[bassetman]

Originally Posted by Mulder

Actually, its you had your ilk that have changed it--taken it away from its Constitutional moorings, its family values, its religious underpinnings.

You'd do well to study Sweden--the great socialist experiment. Half the children are born out of wedlock and they completely lost any sense of family because the government coddles them cradle to grave--the government has become their famile--that's the country you love and that's how you see this county, but that's not the United States of Americe envisioned by the founding fathers--far from it.

The Swedish economy
With an area of 450,000 km2 (174,000 sq.mi.), Sweden is one of the largest countries in Western Europe. It has only 9 million inhabitants, however. This is equivalent to 20 inhabitants per square kilometer (slightly more than 50 per sq. mi.).
Like other relatively small industrialized countries, Sweden is highly dependent on international trade to maintain its high productivity and good living standards. In 2003, exports were equivalent to 44% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The most important export markets are in Western Europe. More than half of Swedish exports go to other members of the European Union (EU).

Although Sweden is a relatively small country, its economy is unusually diversified. Traditional industries based on its two most important raw material resources—iron ore and wood—still play an important role, but the engineering industry and high-technology sectors have grown in significance. Few other countries of Sweden’s size have their own aviation and nuclear power industries as well as domestic automotive manufacturers, an advanced war materiel industry, a globally leading telecommunications industry and major pharmaceutical and medical research capabilities. Sweden is also a pacesetting country in such areas of information technology (IT) as software development, microelectronics, telematics and photonics.

Obviously the development of such an advanced, differentiated industrial structure would not have been possible if these products had only been sold in the domestic market. By expanding internationally, Swedish companies have been able to spread their research and development (R&D) costs over a larger production volume, thereby efficiently carving out their own niches.

...http://www.sweden.se/templates/cs/Ba...t____2636.aspx

[bassetman]

Originally Posted by Gibble

Dumb, Dumb?

How many starving people do you know? Honestly. How many people in the US died from starvation last year?

Find me some numbers.

Some of us aren't getting paid to surf, but here ya go.

Homelessness and Hunger in the USA
The US is the richest country on earth. Millions of people around the world dream of coming to this “land of opportunity”. A land where everyone has a good, fun job and lots of friends; where everyone has a nice tan and perfect hair; and everyone is free to pursue his or her personal interests, unfettered by worries about money, housing, jobs, etc. At least that’s what the majority of sitcoms and movies portray. The reality is far different. As reported by Black Press USA in a study of 25 major cities in 2003:

61 percent of people requesting emergency food assistance held jobs.
Requests for emergency food assistance increased by an average of 17 percent over the previous year, and requests for emergency shelter assistance increased by an average of 13 percent. Last year, there was an 11 percent leap in families with children requesting food, from 48 percent in 2002 to 59 percent.

A record 56 percent of cities had to turn people away without help from food assistance programs, up 24 percent over the previous year. More than 14 percent of the requests for emergency food assistance are estimated to have gone unmet over the past year.

A record 84 percent of cities had to turn away people from homeless shelters because of lack of space, up 38 percent over 2002 and the largest percentage in seven years. Fifteen percent of the requests from families were not met.

Twenty cities reported that unemployment and unemployment-related problems were the leading causes of hunger. Overriding causes of hunger in 13 cities were attributed to low-paying jobs and in 11 cities, rising housing costs.

Twenty-three cities said the lack of affordable housing contributed to homelessness. Other major causes included low-paying jobs, lack of needed services, mental illness or substance abuse problems.

People remained homeless for an average of five months in the survey cities with 60 percent of the cities reporting that the length of homelessness time increased over the past year. Single men made up 41 percent of the homeless population, families with children made up 40 percent, single women, 14 percent and independent youth, 5 percent.

...http://www.socialistappeal.org/usa/h..._in_the_u.html

[bill.aam]

Welcome to the website of the Workers International League and Socialist Appeal. We encourage our readers to learn more about us, and to contact us about joining the WIL. Be sure to check out the WIL FAQ for more on our view of a wide variety of topics! Also be sure to take a look at the new Marxist Education Plan. Please consider making a donation to help support the ideas of revolutionary Marxism in the US and internationally. Issue 23 of Socialist Appeal Now Available.

The above is from Bassetman source for his Homeless and Hunger...

Originally Posted by bassetman

Some of us aren't getting paid to surf, but here ya go.

Homelessness and Hunger in the USA
The US is the richest country on earth. Millions of people around the world dream of coming to this “land of opportunity”. A land where everyone has a good, fun job and lots of friends; where everyone has a nice tan and perfect hair; and everyone is free to pursue his or her personal interests, unfettered by worries about money, housing, jobs, etc. At least that’s what the majority of sitcoms and movies portray. The reality is far different. As reported by Black Press USA in a study of 25 major cities in 2003:

61 percent of people requesting emergency food assistance held jobs.
Requests for emergency food assistance increased by an average of 17 percent over the previous year, and requests for emergency shelter assistance increased by an average of 13 percent. Last year, there was an 11 percent leap in families with children requesting food, from 48 percent in 2002 to 59 percent.

A record 56 percent of cities had to turn people away without help from food assistance programs, up 24 percent over the previous year. More than 14 percent of the requests for emergency food assistance are estimated to have gone unmet over the past year.

A record 84 percent of cities had to turn away people from homeless shelters because of lack of space, up 38 percent over 2002 and the largest percentage in seven years. Fifteen percent of the requests from families were not met.

Twenty cities reported that unemployment and unemployment-related problems were the leading causes of hunger. Overriding causes of hunger in 13 cities were attributed to low-paying jobs and in 11 cities, rising housing costs.

Twenty-three cities said the lack of affordable housing contributed to homelessness. Other major causes included low-paying jobs, lack of needed services, mental illness or substance abuse problems.

People remained homeless for an average of five months in the survey cities with 60 percent of the cities reporting that the length of homelessness time increased over the past year. Single men made up 41 percent of the homeless population, families with children made up 40 percent, single women, 14 percent and independent youth, 5 percent.

...http://www.socialistappeal.org/usa/h..._in_the_u.html

[valis]

Originally Posted by Gabriel

It is a very well honed character defect, Valis...and useful in cases like Champ

Yeah, it's pretty well tuned up. However, it sort of runs constantly, and the wife is, shall we say, a very very patient woman.

v

[peril0us]

Would you like him to get his information from the pro-fascism site? I doubt many sites would publish those appalling statistics - no pro-bush sites would.

[Gibble]

Originally Posted by peril0us

You should research where the money from the social program is going to in the new budget.

Do you think social programs would be most efficient if the government lowered taxes greatly and pulled out of all social systems and let the communities donate to them? I can just picture the people starving on the street.

Define greatly. If people have more money because of less taxes...why would they be starving? They can afford more food! Thus, less aid is needed.

Originally Posted by peril0us

I couldnt find an up-to-date statistic but with government run aid 100% of citizens donate (taxes). With volunteer donations the statistic will be significantly lower.

That means nothing.

Originally Posted by peril0us

http://www.cbpp.org/8-11-05socsec.htm

Ah yes...social security...a program you obviously fail to realize the accounting behind. There's an entire thread on the reasons why it's failing elsewhere, and there's no point getting into it here. But suffice it to say, the alternatives, are superior to the current handling of the system.

[peril0us]

Originally Posted by Gibble

Define greatly. If people have more money because of less taxes...why would they be starving? They can afford more food! Thus, less aid is needed.

Greatly - Whatever % of tax that goes to social aid is cut off...

People in poverty have greatly reduced taxation to start with so how would they benefit directly from this?

[Gibble]

Why is it, the only place you libs can find statistics to support your claims is the media? Why is it you never find the data from the source?

Ah...that's right, because the data would expose the manipulation of the statistics you present.

[peril0us]

What source would you prefer? I just googled it and took the first stats i found. I am not american and dont have a clue what american company does the statistics.

[Gibble]

Originally Posted by peril0us

Greatly - Whatever % of tax that goes to social aid is cut off...

People in poverty have greatly reduced taxation to start with so how would they benefit directly from this?

Remember the articles explaining how well off the poor are. How most have several televisions, cable or satellite, two cars, etc, etc...maybe those requiring assistance, don't need cable. Maybe they could work a second job to get ahead. Hell, I went without cable when I was young, my dad couldn't afford it, he chose to feed and clothe us rather than have a luxury. what a shocker, a responsible adult thinking of necessities first! He worked a second job on the site (running an auto repair business out of the home garage)

He did what it took.

Another interesting thing, is the reserach that defines if people are "poor" or not is skewed. My friend. By a simple definition, would be considered living in poverty. He doesn't own a house, he's currently collecting unemployment for the winter, allthough he will be the first to admit he could find a job tomorrow if he wanted to. His worldly posessions consist of a truck, computer, desk, bed, some clothes, and oh...tens of thousands in the bank. Yearly, he makes less than the poverty line...but it's by choice. If they cut of his checks tomorrow, he'd have a job by Monday. This "poor" unemployed guy has more money in the bank than most people make in a year. But would the research show that? Heck no.

Why don't alot of people own cars? Not because they can't afford one. They simply don't need one. They take the bus, walk, bike, or whatever to get to work. Alot of people who rent instead of owning homes do so by choice. The like the idea of not having to worry about repairs, it being someone elses concern. But do the statistics take that choice people make into account? Nope.

Statistics are a weak science, they are inexact, and easily manipulated...and you fall for it, you believe everything the media says without digging deeper.

I'm not saying nobody is truly poor...or that nobody is straving. But merely looking at who is collecting gov't checks, or using gov't programs is misleading as alot of people are merely playing the system.

[peril0us]

Statistics are a weak science, they are inexact, and easily manipulated...and you fall for it, you believe everything the media says without digging deeper.

I dont 'fall' for anything. Its the point behind them. There could be 5%, or 2% of truely poor people. The article provided examples of people who were getting their source of aid cut off courtesy of bush.

I do see your point about abusers though. If aid was on a community level abusing it would be much more difficult.

[Gibble]

Originally Posted by peril0us

What source would you prefer? I just googled it and took the first stats i found. I am not american and dont have a clue what american company does the statistics.

Did school teach you anything? Did you ever learn how to do research. Holy crap.

Let's pretend I don't know how to get unemployment statistics....
I go to google, I type in "united states unemployment statistics" and wow...first link the "United States Bureau of Labor Statistics"...and wow, the .gov suggests it's a US gov't site. Clickity click, US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Sweet jebus...that looks like it might contain pretty authoritative and accurate information.

I mean...really, you have grey matter, use it!

[peril0us]

Originally Posted by Gibble

Did school teach you anything? Did you ever learn how to do research. Holy crap.

Not on political information.

Originally Posted by Gibble

Let's pretend I don't know how to get unemployment statistics....
I go to google, I type in "united states unemployment statistics" and wow...first link the "United States Bureau of Labor Statistics"...and wow, the .gov suggests it's a US gov't site. Clickity click, US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Sweet jebus...that looks like it might contain pretty authoritative and accurate information.

I mean...really, you have grey matter, use it!

Unemployment statistics is a very simple example! Try finding stats for seniors collecting social aid - i couldnt, though they must be out there somewhere.

[Gibble]

Originally Posted by peril0us

I dont 'fall' for anything. Its the point behind them. There could be 5%, or 2% of truely poor people. The article provided examples of people who were getting their source of aid cut off courtesy of bush.

I do see your point about abusers though. If aid was on a community level abusing it would be much more difficult.

So, if on a community level, abuse becomes more difficult, it would stand to reason the cost to society would be less. And if the cost to society to provide for the non-abusers is less...wouldn't that be a good thing?

Yes, their current source is cut off by the aid cut by Bush...but that doesn't mean there aren't alternatives. That's what's so great about capitalism...there's rarely a monopoly on anything, and always an alternative. If my grocery store explodes, I won't starve because my current source of food is gone...there's another across the street.

Now, if aid's cut to some elderly person, I'm sure she has friends or family...now those people see there's a need, what's stopping them starting a food drive and a local event to get food for these people. Heck, we have it all the time at sporting events and such, where they encourage people to "bring a tin for the bin" and the collected food is donated to local food banks. Or hold a social to raise money...heck, we do that all the time too. I'm going to go out on the weekend anyhow, why not pay $10 for a ticket to a social, drink, have some fun, and raise money for a good cause. I was going to spend that money anyhow, it's nothing more out of my pocket, only instead of it going to a business, it's going to a charity that supports a food bank.

So my point is, if you agree having it community run is more efficient, why are you complaining the gov't cut the program? That move forces the communities to get involved, and helps people, while it costs society less, and lets the gov't focus on improving the economy with our tax dollars which cuts at the CAUSE of the problem, not merely the symptoms.

[Gibble]

Originally Posted by peril0us

Not on political information.

wow...did they have to teach you the difference between researching pandas, and bananas as well? Research is research. Start with what you know, and work from there.

Originally Posted by peril0us

Unemployment statistics is a very simple example! Try finding stats for seniors collecting social aid - i couldnt, though they must be out there somewhere.

Well, perhaps you're starting to broad of a search. Pick a single form of social aid you know of. Start with that program's site. Then move onto the next, and the next.