Casting Aspersions. It was not my intention to end the conversation by painting you as one who chooses to be a victim nor by painting your ideals as socialist. I was merely pointing out facts. Sometimes people are unaware of the hue that their philosophy has taken. I prefer to point these things out and make them visible. Should you still prefer to take those positions, it is your right.
Welfare. I agree that welfare is a scourge. Whether it is corporate or individual it has far greater potential harm than potential good. I believe that corporate and commercial welfare in all its forms should die.
In one of my few departures into socialism, I believe in minimal individual welfare. However I differ from the majority of socialists on a few points. Government welfare should not be a right nor an entitlement. It should be made available based on funding through private donations. People should be able to donate to a quasi-governmental organization like the Post Office. No general taxpayer funds should be involved.
Welfare should be in the form of loans. The money should be a debit against the individual and must be paid back. The money should be used for basic needs like shelter, food, clothing, transportation, health, or education. It should last no longer than two years (the time required for a two year degree or vocational school).
Dependency. The government does encourage dependency. It likes to play middleman. It likes to take money from the community and then redistribute the money back into the community. It makes people think that government is necessary in all sectors of life.
You're right about the government being dependent too. It is a social organism and like any other organism it seeks to grow and feed and reproduce. Since the government was given the right to tax corporations and personal incomes, it has developed a tremendous appetite. It also has the right to adjust the amount of taxes it takes in at any time. It's a prescription for disaster.
Taxes. The fact that taxation is worse in socialist countries does not change the fact that things are bad and getting worse here. It's time to put the moster on a diet. There is no good reason why the government should be able to tax and spend like it does. Much of our aggressive government problems would go away if the government had less money to spend in the first place.
Manifesto. Income (corporate and individual) taxes should be repealed and replaced with some form of sales tax. Make the tax one equal percentage across the board with no loopholes or exceptions. When people see the true cost of suporting the bloated government on each and every sales receipt, they will be mad as hell. And they won't want to take it anymore.
Live among the Living. Why do you continue living in a place where you must be a criminal to maintain yourself? Move away. Find a place you can afford, in a town that's growing. Vote with your feet. If enough people do this, the system there will collapse completely. Let it stop. You seem to be intelligent. Stop supporting the system that won't support you. There are better places.
Revenue. If you withheld every bit of your tax money from the government, it would not hurt it one iota. The government would still feed on the carcasses of your neighbors. It's not enough to be negative. You must make positive change. You must contribute to a better system. If government A is dying (or killing you slowly) move to government B. Build government B into prosperity.
Synergy. Government, business, and community SHOULD be integrated but not by law. It should happen because it is the best interest of everyone involved. Unfortunately, you can't legislate good behavior into existence. It won't work. You can punish bad behavior but that's where it ends. Trying to legislate good behavior always runs into UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.
You have to start with a good example and work to infect the rest of the community.
Price Fixing in California. The prices charged by the energy barons were originally set by the government. There were three categories of people in the energy chain - consumers, distributers, and producers. When it began deregulating, California started in the middle. The distributers were allowed to buy cheap energy from producers and sell at market prices to consumers. That combined with an underdeveloped supply. No new facilities had been started in ten years. In fact, no new applications had even been filed. Regulations were too tough. Everyone wanted someone else to deal with the problem.
So, now supply was too low. Producers were making power at fixed prices. Distributers were buying power and selling it at market prices to consumers. There was more consumer demand than supply. Utilities were forced to buy power at unusually high prices. The government did nothing. The utilities started going bankrupt. The government released controls on the utilities. Prices to businesses and redential customers went sky high. Demand price met supply price.
Meanwhile, in adjoining Oregon, Nevada and Arizona prices were still reasonable. Californians were not allowed to buy out-of-state energy. Finally the government allowed out-of-state purchase. The crisis abated.
The correct way to handle deregulation. Deregulate from the bottom upward. First allow the end consumer to buy power from any adjoining district, including out-of-state. Wait a couple years; allow utilities to buy power from any distributer, including out-of-state. Two years later, allow producers to sell at market prices. There will be enough supply to meet demand and prices will stay reasonable.
Accountability. The citizens of California and their socialist government in Sacramento will be protected from their folly for a long long time. California is blessed with good weather, good ports, and plenty of natural resources. The federal government continues to pour in aid money. Immigration pours in from Latin America and the Western Pacific. More socialists arrive from the heartland seeking the promised land Utopia. If you ever see the population growth of California reverse, you will know the fall is coming.
Living Within Means. It's a harsh thing to say, but most people who end up in the situation you describe are living beyond their means. If the income you have allows you to pay your bills and apply little or nothing to the future, you are living beyond your means. In general, people should live in smaller houses, drives smaller cars, and eat simpler. Instead, a combination of easy credit and inability to delay gratification allows people to get themselves in bad situations.
It's not the loss of job that causes the problem. The job loss is only the pin that releases the grenade. For 200 years, Americans have survived on much less than we have now. There's no good reason why we can't too.
Talk. Talking about the problem at least makes others aware of the situtation. And it can help to clarify the issues. The next step is form a committee!
Housing. The root cause of the housing bubble is an environment that encourages easy credit and speculation with no consequences for the lender or borrower. If a borrower gets in over his head, he can declare bankruptcy. Goodbye debt. Does this hurt the lender? Not unless a lot of people do it at the same time. Normally, the rate of bankruptcy is low enough that the lender can absorb the costs. Lenders know what this rate is.
They manage their portfolios with low, medium, and high risk investments. What is a mortgage loan? It's an investment by an institution. High risk investments produce high returns. If a risk goes bad, rates are raised on the low and medium investments. The bank never really takes a loss. It passes on the failures as the cost of doing business. It passes on the cost of doing business to the other loan takers. Banks, credit card companies and other lenders all play this game. That's why credit is so easy today.
The only peole who suffer are honest people who pay thier bills on time. They pay for everyone else's ride.
[ Parent ]