs has to exist. If
they aren't helping, end them or try something else. As previously
stated, government (taxpayer) financed entitlement programs have
increased over 500 percent since the 1960s. Have they helped? Some,
but certainly not all. But once initiated, it's damn near impossible to
end them. They just keep getting modified, increased and abused.

There also should be accountability on the backs of the recipients. The
only true "entitlement" I have ever received was financial aid under
the GI bill to continue going to school when I left the military. I am
not sure it was truly an entitlement since it was a benefit package that
existed for military service, but call it what you want. There was
accountability on my part in the respect that I had to maintain a
minimum grade point average in order to continue receiving the benefits.




There are plenty of entitlement tests for medicaid.
And welfare recipients can be on crack and collect a check.