Social Welfare

1. 60

   Matthew Weeseposted 11 years ago

   It is easy to blame an individual and his/her life decisions for getting into bind where they have to swallow their pride and ask for help. It is a sad day in American history when a country full of laborers can't afford to treat their cancer, feed their family's, ext. However the system was designed with flaws, the system was not designed by the individual person who need assistance, it was designed by a Government that knew exactly what it was doing, the government has been hypnotizing the American mind set/thought patterns for over 100 years, politicians, televisions, radio's, PS3's, X-boxes, I-pods, I pads, Internet, the News Newspapers, Schools/Colleges, ext. ext. ext.......These are just a few examples of Government induced mind control, for hundreds of years our beliefs, our ideology's, our decision making, our likes, our dislikes, our opinions have been covertly groomed through many modes of government hypnosis. It is funny how we make enemy's out of our states men, how we argue amongst each other, how we blame individuals for acting upon flaws in such a careless Social system, and unstable mode of production such as Capitalism. Capitalism is an epidemic worse than any plague that has ever stricken the world, Capitalism is far worse because it offers no hope for a vaccine as long as we live in a society run by the greed of corporate profit. Anyone, anybody with true sense about them can see the chaos Capitalist greed has caused, yet still we blame and imprison our brothers and sisters for taking advantage of system that takes advantage of a nation of people, people who truly built this Country out of the labor of their backs, our life's, our heritages, our pride, for the native American, their Home, our blood shed to build a nation that paid little to nothing, that takes everything from us, right down to our moral dignity.

   replyreport
   1. 71

      Quilligrapherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Good Evening, Mr. Weese. Thank you for expressing your views.
      
      Could you tell us exactly what it is you are trying to say? It sounds like you would like to see America abandon capitalism and follow in the successful footsteps of the USSR. Do I hear your message correctly?
      

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Matthew Weeseposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         No you thoroughly misunderstood me completely, I don't want America to turn into Russia, no not at all. I would like to see America form a unity no other Country has ever known, come together instead of being in competition with each other, Stop separating our people into classes and work to make all American Citizens, the working class, the disabled class, the middle class, the upper middle class, the upper class, and the elite, work together so we as Americans can all reap the benefits of our labors. I know what all Capitalist say "Oh, dreams of grander, a utopia" Me I will shoot back, -Exactly- Think about the advancements we could make if we had a nation of people working together, towards a better civilization, not separating and judging with prejudice, we could work towards bringing our people together, for a greater  American way of life.

         replyreport
      2. 60

         Matthew Weeseposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         No you thoroughly misunderstood me completely, I don't want America to turn into Russia, no not at all. I would like to see America form a unity no other Country has ever known, come together instead of being in competition with each other, Stop separating our people into classes and work to make all American Citizens, the working class, the disabled class, the middle class, the upper middle class, the upper class, and the elite, work together so we as Americans can all reap the benefits of our labors. I know what all Capitalist say "Oh, dreams of grander, a utopia" Me I will shoot back, -Exactly- Think about the advancements we could make if we had a nation of people working together, towards a better civilization, not separating and judging with prejudice, we could work towards bringing our people together, for a greater  American way of life.

         replyreport
         1. 71

            Quilligrapherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Hi again, Mr. Weese. I thank you for responding to me so quickly.
            
            It seems you are confusing capitalism with government. Capitalism is an economic system designed to combine capital, resources, and labor to create free markets that work for the benefit of society. Government, on the other hand, is a geo-political organization designed to protect designated territories and resources from pillage by other geo-political organizations. The government of the USA and the system of Capitalism are two separate entities that you seem to think are the same.
            
            You say you would like to see America not in competition with each other (?) but, in fact, America and capitalism are obviously not in competition with each other. America does not separate people into classes, society does! Instead, each American looks to reap the benefits from their own individual labors.
            
            I think we both see a lot of evil in the world, Mr. Weese, and you wrongly blame capitalism (the system). Instead, some of what we see should be blamed on some capitalists (people engaged in the system). Confusing the economic system with the form of government may be leading you to false conclusions.
            
            Thank you for posting, Mr. Weese. Enjoy your evening. 
            

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Matthew Weeseposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               I hear what your saying and let me clarify: You say that capitalism relies on the free-market--the free flowing exchange of commodities and capital. I agree. But isn't labor a commodity? Why is this peculiar commodity somehow exempt from free market exchange, why is labor confined to political borders? Every other commodity is free to circulate...When commodities are allowed to circulate according to the laws of supply and demand their prices stabilize to a mean: the market price. When a state nationalizes capital its called "socialism" but when we nationalize the other factor of production, labor power, its somehow considered to be in compliance to the free-market ideology...I dont understand this contradiction. Can you offer any ideas as to why this contradiction exists? Further, you say that our form of economy (capitalism) and our form of gov. (republic) are somehow mutually exclusive. But if governance grows out of economy I'd say its more of a dynamic relationship. Moreover, I'd say that today, in the U.S., gov. is controlled by economics. Eg. Citizens United. The use of masses amounts of money from a few are manufacturing the consent of the governed. If a lie is told over and over it does indeed become the truth. I blame "the system" because all of what's happening is the result of the concentration and centralization of capital. All of the major historical events have been dictated by economics. And the more I study capitalism the more I find repeated and self destructive contradictions, inherent contradictions.

               replyreport
               1. 71

                  Quilligrapherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Thank you, Mr. Weese for trying to  clarify your earlier statements but you failed. This means I must be unbelievably stupid or you are not making yourself clear.
                  
                  From what I am reading you have several very unique perceptions which are self generated as a way to explain the world as you see it. You express them as if they were universal without explanations, definitions, or examples pretending your audience has the same perceptions, which they do not. Hence, many of the evils you envision in your view of capitalism do not even exist in other views.
                  
                  When you paraphrased my definition of capitalism you omitted my reference to the element of labor and then asked what sounds like an two inane questions: “But isn’t labor a commodity?” and “Why is labor confined to political borders?” The first question was answered by my previous definition of capitalism as an economic system and the second presumes labor is confined.
                  No, I said “The government of the USA and the system of Capitalism are two separate entities that you seem to think are the same.” Twice you misrepresented what I said to suit your own perceptions. Governance, I submit, does not “grow out of the economy.” Rather, it relies on the economy for growth and expansion. 
                  
                  There are ample signs that your study of capitalism needs to continue. Nothing in America’s model of capitalism prevents labor from owning the means of production. Labor only needs to provide the necessary capital and other resources and assume all of the inherent risks and, bingo, they own not just a stake in production but the whole business entity. However, in the real world far removed from utopian dreams, labor provides no capital, avoids most of the risks of business, and generally prefers to take their share of the rewards home with them every payday. 
                  Your understanding of American history has led you to believe that the Cuban Missile crisis was over “greed and resources” then you choose to ignore the real threat of having Soviet missile launching sites within 100 miles of our shores. Not only is your view of capitalism distorted but your perceptions about our history are self-serving and twisted.   
                  

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     Matthew Weeseposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     They are not unique perceptions, they've actually been around for quite some time and they're quite diffuse. I do consider labor, outside the margins, to be confined...and? I dont see how I misrepresented your statements...you said them not me. You say gov. and economy are two separate things, I said they're not mutually exclusive...which they're not...it is a dynamic. As far as my study of history, politics, or economics I'd say I view them all dialectically. Unlike many others, I try to stay away from absolutes and false dichotomies. "Nothing in america's model of capitalism prevents labor from owning the means of production"? Have you read a newspaper in a while? Have you been living under a rock? Or are you just as much in denial as you are a reductionist? Now you say that labor "provides no capital"--well where did the capitalist get his capital? Answer: it comes from profit, where does profit come from? Surplus value. Where does surplus value come from: value. And finally where does value come from: labor, nowhere else in the world but labor. Next you say that the laborer takes little risk and pockets the "rewards" every pay day. Can you be more obtuse? I cant think of a worker who gets paid in advance of his labor. He puts himself on the line, even more so than the capitalist because of two factors: One, he must labor first and two because of the variable nature of labor. The capitalist can work him more intensely and for longer duration without notice,if he refuses, he will be fired. Now the if the capitalist doesnt like the way things are going he can pack up the factory and move it to China or Mexico and he most likely will be rewarded with a tax break or even gov. grants to do so. On the other hand if labor doesnt like the way things are going he is confined to political borders and regulation on his migration. Capital is fluid, and labor is fixed (outside the margins). If you support the "free" market you would support this free circulation of labor power. To trumpet the free market one moment only to deny it for the labor commodity the next would make you a hypocrite. And btw, I speak for myself, not for others. Your comment that I somehow speak for everyone is absurd. I've never even suggested that. Nice attempt at spin though. If you want to carry on an intelligent conversation on this debate I welcome it...

                     replyreport
            2. 80

               Dr Billy Kiddposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Nice distinction. Government is a system of governing and capitalism is a theory about how to run an economy. Two distinct things.
               
               I think Matthew is talking about trying to make the system fair. That's not possible when there are large amounts of money at stake.
               
               There is no physiological system built into the human body to handle great success. You get ahold of a bunch of cash and you think you're king, appointed under God. Only a system of community values that recognizes this can control it.....for example, Hitler was the first billionaire. Killing Jews, like my familly, was a ploy because the idea of money and power drove him crazy when he didn't get to be a successful artist.
               
               Now with Mitt....!!! Just forget he has dozens of off-shore compaines that he owns. The wealthy create the public dialogue that commoners talk about. So with the presidency, the wealthy will have a lot of control on how the election turns out because of their contorl over much of the media. What we do here has no effect on the election. The WSJ doesn't cite us.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Matthew Weeseposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Again, and I'll repeat this: economy and government are not mutually exclusive. They share a dynamic relationship, each affecting the other. I think we can agree on this. Or do you folks honestly think that I see "Barak Obama as a captain of industry"? or "Bill Gates as my elected representative"? Obviously gov. is diff. than economics but they work in tandem. And the genesis of gov. is found in economics...before there was a surplus there existed no formal gov. no formal laws. Re: your comment: I dont believe you can "make the system fair", capitalism requires inequality based on exploitation and expropriation for it to function. You'd have to change the system itself. I'm not a revolutionary however. I'd simply wait for capitalism to kill itself, which it will certainly do due to its own inherent contradictions. Will this happen in my lifetime? Probably not. But its a certainty nonetheless. The increasing cycles of crisis are analogous to contractions during labor pains...their shorter intervals signal an approaching breaking point.

                  replyreport
2. 60

   Hollie Thomasposted 11 years ago

   When we live in a system that is capable of full employment for all, irrespective of gender etc. Then, perhaps, we'll have the right to judge others who do not attempt to find work. I actually find it quite sad that we make judgements about those who are unemployed or too sick to work. Personally, I don't necessarily think that capitalism is to blame, but crony capitalism. I agree that corporate capitalism has not helped the masses at all. Perhaps I'm naive, but I still hold the belief that capitalism and equity are possible.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Matthew Weeseposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Not possible at all, when the Chinese figure out that we have no way to pay out of are debt, they will let go of American trade, they'll let go of the American dollar, rendering the American dollar useless in value, then the world will go back to war. All Capitalism is going to do is create mass destruction, that is all it has ever done. So much death caused from greed and chasing a dollar, so many disabled, so many family's broken, so many life's left in despair, so many people imprisoned. All it has created is Loss. Insanity defined is repeating the same thing over and over again expecting different results, we need to stand up and abolish this mode of production all together to work towards global unity. The world needs to unite, come to terms that all we as a species is going to do is self destruct if staying on this path.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Hollie Thomasposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         "Then the world will go back to war" at what point during the last 50 odd years has the world not been at war? And, how exactly, do you expect the people to rid themselves of this mode of production?. I do not necessarily disagree with you regarding the misery that it has caused, but saying we need change is one thing, enacting that change is another. The greatest thinkers realized  this some time ago, it takes so much more than a rally call.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Matthew Weeseposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            No!! the greater thinkers have been discarded because their views were not excepted in capitalism, now the world was not at war 50 years ago, however America had it's nose in Vietnam. War is all that is going to result out of our economy. Their was the Cuban missile crisis, Dessert storm, Operation Iraqi freedom, the war in Afghanistan, all the conflict we have had in Africa, I mean what is it all over, greed, and resources. who knows after the next big one maybe mankind will learn, third time's the charm.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Matthew Weeseposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               The war in Vietnam was fought to try take away the north Vietnamese Social organization, Communism, the exact opposite of Capitalism. a lot of people get socialism confused with communism, however socialism is purely economic where the workers own their means of production.

               replyreport
         2. 60

            Matthew Weeseposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            You're right that the concept is there but the roadmap is missing. Lenin went about it the wrong way. He tried using an elite vanguard in a top down method. No, what I'm proposing is that workers simply control the means of production. Not central planning, not government control. I mean simply that the workers own the factories etc. They make collective decisions based on democratic methods. These get rich quick schemes found in the finance sector is what is burying us. Individualism and ego is not sustainable. Ayn Rand is full of shit. If we support democracy in our politics why should we not support democracy in our economics? And I'm not referring to some bullshit stock/profit sharing plan...I'm talking about real ownership by the workers. Hell, even Locke said that after a given time of labor that the workers ought to own some stake in the means of production (land etc.)

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Hollie Thomasposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               "real ownership by the workers" is nothing more than populist capitalism. But tell me, how can populist capitalism thrive when the crony capitalists control the supply of money?  How do they go about obtaining investment in order to grow their business? A business that does not grow, dies.  Projecting your anger onto a Government is a clever deflection  brought about by those who wish to divert your attention, particularly when an election draws close.  Locke, rousseau- interesting in terms of social contract theories. Lenin, another interesting mind. Personally, I'd describe myself as a Marxist, but I'm realistic enough to accept that these 'big thinkers' lived in a different age. The world is far more complex now.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Matthew Weeseposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  I'd say the best way to go about working class rule is simply to exploit the contradictions already present in the capitalist mode of production ie. the "free market". For example: the "free market"  ideology trumpets the free exchange of capital and commodities unfettered by gov. intervention. We ought to call attention to the fact that labor is indeed a commodity and should be allowed to circulate with all the freedom of any other commodity. As it stands presently, gov. restricts the free flow of the labor commodity. The domestic capitalist, via the gov., guards and restricts the circulation of this peculiar commodity jealously. If labor were allowed to flow across international borders without restriction I feel that the market price of this commodity (the wage) would be stabilized by the laws of supply and demand. In this way we would be using their own ideology to our benefit.You see, if capital can pack up and move to China, where the price of labor is cheap, they hold all the power...they can always threaten to withdraw capital and starve the domestic working class of the means of their own production. Now if labor were allowed to be as fluid and free as capital it would put both on equal footing and a more equitable exchange would evolve. This is not utopian at all as I see it. It is practical and very achievable. And this approach uses their own methodology. What do you think? Should we not allow labor to be as mobile as capital?

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     Hollie Thomasposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     I'm afraid I disagree. If the working class want to have an element of control over their futures, they should stop buying goods which are made from the exploitation of others, made in China or wherever the profiteers want to make a cheap buck. Who's to blame? We are. We have options, we don't have to buy McC's or cheap goods, we don't have to buy iphones, ipads etc.
                     
                     if you really want to make a change, change your spending habits.

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        Matthew Weeseposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        The boycott is a practical way of promoting change. However, this method is only available for those who have the means to spend more on higher priced goods. This reduces it down to a movement of the upper classes. Can an average worker making $8/hr really afford to be virtuous in his spending? No, in most cases he has to focus his resources on providing for his needs at a bare minimal level...since this is the calculation used in determining his own wage. There is no allowance for virtuous spending when calculating the cost of living for many low wage workers. But if their labor itself were allowed to circulate on the free market they would have the opportunity to vote with their feet if they're being overly exploited.What is it about the previous post that disagree with?

                        replyreport
                        1. 60

                           Hollie Thomasposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           Rubbish. The working classes have spending power. Do you honestly believe that the upper classes shop in a pound shop? Or buy Walmart crap? Or, have to have the latest Nike product? No, they just sell us that crap, then laugh. I have raised two children, alone, since 2002. We don't shop at Walmart or anything like that. I buy food locally, mostly, at farmers markets, the only time I step into a Corp supermarket is when I want rice flour, or tahini. Teach children to cook, and to be discerning. If every working class family withdrew their money from the corps, wherever they could, that would make a massive difference.

                           replyreport
                           1. 60

                              Matthew Weeseposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              Like I said, this is an option for those who can afford it. But for many of the low wage workers in the U.S. purchasing anything above the absolute min. is not an option. So for those who can afford to spend more, sure, this is a very practical and empowering strategy. But lets not b.s. ourselves in saying that minimum wagers can afford to spend more than is needed...they're living in the margins as it stands. Most of them cant even afford health ins. and they live without it. But I do think its a very good idea, its just not a blanket option for everyone.

                              replyreport
                              1. 60

                                 Hollie Thomasposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                 When I said I'd raised my two children alone since 2002 I was telling you that I'd not had a great deal of money. I also lived through a period of unemployment for a while. Now, I work from home and do not have a substantial wage, enough for us to have a reasonable living but we're by no means well off. Buying locally produced goods from farmers markets etc. is way cheaper than using the large stores. The quality of the food is better and you save money. I do agree though, that I'm lucky to have healthcare for me and my kids. We have the NHS so we don't have that kind of stress to deal with, it must be a rotten situation to not be able to afford healthcare.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 60

                                    Matthew Weeseposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                    About 75% of our laborers can't afford to buy health care in New york. Our state has been hit hard with increasing tax hikes since 9/11. One thing I do not confuse Capitalism with is household budgeting. I don't like to speak in terms of spending money, I like to consider different methods for the working class to be able to benefit more off the commodity he/she contains in his/her labor. It's great when the lesser waged finds good deals at the market, however, with such a powerful card in our hand, our labor card, We can get fair wages where we don't have to break the bank to pay our Rent, to pay our utility's, to buy our kids School clothes, to fix our cars if they break, to buy house hold necessity's, to have modest holidays, the never ending increasing Gas prices, at the pumps and in our homes. I attended the 10-2-10 rally in Washington for the S.E.I.U, I was proud to walk for the workers and against "Glen Beck" and the Tea party. All I want is for people to work with each other than against each other.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 60

                                       Hollie Thomasposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                       I would walk with them, too. But there's a message, yes we have labour, in times past that was great leverage. But now, and I'm thinking about my country, the unemployed are being asked to work for their benefits. No voluntary work, no money. And it's all for the big corps, not small businesses who will be willing give training or some kind of reward, monetary or not. But the BIG ones. In fact,  people are being laid off because big business is getting unskilled workers for free.
                                       
                                       One particularly large recruitment agency also has another arm which accepts *workfare* clients, those who are unemployed and are told to do the voluntary work. When they have approached the recruitment agency arm of the company they are told that they cannot sign up, because they are *workfare* clients. In other words, you can't look for paid employment with us, when you already work for us for nothing.
                                       
                                       When *all* that you have left is your spending power, you need to spend really wisely.

                                       report
3. 76

   Shadesbreathposted 11 years ago

   

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Hollie Thomasposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Is that a pig or a unicorn, that looks like a pig?

      replyreport
      1. 76

         Shadesbreathposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         It's a unicorn. It needs a mane. lol. I just tossed it in MS Paint and slapped one on for fun.
         
         This better?
         
         

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Hollie Thomasposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Yes. He's somewhat chubby for a unicorn though.

            replyreport
            1. 76

               Shadesbreathposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Well, in Utopia, the reality of aerodynamics no longer apply. The fat unicorns can fly just as easily as the trim ones who put in the effort to watch how many dandelions they eat and try to take a trot around the meadow at least three times a week.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Hollie Thomasposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  You think all that flying might trim him down a bit, though.

                  replyreport
                  1. 76

                     Shadesbreathposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     Ah, but it's magic flight. No effort required. Technically, he could eat Twinkies and stuff while flying around. Maybe pull up a movie on his iPad while he cruised over the forest.

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        Hollie Thomasposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        He needs to bin the ipad and buy a Nintendo wii.

                        replyreport
                        1. 76

                           Shadesbreathposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           Well, the games would be better for sure, but he'd need an awful long extension cord. Or he'd have to fly in circles all the time.

                           replyreport
                           1. 60

                              Hollie Thomasposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              Unicorns don't need extension cords, because they *are* magical.

                              replyreport
                              1. 76

                                 Shadesbreathposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                 Hmm. Yes, I suppose of they can spout rainbows from their backsides, said orifice could also serve as an outlet for a Wii. Good thinking.
                                 
                                 But wait, what if that overloads the, uh, circuit or something?

                                 replyreport
               2. 60

                  Matthew Weeseposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  What's so utopian about this idea of the labor commodity? It adheres to the free market ideology...I dont understand. Why the contradiction?

                  replyreport
                  1. 76

                     Shadesbreathposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     If labor was fully commodified globally we'd probably have about 80% unemployment here in the U.S.

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        Matthew Weeseposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        Labor already is fully commodified, there is no question there. 80% unemployment? I dont know where you got this figure. Wouldn't the free market regulate its flow? If labor were allowed to circulate like capital, where there are areas of high unemployment capital would soon fill this vacuum, as it always does. And in areas where the labor supply is low capital will move away. As it is right now the capitalist simply threatens to move away. Labor cant do this. Labor's geographic mobility is fixed while capital's is fluid. If you believe in the free market you'd support this idea. I personally have little faith in the "free" market but if we're going to embrace it we might as well be consistent.

                        replyreport
                        1. 76

                           Shadesbreathposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           Your model in this response requires a constantly growing economy for that "vacuum" to be filled whenever labor in a place finds itself abandoned in favor of cheaper labor (less regulated) elsewhere. Which I'm sure you know, so it seems like you're trying to create a false binary here so you can "win" the Internet argument, rather than address the real questions of personal responsibility, motivation, greed, etc. that make your larger argument Utopian.

                           replyreport
                           1. 60

                              Matthew Weeseposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              And capitalism itself requires a 'constantly growing economy" anyway right? But no, you missed the point: if labor finds itself abandoned they ought to be allowed to export their commodity unfettered by geo-political lines or borders or government regulation in the same fashion as capital. I've tried to break this very simple concept down for you. It's not that complicated, I mean simply that if you believe in the free market system then you should not disagree with the free exchange of all commodities (labor power included). If the capitalist is allowed to pack up his factory and move to Mexico, (move his capital) then labor ought to be allowed to do the same. Why do we show preference for capital? If you espouse the free market ideology it seems you'd support this opening of the market. Any thing short of this is a contradiction and hypocrisy. I enjoy debating this issue, but please don't try to boil this exchange with one-upmanship. The "false binary" is the idea that capital should be unfettered in its mobility but labor should be fixed and that labors migration should be regulated and enforced.

                              replyreport
                              1. 76

                                 Shadesbreathposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                 Who, exactly, is preventing American workers from leaving the U.S.?

                                 replyreport
4. 78

   Wayne Brownposted 11 years ago

   Odd that you would suggest that we abandon the most successful approach to economic freedom and opportunity in the world.  The problem with the alternative models you look at is that they assume a status quo of everything except what you want changed....the world does not work like that.  Capitalism is a dynamic in totality, one response to another with the opportunity for individual or group success.  Welfare is a necessary evil and thank God we live in a society that cares enough that we do provide.  The intent is "temporary"....get back on your feet and become a productive member of society again as opposed to looking for more and more ways to milk the system.  The socialist who are in control today in our federal government want nothing more than everyone to be somewhat dependent on a large central government...the more dependent you are, the less freedom and liberty you have.  If you really believe that we can put everything into a big pie and slice it up equally regardless of how much any individual or group invests up front, then you are really off the track.  When success and opportunity go away, the pie gradually gets smaller and your part get smaller with each passing day as person after person moves from the productive side of the equation to the taking side...fewer and fewer pay the way for more and more....it is a model doomed to failure.  Oh, did I mentioned that is exactly where this President is headed...you should be happy! ~WB

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Matthew Weeseposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      So if you have faith in the free market why are we ignoring the labor commodity? I dont mean to sound like a broken record here but it seems no one can answer this very simply question: if you're procapitalist and pro-free market...why not support the free exchange of all commodities, labor power included?

      replyreport