Imagine a world where the Government wasn't there to save you.

[Renae]

Imagine that.

Imagine no SS, no Medicare, no Medicaide, no unemployment, no CHIP, SNAP or any other program. No welfare, no food stamps, no section 8 housing.

Some would panic at this.

Imagine instead of these government programs, you had a retirement account that started with your first job, that you controlled and could pas on to your family should you pass.

Imagine a health savings account along the same lines. Health insurance was no longer "deductible and co-pay" driven but rather catastrophic/surgery coverage and if you died, that HSA could pass on to your loved ones.

Imagine you could put into an "unemployment account", that you controlled. I you didn't touch it, and hit 65, it just rolled into your retirement, if you pass before you use it, you could pass that too along to your family.

Imagine charitable organizations were in charge of the safety net. You could choose, much like the military does to have a portion of your paycheck go pre-tax to where you think your money should go to.

Taxes would be far less, and politicians wouldn't be able to promise your money, and your children's money in exchange for votes. Those who REALLY cared, could direct funding to where they saw fit, instead of it being sucked away and determined by faceless bureaucrats.

People would, yes, probably starve. There is the chance some child might go to sleep hungry. An old person, might go without a hot meal.

They shouldn't, there is no need for it, but that's reality of life.

I know some of you think this vision I have shared is a heartless one, a cruel one. A life where people are greedy individuals that only care about themselves, and the truly needy are forgotten! Just look at what happened in the 1800's! The early 20th Century!!!

Yes, back then everyone was fighting to survive, it's the 21st century, we can do it better.

Imagine, being responsible for your success and failure and knowing everyone else is responsible for their lives, and their families.

That's how things should be.

Government cannot give you, or anyone anything without first taking it from others.

(feel free to scream FIRE DEPT! Schools! Roads! 911! Cops! Military! all you want, the difference is those are entities to maintain society, and are general use, not personal, thus your argument is a logical fallacy, but feel free to go there if you wish)

 

[Jetboogieman]

And this is what John lennons Imagine WOULD have been if he was a far right conservative.

 

[ChunkySalsa]

Imagine 60 million low wage workers slowly starving to death with nothing to lose. Imagine every Walmart in the nation being stripped clean by angry mobs and then set on fire. Imagine the highways becoming unsafe as shipments of food and goods are ambushed by bandits. Imagine the heavily armed mercenaries stationed around skyscrapers to prevent acts of domestic terrorism.

Imagine Obama being given the authority to declare martial law.

 

[HonestJoe]

I know some of you think this vision I have shared is a heartless one, a cruel one. A life where people are greedy individuals that only care about themselves, and the truly needy are forgotten! Just look at what happened in the 1800's! The early 20th Century!!!

Yes, back then everyone was fighting to survive, it's the 21st century, we can do it better.

Why? What makes people now any better or more capable than those in the 19th and early 20th Centuries? You’ve given no reason why the system you propose wouldn’t have just as many negative consequences as they did then.

You’re arguing for a ridiculous extreme to deal with relatively minor problems. The wall was painted the wrong colour so knock the whole house down! There are plenty of issues and difficulties with welfare and social security, in principle and practice, but that is no good reason to throw the whole thing away.

 

[American]

Imagine 60 million low wage workers slowly starving to death with nothing to lose. Imagine every Walmart in the nation being stripped clean by angry mobs and then set on fire. Imagine the highways becoming unsafe as shipments of food and goods are ambushed by bandits. Imagine the heavily armed mercenaries stationed around skyscrapers to prevent acts of domestic terrorism.

Imagine Obama being given the authority to declare martial law.

That would never happen, because the 1% would have them put in death camps, right?

 

[Renae]

Imagine 60 million low wage workers slowly starving to death with nothing to lose. Imagine every Walmart in the nation being stripped clean by angry mobs and then set on fire. Imagine the highways becoming unsafe as shipments of food and goods are ambushed by bandits. Imagine the heavily armed mercenaries stationed around skyscrapers to prevent acts of domestic terrorism.

Imagine Obama being given the authority to declare martial law.

You really think that people are so pathetic that without hands outs from teh government they would all fail and die?

 

[Paxaeon]

That would never happen, because the 1% would have them put in death camps, right?

`
Not really. The 1% still needs slave labor and people to buy their shotty goods and services.

 

[Wiseone]

This is one of the most ****ed up things I've seen in a while.

 

[Renae]

This is one of the most ****ed up things I've seen in a while.

Why?

Seriously, why?

 

[GottaGo]

It's interesting how many people already live by some of those plans (other then being able to pass certain things on to family when they die) AND continue to pay taxes that support others.

We do without the finer things in life, we live below our means, we work our tails off to make it happen.

It's called personal responsibility. Some have it, some don't.

 

[Renae]

It's interesting how many people already live by some of those plans (other then being able to pass certain things on to family when they die) AND continue to pay taxes that support others.

We do without the finer things in life, we live below our means, we work our tails off to make it happen.

It's called personal responsibility. Some have it, some don't.

Some have it because they realize it's the only real path to prosperity and have enough self pride to not get sucked into the chains of dependency.

 

[Wiseone]

Why?

Seriously, why?

Because I dont believe between taxation and starvation that taxation is the greater evil

 

[Renae]

Because I dont believe between taxation and starvation that taxation is the greater evil

It's never a big deal when it's other peoples money you are taking. That's easy.

Did you read anything past the first couple of lines? Didn't think you did. In fact, I'm sure you missed where I cover how to make the social net work, but one that's voluntary and not enforced.

I believe that the real problem here is you think "taxation and social spending means I care". The destruction such caring has wrought on society is far worse then any of the supposed good it's done.

 

[Perotista]

Imagine that.

Imagine no SS, no Medicare, no Medicaide, no unemployment, no CHIP, SNAP or any other program. No welfare, no food stamps, no section 8 housing.

Some would panic at this.

Imagine instead of these government programs, you had a retirement account that started with your first job, that you controlled and could pas on to your family should you pass.

Imagine a health savings account along the same lines. Health insurance was no longer "deductible and co-pay" driven but rather catastrophic/surgery coverage and if you died, that HSA could pass on to your loved ones.

Imagine you could put into an "unemployment account", that you controlled. I you didn't touch it, and hit 65, it just rolled into your retirement, if you pass before you use it, you could pass that too along to your family.

Imagine charitable organizations were in charge of the safety net. You could choose, much like the military does to have a portion of your paycheck go pre-tax to where you think your money should go to.

Taxes would be far less, and politicians wouldn't be able to promise your money, and your children's money in exchange for votes. Those who REALLY cared, could direct funding to where they saw fit, instead of it being sucked away and determined by faceless bureaucrats.

People would, yes, probably starve. There is the chance some child might go to sleep hungry. An old person, might go without a hot meal.

They shouldn't, there is no need for it, but that's reality of life.

I know some of you think this vision I have shared is a heartless one, a cruel one. A life where people are greedy individuals that only care about themselves, and the truly needy are forgotten! Just look at what happened in the 1800's! The early 20th Century!!!

Yes, back then everyone was fighting to survive, it's the 21st century, we can do it better.

Imagine, being responsible for your success and failure and knowing everyone else is responsible for their lives, and their families.

That's how things should be.

Government cannot give you, or anyone anything without first taking it from others.

(feel free to scream FIRE DEPT! Schools! Roads! 911! Cops! Military! all you want, the difference is those are entities to maintain society, and are general use, not personal, thus your argument is a logical fallacy, but feel free to go there if you wish)

As a child of the 1950's, that was about what it was. Only social security was available back then. This was before medicare, medicaid and the rest. Yet we got along fine, no one died and no one starved. Charities like the red cross, jaycess, kawiniss, salvation army, and about ever church in the area along with schools had can, food, clothes drives for the poor or those who lost their jobs. Doctors made house calls and running up a tab with our local doctors wasn't a problem either. Some would do little things around his house or even trade some of the things they had to pay their bill. Then in town there was a free clinic for the poor where several local doctors would volunteer their time there.

Also the total budget for everything the government did was around 70 billion. There were even two years of budget surpluses in which the national debt actually went down from the previous year. People relied on each other, they gave of their time, energy and money to help other. They gave because they wanted to and not because the government mandated it. People believed in personal responsibility, that each should take care of themselves as best they could. If problems arose there was first family, the local community, neighbors, your church or school.

Today instead of people helping people all they do is send them down to the nearest government office. Instead of people donating their time, energy, money giving others a help hand, they send them down to the nearest government office. Are we better off? That depends on one perspective. I prefer the 1950's when everyone helped out each other to a time when most people pay taxes and then send those in need down to the nearest government office.

 

[Serenity]

And this is what John lennons Imagine WOULD have been if he was a far right conservative.

Curse them. We hates them. It’s ours, it is, and we wants it.

 

[American]

`
Not really. The 1% still needs slave labor and people to buy their shotty goods and services.

Yeah, I almost forgot.

 

[Ockham]

Imagine Obama being given the authority to declare martial law.

He already has that authority.

This is one of the most ****ed up things I've seen in a while.

I live in this world already... I'm investing and mentally writing of that SS will be there when I retire. I work, I pay my own way, never have I taken welfare or foodstamps nor would I unless faced with extreme conditions. Paying one's way without government cheese I realize is now a novel view but 30 years ago it was fairly common place and I can't see a reason to change my views. The one area which is a problem is medicare / medicaid. Our health system is bound to the core with these entitlements and while on one hand I can see they are needed - they are only needed because our system is so messed up. Instead of the boondoggle of bureaucracy, high costs, over charging, fraud etc in an insurance system that's NOT an insurance system but a payment system / plan... go back to individuals paying for GP healthcare and only paying for insurance for major health issues and define what those major health issues are. Costs will come down since docs get paid right away. I just broke a wrist - total cost was $6,500. If I had to pay out of pocket and the docs didn't have to go through all the overhead, my doc's opinion was it would probably cost a 1/3. However, I don't have a good idea how to uncouple medicare and medicaid... some type of system is needed and for lack of a better idea keeping them may be the best bet, though tweaking the system and how/when/costs are not out of the realm of possibility.

 

[MTAtech]

Some have it because they realize it's the only real path to prosperity and have enough self pride to not get sucked into the chains of dependency.

No, conservatives say they want people free and not dependent on govt. What it really is, is merely an excuse to justify selfishness.

Throughout most of human history the poor were left to starve and die in the streets and it didn't provide them the incentive to lift themselves out of poverty. Yet, conservatives contend the poor are worse off with government help.

This meme is thrust upon Americans to swallow which happens to serve the interests of the wealthy conservatives that benefit from those policies. Modern conservatism uses the smoke-screen of self-reliance, individualism and character to mask policies which are self-serving, bigoted and cruel. The cadre of conservative billionaires don't want to pay higher taxes that will be used to help "those people." Thus, they invent a myth that the best way to help the poor is to NOT provide them any help at all. This way, according to them, their misery will give the poor the incentive to become educated and industrious. Never mind this hasn't worked at any time in history. Incidentally, 6 in 10 of the wealthiest Americans got their money from inheritance, not hard work.

Their objective is to keep taxes on the rich low and keep government out of their hair. But these people's numbers are small, so they need to fund propaganda groups like the Heritage Foundation to create false data and spread the message to middle-class conservatives, who are generally stupid enough to swallow their lies. Thus the pro-life conservative-leaning worker who listens to Rush Limbaugh will repeatedly vote for the party that is less likely to protect his safety, less likely to protect his job, and less likely to benefit him economically.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Imagine that.

Imagine no SS, no Medicare, no Medicaide, no unemployment, no CHIP, SNAP or any other program. No welfare, no food stamps, no section 8 housing.

I don't have to imagine it - I've seen it first-hand in third-world nations.

Has it ever occurred to you that all the first-world nations - where life is best - share certain things in common? They all have the high effective taxes, strong regulation, and strong social safety nets you obviously despise.

On the other hand, every nation that DOES have most of what you describe above are third-world nations.

Do you really think all that is simply a coincidence, that the nations with what you think we should get rid of are the most successful nations in human history, yet the nations who do not have those things are the ones with so great a percentage of their populations in poverty?

You're simply arguing against success, and arguing that we should reshape our nation into having the same kind of structure (or lack thereof) as third-world nations.

 

[Wiseone]

It's never a big deal when it's other peoples money you are taking. That's easy.

Did you read anything past the first couple of lines? Didn't think you did. In fact, I'm sure you missed where I cover how to make the social net work, but one that's voluntary and not enforced.

I believe that the real problem here is you think "taxation and social spending means I care". The destruction such caring has wrought on society is far worse then any of the supposed good it's done.

Hey brother I pay my taxes as well, don't act as if I don't expect to pay for it as well.

 

[Moot]

It's never a big deal when it's other peoples money you are taking. That's easy.

Did you read anything past the first couple of lines? Didn't think you did. In fact, I'm sure you missed where I cover how to make the social net work, but one that's voluntary and not enforced.

I believe that the real problem here is you think "taxation and social spending means I care". The destruction such caring has wrought on society is far worse then any of the supposed good it's done.

Everybody operates out of self interest. A single mom with three kids gets foodstamps out of self interest. A CEO avoids paying taxes out of self interest. A rich man gets cancer and donates to cancer research out of self interest. A crook robs a bank out of self interest. A man or woman work hard to pay for the little luxuries in life out of self interest. A government spends too much on defense out of self interest. People lobby the government out of self interest. People believe what they want out of self interest. Everyone is just a libertarian at heart.

People have been saying that society is the worst it's ever been ever since the first society began.

 

[jaeger19]

As a child of the 1950's, that was about what it was. Only social security was available back then. This was before medicare, medicaid and the rest. Yet we got along fine, no one died and no one starved. Charities like the red cross, jaycess, kawiniss, salvation army, and about ever church in the area along with schools had can, food, clothes drives for the poor or those who lost their jobs. Doctors made house calls and running up a tab with our local doctors wasn't a problem either. Some would do little things around his house or even trade some of the things they had to pay their bill. Then in town there was a free clinic for the poor where several local doctors would volunteer their time there.

Also the total budget for everything the government did was around 70 billion. There were even two years of budget surpluses in which the national debt actually went down from the previous year. People relied on each other, they gave of their time, energy and money to help other. They gave because they wanted to and not because the government mandated it. People believed in personal responsibility, that each should take care of themselves as best they could. If problems arose there was first family, the local community, neighbors, your church or school.

Today instead of people helping people all they do is send them down to the nearest government office. Instead of people donating their time, energy, money giving others a help hand, they send them down to the nearest government office. Are we better off? That depends on one perspective. I prefer the 1950's when everyone helped out each other to a time when most people pay taxes and then send those in need down to the nearest government office.

no offense but that's because of two reasons... number one.. you were a child then... so you see that time through the eyes of a child. I don't mean to be offensive, because I respect your posts.. but people are interesting when they wax nostalgic... they forget that during those times.. you could be hanged if you were the wrong color on the wrong side of the street. They forget that people DID starve, old people did die much earlier.. the life span was much shorter. They forget that polio peaked in the 40's and 50's and would paralyze or kill about 500,000 people a year. They forget that it was a common occurrence for a wife to get a beating from her husband and for society to accept this. Heck, into the sixties, when my mom went to cash her OWN CHECK, the bank required her to get an okay from my dad before she was allowed to get cash rather than deposit the whole thing.
They forget that taxes WERE much higher.. so on and so forth.



The reality is that these social safety nets did not come about in a vacuum, they did not come about because of people "trying to buy votes" either.. they came about because society was changing, and continues to change and the systems that were in place then... were not sufficient for the changing country.

 

[Wiseone]

As a child of the 1950's, that was about what it was. Only social security was available back then. This was before medicare, medicaid and the rest. Yet we got along fine, no one died and no one starved. Charities like the red cross, jaycess, kawiniss, salvation army, and about ever church in the area along with schools had can, food, clothes drives for the poor or those who lost their jobs. Doctors made house calls and running up a tab with our local doctors wasn't a problem either. Some would do little things around his house or even trade some of the things they had to pay their bill. Then in town there was a free clinic for the poor where several local doctors would volunteer their time there.

Also the total budget for everything the government did was around 70 billion. There were even two years of budget surpluses in which the national debt actually went down from the previous year. People relied on each other, they gave of their time, energy and money to help other. They gave because they wanted to and not because the government mandated it. People believed in personal responsibility, that each should take care of themselves as best they could. If problems arose there was first family, the local community, neighbors, your church or school.

Today instead of people helping people all they do is send them down to the nearest government office. Instead of people donating their time, energy, money giving others a help hand, they send them down to the nearest government office. Are we better off? That depends on one perspective. I prefer the 1950's when everyone helped out each other to a time when most people pay taxes and then send those in need down to the nearest government office.

You also had about a quarter of the US living in poverty as well

File:Number in Poverty and Poverty Rate 1959 to 2011. United States..PNG - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And you had a sizable portion of the population living as second class citizens who were excluded from normal activities including government

 

[Perotista]

no offense but that's because of two reasons... number one.. you were a child then... so you see that time through the eyes of a child. I don't mean to be offensive, because I respect your posts.. but people are interesting when they wax nostalgic... they forget that during those times.. you could be hanged if you were the wrong color on the wrong side of the street. They forget that people DID starve, old people did die much earlier.. the life span was much shorter. They forget that polio peaked in the 40's and 50's and would paralyze or kill about 500,000 people a year. They forget that it was a common occurrence for a wife to get a beating from her husband and for society to accept this. Heck, into the sixties, when my mom went to cash her OWN CHECK, the bank required her to get an okay from my dad before she was allowed to get cash rather than deposit the whole thing.
They forget that taxes WERE much higher.. so on and so forth.



The reality is that these social safety nets did not come about in a vacuum, they did not come about because of people "trying to buy votes" either.. they came about because society was changing, and continues to change and the systems that were in place then... were not sufficient for the changing country.

Yeah, I understand. Back then in the 50's we were still a majority rural population too. I was born and raised on a farm. I read the other day where this nation is now 88% urban. Talk about a change. I never went into the big city as a kid, so what I talked about was on the farm and in town which had a population of around 500. I remember going to school back in the 50's to get my oral polio vaccination and we were always tested for TB. Sure we had a lot wrong, but it is that way in any era. But I can honestly say no one around where I lived starved or died due to lack of a doctor even if they could never pay for it. It was that way around where I grew up.

But you are right about remembering all the good stuff and forgetting the bad. To be honest I do long for the days of Ozzie and Harriet, Leave it to Beaver, Father Knows Best. Yes, society has changed, some for the better, some for the worst. But nothing stays the same. Everything is impermanent. The world turns and time marches on.

 

[Perotista]

You also had about a quarter of the US living in poverty as well

File:Number in Poverty and Poverty Rate 1959 to 2011. United States..PNG - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And you had a sizable portion of the population living as second class citizens who were excluded from normal activities including government

I was alive when Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier in baseball. I can still remember the negro leagues. My family wasn't rich, we still used the old outhouse and didn't get indoor plumbing until I was around 12. I never thought anything about taking my weekly bath in an galvanized wash tub. But of course one had to go into town to get indoor plumbing, most farms around where I lived didn't have it. We were one of the first. But we had electricity and an old wood burning furnace and stove. Still we were very happy. But as a kid I never had to worry about making ends meet. But for me, that was one beautiful time.