28th amendment support

[cltrn81]

Let's expand more on govt providing social programs.  Now let's contrast two examples that involve similar economic situations at a macro scale.

First was the Great Depression in 1929.  The result of this economic collapse was starvation and utter misery and/or death for millions of people.

Next was the crash of 2009.  This debatably was just as bad of a crash.  One reason it can be debated as less of a crash is because of social welfare programs.  No one had to starve because of unemployment insurance and food programs.  Now would it have been fair for the children of those families to starve or even the adults who made the mistakes....or whatever the circumstance?  Maybe someone will say yes they should because what incentivizes them to succeed?  My answer would be the threat of failure is enough to empower people to succeed.....the reliance of social programs is just a form of safety net like insurance.  I don't go out and crash my car intentionally because I can make an insurance claim......just the same as someone with a decent job will not lose it intentionally just to go on food stamps.  Now sure people abuse the system and do infact go on unemployment or collect food stamps fraudulently and I do not support that......but the good it does out weigh the bad.  Just like some politicians are corrupt and some are not.  Corruption will occur in most situations....it's human nature when considering the macro side of things.

There is way too much corruption I the welfare system.  If there wasn't so much, and people don't get money while they spend the money they do have on drugs/cigaretts/alcohol, etc then I'd be fine with it, but government haven't proven that they can fix those problems

Bottom line, I support welfare for people who need it, but rift now, there's way too much corruptions, and government haven't proven themselves capable of running good systems, hence why I'm opposed.

59 billion on social welfare programs yearly
92 billion on corporate subsidies

I would argue that social welfare programs are also subsidizing corporations via the Walmart example I put forth earlier.  So if you took even 25% from the social welfare programs and put it in the corporate subsidies figure than it would look like this:

44.25 social welfare programs
106.75 corporate subsidies

Now lets do some more math and say at least 10-20% of these numbers are being abused and then the numbers look like;

4.425-8.85 to fraudulent users of social welfare
35.4-40 to needed recipients of social welfare

10.675-21.35 to fraudulent corporate subsidies
85.4-96.075 to corporate subsidies


Why is corporate welfare ok but social welfare is not?  Social welfare invests in our nations human Capitol whereas the latter invests in making big business bigger.  I see the problem there.


To rebuttal your last statement....if govt has not proven to run good systems.....I would point you to my early point that social welfare did prevent a full blown depression during the 2009 collapse.  That is the tough thing about proactive programs.....hard to prove them functional....it's easier to prove them when they fail.  That is why conservatives use the "food stamp queen" talking point......it's the only real thing they can point to as being a "failure"

[cltrn81]

I can't remember where, but I read on a reputable website that ~50% of welfare funds went to unnecessary things like porn and smoking.

Where did I say corporate welfare was ok?...

It didn't do anything to lessen the depression, just put people on food stamps as opposed to going to soup kitchens.

That last paragraph was very short sighted my friend.  Of course it helped the economy.  If someone gets food stamps then they can pay their bills....then the bill collectors can reinvest in the economy.

How does that not help during a financial collapse???

[Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth]

The wording is anti AI, I have a problem with that

Anti AI?

I'm confused as well...

Artificial Intelligence lol

This seems like a good idea, but I have to disagree with both parties. Spending money is free speech, but corporations shouldn't have the right to free speech and ergo shouldn't have the right to contribute moneys to political campaigns. Businesses would not be abused as you have stated, because we haven't had this ruling very long, and yet businesses have still thrived. To your, "no money=no business" comment, in a perfectly competitive capitalist market, there is not supposed to be any profit. Entrepreneurs are supposed to make "normal profit" (basically a salary), but shouldn't make anything over that in the long run. TL;DR: Support the 28th Amendment!

They shouldn't have the right to support the candidate that would make their customers happier?

First of all, there is no such this as perfectly this society's. And entrepreneurs would make their business better than their competitors so their business gets more money, so he gets paid more, and their competing CEO would get paid less, they fight for the money they want to make.

If they are just supposed to make a normal salary, why wouldn't they just get a normal job and not have to take all of the risk, or work the obscene hours?

No, the customers should take it into their own hands. They can vote.

Again, read an economics textbook before you try to argue with me about economics. Here is a good place to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_competition

"in the long run, economic profit cannot be sustained. The arrival of new firms or expansion of existing firms (if returns to scale are constant) in the market causes the (horizontal) demand curve of each individual firm to shift downward, bringing down at the same time the price, the average revenue and marginal revenue curve. The final outcome is that, in the long run, the firm will make only normal profit (zero economic profit)."-Wikipedia

Yes, I know that, however, if company a is better than company b then they will get more money and b will get less money.  In the long run, if more people keep coming in, profit will hit 0, but why would they want to, if there isn't very much money to be made?

And do you honestly think most of the public understands economics enough to know what will lower prices?

To your first point: read the link, learn about economics, then get back to me.

To your second: The point of the quote wasn't to show that it lowers price, but that there is no profit in the long run. Also, yes most of the public understands the concept, because all it boils down to is competition=lower prices, which is taught in every high school in America.

[Piotr]

Let's expand more on govt providing social programs.  Now let's contrast two examples that involve similar economic situations at a macro scale.

First was the Great Depression in 1929.  The result of this economic collapse was starvation and utter misery and/or death for millions of people.

Next was the crash of 2009.  This debatably was just as bad of a crash.  One reason it can be debated as less of a crash is because of social welfare programs.  No one had to starve because of unemployment insurance and food programs.  Now would it have been fair for the children of those families to starve or even the adults who made the mistakes....or whatever the circumstance?  Maybe someone will say yes they should because what incentivizes them to succeed?  My answer would be the threat of failure is enough to empower people to succeed.....the reliance of social programs is just a form of safety net like insurance.  I don't go out and crash my car intentionally because I can make an insurance claim......just the same as someone with a decent job will not lose it intentionally just to go on food stamps.  Now sure people abuse the system and do infact go on unemployment or collect food stamps fraudulently and I do not support that......but the good it does out weigh the bad.  Just like some politicians are corrupt and some are not.  Corruption will occur in most situations....it's human nature when considering the macro side of things.

No, people did not starve because of green revolution of 1960s. How many million exactly starved to death as a result of Great Depression?

[cltrn81]

Let's expand more on govt providing social programs.  Now let's contrast two examples that involve similar economic situations at a macro scale.

First was the Great Depression in 1929.  The result of this economic collapse was starvation and utter misery and/or death for millions of people.

Next was the crash of 2009.  This debatably was just as bad of a crash.  One reason it can be debated as less of a crash is because of social welfare programs.  No one had to starve because of unemployment insurance and food programs.  Now would it have been fair for the children of those families to starve or even the adults who made the mistakes....or whatever the circumstance?  Maybe someone will say yes they should because what incentivizes them to succeed?  My answer would be the threat of failure is enough to empower people to succeed.....the reliance of social programs is just a form of safety net like insurance.  I don't go out and crash my car intentionally because I can make an insurance claim......just the same as someone with a decent job will not lose it intentionally just to go on food stamps.  Now sure people abuse the system and do infact go on unemployment or collect food stamps fraudulently and I do not support that......but the good it does out weigh the bad.  Just like some politicians are corrupt and some are not.  Corruption will occur in most situations....it's human nature when considering the macro side of things.

No, people did not starve because of green revolution of 1960s. How many million exactly starved to death as a result of Great Depression?

More than during the 2009 crash was all my point was stating.  It is actually pretty hard to find numbers on the death count attributed to starvation but even if it was in the tens of thousands.....it could have been avoided with proper social welfare programs.

http://history.stackexchange.com/questions/12297/how-many-people-in-the-us-starved-to-death-during-the-great-depression

[Piotr]

No, my point is that socialism is less damaging now than 100 years ago because technology of producing food and other wealth is much better now. Even with the scourge of socialism and subsequent financial crash caused by over regulation of the mortgage markets (Mac and Mae had government guarantees and 2/3 of the market, you cannot dispute these facts) no one starved.

[Piotr]

Following your link reveals that your claims of  starvation deaths during depression are coming from Soviet Union Pravda. The actual facts are that average length of human life in US during Great Depression objectively increased. How about that? :p

On the other hands, in places where socialism is fully implemented we had real starvation, real queuing, real famine.

[Piotr]

Perhaps I should stop using the term 'socialism and the likes' and replace it with 'Central planning'.