/sci/ - Science & Math

They've always been rich, even before they were Socialistic.

It's not.

bc ikea products have a high profit margin. next question.

Who says socialism is bad? Isn't that why we helped those poor bankers? And the savings and loan thing, that was a tragedy, had to bail some folks out there. And the oil companies would be flat broke without tax breaks you and I cover.

Socialism is great.

Hey socialists.

If capitalism is so bad, why is America so.... wait shit.

>>3529000

>implying America, the UK, and every top economy hasn't been socialist since it's conception

>derp corn laws, derp trade tariffs, derp Railways land grants and subsidies, derp oil subsidies, derp pharmaceutical patents, derp minimum wage laws, child labor laws, derp safety regulation, derp anti-trust laws, derp anti-monopoly laws, derp

are you guys fucken stupid? No successful country has ever used real capitalism, because it sucks and competition ends up killing most of your industries if they aren't ready....

Socialism is #1, tried and tested
Communism (completely unfree markets) is an extreme that doesn't work, just like capitalism (completely free markets)

>>3529000

Hey OP, if sweden is so successful then why does nobody at all give a fuck about sweden (not even sweden)?

Sweden isn't socialist. Socialism as defined by Marx is stateless. Sweden is a state regulated capitalist system.

>>3529092
>implying anything Marx said matters and isn't vague gibberish

>>3529105
> adam smith
ftfy

>>3529092

It's called a Social democracy

How do you measure success? How do you weigh the various things that might contribute? To me, the enjoyment of personal freedom is part of success and this is incompatible with a socialistic system.

Socialism is bad in more than one way, but most importantly it is a coercive and evil system. No amount of your "success" can cure this.

>>3529109

he made pretty simple observations that were overlooked in his time and set the foundation for modern economics

a lot more than what Marx did which was just spout inane class-warfare propoganda

>>3529116
lol personal freedom. Sure is America in here.

>>3529129
Really? I thought it was getting pretty Benin personally. I don't know, it's still a bit chaotic since the Saint Kitts and Nevis blew through.

Because it is capitalism, the money to pay for all their social programs comes from taxing the free market.

>>3529121
> I've never read Marx
lol k

>>3529116

The freedom of being able to screw people over? The freedom to be born in a poor family and not being able to achieve anything in life?
The freedom to die if you can't afford medical treatment?

>>3529080
Because we don't fuck shit up.

I have no idea why companies in Sweden willingly work to have most of their money given away

>>3529149
that only provides evidence that a balance of free market, and government institution is the ideal solution.

Sweden is successful because it's incredibly homogenous. If it were full of blacks leeching off the system it would collapse.

Oh I see Islam is at 5% of the population. You guys are screwed.

>>3529168
I'm sorry. I don't understand what you are talking about. Does this list of spurious "freedoms" have anything to do with my post?

>>3529249
So its because white people are charitable and willing to work despite having most of their income taken away?

>>3529249
What.
There are loads of leechers in Sweden, Swedish leechers.

>>3529264

Sort of but you're missing the homogeneous bit. I wouldn't mind working to benefit other white people because there's a level of societal trust -- I know most others are also working to benefit me.

Now Sweden is 5% Muslim. It's almost doubled since 2000. In 20 years Muslims will be a big enough drain that people will think "Fuck this, I don't want to help them a bunch of people who want to kill me."

I don't know from where I stand, US is more socialist than some countries who claim to be communist. There is welfare, no job, can't work, here some money, shitty plant, here subsidize, high fuel price, subsidize, among other things. I'm familiar with China and Vietnam, the ones who claim to be communist socialist, don't have job, can't work, good luck, no money for you, high fuel cost, try walking or cycling, shitty plant, lol, that'll teach you to not be stupid next time. Yeah, it's a tough world out there American, try to put everything in a little perspective.

Interesting numbers:

HDI Rankings 2010

1. Norway
2. Australia
3. New Zealand
4. USA
5. Ireland
6. Liechtenstein
7. Netherlands
8. Canada
9. Sweden

External Debt/GDP Ratio of the top 9 HDI

1. Luxembourg 3443%
2. Ireland 1103%
3. Norway 538%
4. Netherlands 471%
5. Australia 229%
6. Sweden 187%
7. New Zealand 124%
8. USA 95%
9. Canada 64%

>>3529284
I know a dude who would be considered a muslim.
He's one of the smartest guys I've met, his two brothers are civil engineers who both studied at RIT.

The notion of muslims as lazy is ridicolous, I'd imagine that it's quite the opposite.
Though we do get an amount of shitheads it's not that huge.
There are loads of Swedish shitheads too.

>>3529292
Your HDI rankings sucks.
You don't count in inequality:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_inequality-adjusted_HDI

Wow, Norway is now placed 1st, Sweden third and the US 12th!
Impressive.

I've got nothing to say about our debts though.

>>3529292

>ratio
>percent

wut?

Swedish dude here:
Sorry, gotta go now, it's 5 in the morning adn I'm going to bed.

>>3529304
Income inequality has nothing to do with prosperity or quality of life. This is one of those leftist fictions, where we pretend that being envious and spiteful that some other people have more money than you is somehow lowering your standard of living.

>>3529296

It's not just about economic productivity. Your Muslim buddy probably gives more to Muslim charities than other charities. If he's interviewing or helping evaluate interviews he's looking out for his Muslim brothers. When there's a Muslim extremist he's more likely to say "but that's free speech" than when someone else is saying "burn the koran and fuck mohammed".

It's a natural consequence of being a minority that doesn't wish to assimilate. They create a bubble and people outside that bubble resent them. Muslims are particularly bad because of the tendency towards radicalism and extremism, but I think most minorities would cause a problem eventually.

Sweden actually makes me question socialism
They're kind of gay

I saw somewhere that people are nicer in colder climates and angrier in hotter climates

Wouldn't describe myself as capitalist, nor socialist. But this is my honest go at it:

In the United States the welfare system is flawed. Once somebody goes on welfare, the profit motive disappears; a part-time job cancels their benefits and they come home with less pay, a minimum-wage job cancels their benefits and leaves them with less pay. As such, in the United States, use of welfare leads to abuse of welfare, use leads to dependence, and so Americans typically have a very negative view towards 'socialist' ends. In Sweden however (and the same applies to Norway, and to a lesser extent, Finland and Denmark), the profit motive never disappears. In Sweden, you can get a part time job, and your welfare doesn't disappear, and you can supplement your income. Regardless of your troubles, you can start to rebuild your financial history and move your way back to solvency and self-sufficiency. Now of course, there are some abusers, but this is actually less than the United States. The profit motive is always there, the maximization of value always motivates people on social assistance to get a job.

In short, Sweden's welfare state can be so extensive, while fending off abuse, BECAUSE it's capitalist. Because maximizing profit in Sweden always coincides with getting a job and bettering yourself. American social assistance, despite its minimalist structure, neglects these motivations, and so some might say, strays farther from capitalist ideology.

>>3529354
The welfare system in the United States is aimed at helping the children of the recipient to better themselves. Not the recipient themselves.

>>3529378

Aimed.

>>3529354

Yeah. I agree. We should have a negative income tax.

I believe in the US, the food stamp program was originally designed in such a way that how many food stamps you got was dependent on your income. At some point it changed to a system where if you didnt make enough money the government just gave you a fixed amount of food stamps. Thats an incentive to earn just below that amount.

>>3529378
The success of a child is dependent entirely on the success of the parent. A parent on welfare cannot afford send that kid to college or properly aid him on his growth to adulthood.

words

>>3529391

Not the success of the parent, the motivation of the parent. Growing up and not being a thug and not being a welfare queen doesn't take rich parents, it takes involved parents.

>>3529378

in other words we give the irresponsible money to spend irresponsibly

>inb4 you state omg but like a widow didn't choose that her husband died like that is the only group who receives welfare

>>3529391
Children with lower income families have plenty of opportunities to go to college.
Its also in the parent's best interest that they do not become "thugs" so they will not get their welfare taken away.

>>3529399
Remove parents, upbringing or personal ethics off the table.

How do you design a wellfare system designed to support people in need of temporary assistance- that motivates them to have reach self-sustenance, and minimizes exploitation?

I think some form of reward system would work, but should be unnecessary. I know plenty of people who needed foodstamps for a few months due to losing work or something and never needed it again.

>>3529399
Except going on welfare almost guarantees abuse because of the way its designed. Which was the point.

>>3529421
>>3529423

I think the negative income tax would be a good welfare idea. It wouldnt cost much to implement, and it also wouldnt discourage people from getting off welfare. Just throwing that out there.

>>3529378
Okay. Lets take that as given, just for the sake of the argument. How does that change anything I said in that post? How does a system that seems designed to generate abuse of that system help the kids of the people who end up in such situations that require welfare? How does falling into a system of dependence help your kids? Unless you're just being pedantic and not trying to address the point of the post, I fail to see the counter-argument.

I think welfare is a necessary evil.
People who are on welfare don't know how to work and will probably never work. If they don't get welfare their families will turn to crime to survive.
In the end it costs society more to not have welfare.

>>3529434
Milton Friedman proposed a flat-tax-plus-refund system that would never remove the profit motive, and even in a revenue neutral scenario would save the government millions just in the paperwork involved with taxes.

The net income for someone in such a system would be a straight line with a slope of one less the tax rate, but plus an offset such that at zero gross you'd take home some money still.

>>3529451

i'd rather throw them in a jail system in which they grow their own food and place their kids in foster homes then let people leech off the system

>>3529468
I'm glad you'll never be in charge of a justice system

>>3529462

link?

>>3529462

Maybe thats the negative income tax. Milton Friedman is famously associated with the NIT, he probably came up with it.

>>3529470

shut up leech

>>3529482

How do poor people leech off the system exactly?

As far as I can tell, its just because we have welfare, which is our own damn fault since the government/society chooses to give them welfare.

>Here is a $1
>thanks
>OMG LEECH ON SOCIETY GO2 PRISON NAO

>>3529421

Maybe you can't design such a system. Maybe it's best, money wise, to just say fuck it. If you encourage success and punish failure then eventually things get sorted out, and in the meantime everybody is more free.

>>3529468
Well I might be a bit bias
But my parents rent home to welfare recipients
The parents are lazy and all but they have kids that show promise so they will probably brake the vicious cycle
I think the system works

>>3529490

"our own damn fault since the government/society chooses to give them welfare."

no not my fault didn't vote for people who give straight checks to the "underprivileged"

But I don't understand your situation as you successfully stated how people leech off the system. But it's more like hey guize im poor and i gotz some mistakes(mai children) can i haz 1 doll hair.

>>3529514
Welfare only accounts for a minuscule part of the GDP and people who choose it don't live in luxury or anything.
I don't see what the big deal is.

>>3529514

Well then dont give them any doll hairs if you are so upset. If you gave them a contract that said "Youll get money from me, and inexchange I get to treat you like property" it would be different.

>>3529529

Its about 4.5 billion dollars. Which is about 1/30th of GDP

>>3529502

Hopefully they do. A child needs to recognize that his parents are lazy if they are lazy. They also need to recognize that certain consequences come with it such as not getting a new bike. If we let parents buy their kids indulgences without admitting to the kids that the parents are lazy or made horrible mistakes such as not planning financially for a child. They need to know that it isn't poor class stays poor for life. It was their parents decision alone that brought them to their current state.

>>3529529

Sitting home all day watching tv and bitching with your fat black friends is living in luxury if you have a limited imagination.

>>3529531

Umm you do understand that taxes are obligatory and that the government creates budgets, not me an individual?
And no if we're saying that welfare is truly there for the sole interest of the child then why do parents get to benefit off of it.

>>3529540
Well its probably higher now because of the 10% unemployment

>>3529554

I'm the one arguing against the current state of welfare. Most the leeches I know are white, but I don't in a city.

>>3529561

>Umm you do understand that taxes are obligatory and that the government creates budgets, not me an individual?

Yeah I understand. I dont mean to ignore that point. But, it still doesnt make it the poor persons fault. It just means you should take this problem to the government, and not the recipient.

>>3529563

Oh fuck I mean to say 450 billion not 4.5. And the number I remember was from 2008 I think, for whatever that is worth.

Remember when this thread was about Sweden?

>>3529573

State me a situation where it isn't the poor persons fault aside from widowed spouse.
I understand food stamps in the case of helping a family. I don't understand straight checks that go to whatever someone wants to spend it on.
I'm against the leniency we give to people to use money that they state they need so bad.
I believe that the money should be given via government debit card. I know that fraud could occur in this system buying shit then selling it in the street and then spending their newly acquired free money to buy whatever they want. But at least we could identify fraud easier this way

>>3529573
A huge chunk of your figure is medicare
And a huge chunk was spent for unemployed people looking for work

>>3529607

Any economy thread derails into U.S. economy thread, but anyway how hard is swedish immigration

>>3529617

>State me a situation where it isn't the poor persons fault aside from widowed spouse.

What I mean is that, its not their fault they are offered welfare. If someone said they would give you $20, no strings attached, you would take it. Anyone would.

>I understand food stamps in the case of helping a family. I don't understand straight checks that go to whatever someone wants to spend it on.

The idea is that poor people know what to do with the money better than the government does. And if you are giving money, you need a regulating agency that costs money.

>I know that fraud could occur in this system buying shit then selling it in the street and then spending their newly acquired free money to buy whatever they want.

What would be wrong with that?

>>3529620

I thought medicare wasnt included. But I dont remember exactly. Ill double check

Sweden roughly has the same population as North Carolina, or NYC and half of Long Island.

What works for such a small group isn't going to work for 35 times that population.

Okay I just double checked. Welfare in 2009 was 400 billion. It doesnt include medicare. And it was particularly high in 2009.

I think the government is like a parent
If they're absent(libertarians) you'll be a failure and if you're given everything (communism) you'll grow up to be a failure too.
So you have to find a middle ground

>>3529015
sweden don't get a dime of ikea profit, think he moved it to switzerland or something to escape taxes

>>3529644

I would not take it if it wasn't given charitably and was instead taken out of someone else's paycheck. My grandma was recently divorced with custody of 3 kids. She had the option of going on welfare for an amount more than she would make working. She didn't go on welfare and instead went to work because she had the ability to work. This is in the 70s when women were also not as privileged in the workforce. I have grown up with this wonderful role model in my life and I'm truly glad for it.
My mom continued to work her way through college. she became an accountant and continually worked her way up the ladder being granted higher income along the way. Her major is in business so she obtained management positions. Glad to have her in my life as well.

>The idea is that poor people know what to do with the money better than the government does.
I honestly don't share that same opinion. i believe someone who recently acquires a lump sum of cash who hasn't dealt with that situation before will spend it irresponsibly.


>What would be wrong with that?
it takes it off the card so they are able to use their money illegally

>>3529707
no one cares about ur sob story

some people need welfare get over it
not all people have a self inflated ego like your whore of a grandmother and would take the welfare check for the benefit of their children

>>3529653

lolwat

no, sweden has 9 million people. the state of new york has more people than sweden norway denmark finland and iceland combined.

TROLLOLOLOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

perfect troll thread because why?

>Capitalists!

Trolls the left because "capitalist" is a class position, not a political philosophy or ideology

Trolls the left because any mention of "capitalists" sets off commie alarms in their head

Next, implies Sweden is socialist and
"successful", thus prompting both left and right to rage about how Sweden is not socialist and or not "successful"

>>3529707

>i believe someone who recently acquires a lump sum of cash who hasn't dealt with that situation before will spend it irresponsibly.

I know some people will spend their welfare checks irresponsibly. But Id prefer to live in a society where we have some amount of trust in each other. Versus, a society full of cynicism and people thinking everyone is too stupid to manage their own lives.

Besides, if you give money to people who are irresponsible, that money doesnt disappear. It goes back into the economy and swirls around like any other dollar. Its not inherently wasted money, albeit not an optimal allocation of money.

>>3529853
So it's either/or is it? People are either 100% devils or 100% angels? You're thinking in absolutes you stupid fuck, you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about and can't think properly. I can't be bothered with this shit.

>>3529853

If you trust/want to trust everyone, why not make paying for welfare voluntarily, i.e. relegate it to private charity?

I know some people will be greedy and keep all their income, but isn't it nice to live in a less cynical society?

>>3529736
Not a sob story, I'm not crying over anything. Her children are all fine bro. But she was a bad person for not being a leech mmk.
>>3529853
>"But Id prefer to live in a society where we have some amount of trust in each other."
Id prefer to live in one too, but sadly we aren't because people abuse the system. Are you saying you want to trust the heads of corporations as well to not screw you over. Everyone wants your money whether its some irresponsible parent down the street or a head of a corporation defines which branch of media will get on the story.

>>3529853

this is the only response from the guy you replied too
>>3529917

Someone please post what percentages of money US social programs are taking

>>3529916

>If you trust/want to trust everyone, why not make paying for welfare voluntarily, i.e. relegate it to private charity?

It would be different, if the society, didnt want their to be welfare, and the government had that policy anyway. But I think most people want some amount of welfare.

Thats a good point. Im going to think about it.

>>3529917

>Id prefer to live in one too, but sadly we aren't because people abuse the system.

Well, its being abused because you are designing it in such a way that doesnt trust them to begin with. If you just give them money, they wont be abusing it. System likes the NIT are hard to abuse, I think.

>>3529951

>Well, its being abused because you are designing it in such a way that doesnt trust them to begin with.
Elaborate

>>3529979

The one idea is that, we design the welfare system that limits the way recipients can spend their money. So we say

"We are going to design the system in such a way that you can only use your food stamps to buy food, etc"

You set such limitations, and then someone finds a way around that. They take their stamps and they do something else with it. Or they use their welfare to buy fine wine which they sell and then spend on something else. They break the rules. You then take it as an opportunity to say

"Look! Those irresponsible people are breaking the rules" and you use the fact that they break the rules, to justify the rules to begin with. Its just like drug control. Look, these drug dealers are so criminal, and that justifies the drug policy that criminalizes being a drug dealer.

Its possible, but its more difficult to abuse a system that says "here is money, do what you want"

>>3529979

But if you're saying what I think you're saying. Just because you don't look at someone spending money wrongfully doesn't mean they're not spending wrongfully. And then you pretend they aren't abusing the system by buying what they want and not what they need (rent, clothes, electricity, higher education) see medical programs and foodstamps for food/health purposes.

>>3530003

If you spend your welfare illegally then you are a criminal hate to break it to you.
Selling food stamps is illegal in its current state.
Basically you're saying that hey why should we give limitations to what people can do with free money, PARTY ON GARTH.

What's so special about money that impoverished assholes deserve it? Why don't ugly people get sex welfare? You want to take my money, which represents actual time taken from my life, but you won't give me yourself?

Either you accept that people can't have what they want at others' expense or you are doomed to hypocrisy if you have any humanity because our human nature is selfish. There will be something that others want but that you don't want others to have.

>>3530046

>If you spend your welfare illegally

Dont put restrictions on it. Dont make it illegal. Why put limits?

>Basically you're saying that hey why should we give limitations to what people can do with free money,

Yes, that is what I am saying.

how the fuck is sweden socialist?

Hey, hey guys.

Whats so bad about leeching off welfare?
I think you are all just jealous that people can do nothing and still get payed. Let them. If its sustainable then its perfectly fine

>>3530058

>What's so special about money that impoverished assholes deserve it?

I am not arguing that we should or shouldnt have welfare. But I would guess that no one thinks the virgins are owed sex, but no one wants to live in a world where your peers are suffering. Its less about money than it is about what people do with the money, such as food and rent.

>>3529000
>2011
>Thinking American corporate welfare is capitalism.

i seriously hope you guys keep doing this, so you can burn to the ground.

>>3530083

yarly. Ive met people who simultaneously complain about how stupid our taxes are, and our government, and then complain about people who successfully avoid taxes and government. Its an attitude I cant relate with.

The ultimate goal should be to have a sustainable state where only a small percentage of the populace needed to work. Those that do work would get some benefits, but not astronomical; they should be doing their jobs out of personal fullfillment, not for the payment.

>>3530083
If its sustainable then its perfectly fine.

>if
>sustainable
>it
>isn't

>>3530061
Why the fuck should someone get indulgences for doing absolutely fucking nothing.
And if you spend your money on illegal activities you are spending your money illegally.

>>3530092
>2011
>Using a Jewish meme.

>>3530105

i put togetha tv fo personal fulfillment

>>3530115
it clearly is sustainable
millions are doing it right now

>>3530115

>And if you spend your money on illegal activities you are spending your money illegally.

I keep saying dont make the activities illegal. If you are giving them free money dont make it conditional.

>>3530092
The irony that George leeches off of welfare in the show.

I feel like this thread is failing because we are really talking about two seperate things.

The first issue is whether or not we should have welfare.

The second issue is, assuming there is welfare, whats the most efficient way of allocating it.

>>3529000

Forgive me for not taking 30 minutes of my time to review your logical points, bickreing, and trolling (And probably pseudo-conservative welfare bitching) So instead of dive head first into this tripe, I'll get straight to the point.

The idea that you can obtain any government benefits without a cost is absurd. There is no such thing as a free lunch even if Swedish authorities challenge that idea. Someone has to pay and the extortionate tax rate in Sweden indicates someone is paying.

The problem, of course, is that the high taxes, which serve as a transfer payment, stifle innovation and relegate a portion of the population into shiftlessness. While the cradle-to-grave welfare state has an appeal to economic tyros who believe money grows on trees, the lessons of welfarism are coming home to roost in the form of insolvency and contractual failure.

tldr;

Sweeden is spearheading the economic crisis in Europe.

>>3530129

By deficit spending, and it's not self sustainable in any way shape or form.

>>3530134
so what you're saying is let them spend money out of someone else's paycheck on cheap booze and hookers. Welfare should only be put in place as a temporary crutch to help someone better their life. If they have no strive to better their life to where they do not have to rely on the state; they should not receive any money.

>>3530168

>so what you're saying is let them spend money out of someone else's paycheck on cheap booze and hookers.

Yes, because we have some amount of trust that people in dire enough circumstances wont actually just spend what we give them on booze and hookers.

> If they have no strive to better their life to where they do not have to rely on the state; they should not receive any money.

I believe there are forms of welfare that do not remove the incentive to work your way out of welfare.

>>3529949
I looked around a bit, most of the charts are very similar, but Wikipedia's has the best breakdown and it's big enough to read

>>3530193
compare above with this less detailed chart. It consolidates 'defense" spending to more accurately reflect where the money goes vis a vis Dept Homeland Security, Dept of Energy (weapons research) etc.

>>3530178

Not only people in dire situations receive welfare. So basically you're saying I should trust for the sake of trusting and shoot the money cannon then never look if my blind sighted trust was misplaced so it could still be blind sighted so i can still trust for the sake of trusting. because the person who didn't maintain their economic well being the first time around should be trusted to not spend money on useless shit.
I'm going to bed in ten minutes. Well actually ill probably have a nice fap for some odd amount of minutes then precede to go to bed. You know you can trust me since i say im telling the truth. trust errbody

I find it telling that whenever questions like the OP come up the only response is a combination of racism and general ignorance. I've yet to see an actual good and informed response.

>>3530092
Oh, and no true Scotsman fallacies. I forgot about that one

>inb4 hey look at how small a percentage social programs take up why do you even care these other spending programs you dont support take up so much more

>>3530193

While the US credit rating may have lost it's precious 'tripple A' status (Gasp?), the government's plan for budget cuts and, god forbid, a "super congress" doesn't address the root of the goddamn crisis.

You'll bear witness to incorrigible cuts to Social secutiry benefits, pensions, welfare, and Medicare within the United states over the next 5 years.

...Worst still Obama's tax reform plan smacks an unbearable tax hike on state sales tax to compensate (And slap a lifeline on) his proposed medicare plan.


My point:

Why the fuck is no one bitching about the Department of Defense's $663.8 billion budget in 2010? I mean c'mon, you can't honestly believe 'public education' its sucking money out of American's pockets.

>>3530220

lol at racism being notioned to be any big part of any discussion inside of this thread

>>3530210

>Not only people in dire situations receive welfare

Who else receives welfare?

>So basically you're saying I should trust for the sake of trusting

Not exactly. Im actually a bit conflicted, and Im not actually trying to say anything right now. Sorry.

I mean, I honestly do trust people. If you told me some random detail about your life I would believe you, assuming that you didnt appear to be making fun of me for saying I would believe you. Its because of trust like that that the world functions and it doesnt break down into some kind of crazy chaos land.

I personally dont believe people are inherently stupid, or malevolent. And I dont have a problem with money I personally donate, or government welfare. I believe a society where people help each other is better than one where the well being of individuals is greatly inequal. Thats my personal moral feeling. I dont want to impose that on anyone. Whether we should have welfare when people like you exist is another issue I need to think about.

>>3530226

>implying i wouldnt be bitching about it if this thread had anything to do with defense
I'm just going to assume you didn't mean to correlate public education with anything inside this thread.

>>3530226

>While the US credit rating may have lost it's precious 'tripple A' status

Now its going to cost more money (more of your money) when it wants to borrow. I dont know the specifics but that peter schiff guy was saying that increase in the interest rate on government bonds goes up, and those bonds are owned by all kinds of people and companies, the price of everything goes up AKA inflation. AKA your money is more worthless.

I dont know if thats true, but thats what that Peter Schiff guy said. And he may or may not know what hes talking about. Its true that the interest rates for the government go up, I just dont know how that extra cost gets distributed around the country/world.

>Why the fuck is no one bitching about the Department of Defense's $663.8 billion budget in 2010?

I dont know! Its too much!

>>3530231
I'm not talking about just this thread. I'm talking about every Internet discussion I've ever seen on the unanswered question of the success of the social democrat nations.

Sooner or later some retard from the peanut gallery always pops out this trope >>3529249 without any further explanation. It's never assumed that this has to be expanded upon with statistics, historical correlation, or any kind of logical/scientific explanation whatsoever. Some people just apparently take it as an article of faith that minorities are to be blamed for everything - end of story.

>>3530208

> chart that excludes medicare, medicaid, and social security (the overwhelming bulk of all spending)
> department of energy
> this is war spending
> mfw

>>3530193
Thanks.
Looks like meds are a problem

>>3530238
no citation anything but if you'll take my word for it I know a woman who's been convicted of theft and drug use. continues to use drugs with "prescriptions" after she received a rather high check from the government.

>Whether we should have welfare when people like you exist is another issue I need to think about
is that a shot at me because I've never stated any problem with having a welfare program that doesn't pay for indulgences. you shouldn't want to be on welfare you should thank society for letting you use it as a crutch and get yourself out of it.

>>3530156

Absolutely not.

Hilarious fact: 1/4 of all people in the U.S. receive food stamps.

The best way is heavily regulated. If you take illegal drugs, you get nothing. If you spend the money of anything other than specified allowable food, you are kicked off the dole. Welfare should be no frills, no entertainment, no fun. Just enough to live, and just barely.

>>3530256

Ok fair enough; it's just that every time I've talked about welfare it usually becomes "you don't support what i'm saying because your racist."
sorry for jumping on you for stating a fact

>>3530269

I like this guy

>>3530269

This website seems to believe its 14%

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/02/02/some-43-million-americans-use-food-stamps/

> If you spend the money of anything other than specified allowable food, you are kicked off the dole.

But when you do that there comes a number of administrative and regulatory costs. You are developing inefficiency.

Also Liberty, you seem to have become less ridiculous lately, talking about making a world with government more efficient, rather than talking about some fictional anarcho-capitalist reality with "liberty markets" Have you changed your opinions recently?

>>3530226
For those people with empathy for the underdog, your point is well taken. However, for the social conservatives and other right-wingers in this thread, it is a moral imperative that certain people do not "deserve" to receive any social support whatsoever. Period.
The defense department can take the whole enchilada as far as they are concerned, and you could probably eliminate the dept of education (as has been already suggested and tried) the justice department (don't need judges, just throw all the niggers in jail regardless, etc)

It's a morally bankrupt position, which is held by a sizable (approx 48% maybe a tad less) but very vocal portion of the American public. That number, BTW, also roughly correlates with the estimated number of below average IQ population (i.e., under 100 pts), who also tend to be heavily authoritarian in political outlook. It's all of a piece, really.

And since they are in a minority (really depends on the issue, eg national health is supported by a 62+% of the American population), it shouldn't matter in a representative democracy, which makes this a troll thread.

Out of the 20 or so "developed" countries,, we are the only one without a national health service. That minority still has tremendous clout.

>>3530264

>no citation anything but if you'll take my word for it I know a woman who's been convicted of theft and drug use. continues to use drugs with "prescriptions" after she received a rather high check from the government.

I believe you. I have an aunt you lives off welfare too. And I think I have some friends who have used financial aid questionably as well.

I dont mean to pretend this doesnt happen. And if it proves that a large chunk of welfare goes to people like that I wouldnt want a welfare system either.

>>3530287

> blog

Yeah, no need to click.

I can argue within hypotheticals such as if there has to be a gubbmint.

It is quite simple actually, they don't get cash, those people get cards to buy the food. The businesses that agree to take them will not allow those items to be purchased with the card. The card will literally not run if there is a banned product on the ticket.

>>3530293

> gubbmint guarantees loans to college students
> everyone can now get a loan as there is no risk to the loaners
> morons buy xboxs and weed with loan money
> complain about paying it back later

Fucking savages.

OP here.
Wow, what a wreck this thread has grown into!
And sadly enough, non of you thick-headed morons could decide upon a real answer. How embarrasing.

Everyone put on welfare should be put in a college, mental health institution, or experimental hospital.

Problem solved.

>>3530269
>1/4 of all people US receive food stamps
>hilarity ensues

Perhaps you have a theory why 25%, , one in four, a quarter of the population is on food stamps in the richest country in the history of the world?
And before you go racial, allow me to point out that there are more white pople than black or hisapnics on welfare of all kinds.
Also fact: food stamps started as a farm subsidy.

>>3529000

America has a higher gdp per capita.

>>3530302

Fine here is the citation in the blog post from the department of agriculture, which is the department in charge of the food stamp program:

http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/34SNAPmonthly.htm

Its says 40.3 million people. By my math thats 13% of the population. What do you think? Is that reliable enough for you?

>>3530308
>students don't use student loans to pay tuition

You supply strawmen and generalizations
You have no argument here, Liberty

>>3530315

> huur derp more
> does not understand the simple concept of per capita.

Let us say there are 100 people in a location. 80 whites, 20 blacks. 30 people are on welfare, 20 white, 10 black. 1/4 of the whites are on welfare, whereas 1/2 the blacks are on welfare.

Savvy?

>>3530291
Are you seriously assuming that any who doesn't support welfare's current state and want it reformed believes it should be eliminated. That's the only way I can see your 48% "statistic."
segways to national health care

>>3530322

Do they count children of the people who receive them?

>>3530325

> loans are given out at cost exactly

Democrats actually believe this.

>>3530325

I dont know why he even said that. My post didnt have anything to do with college tuition or government loans.

I need a reaction image of crying. I dont have enough of those. Some of these posts I just read and I feel like crying. I dont have a reaction image for Im trying my best to be cooperative and respectful and its not working. I live in a bizzare reality where every question is always answered by two more questions and nothing makes any sense.

>>3530337

> say welfare
> I think I have some friends who have used financial aid questionably
> my post didnt have anything to do with college tuition or government loans

You are using welfare interchangeably with financial aid here?

>>3530329

The welfare system is a tangled, chaotic mess. But it's the state's individual right to have any rules they want.

What I said is that many people do not believe in welfare of any kind whatsoever. Those folks are in that 48%.

>>3530337

>yfw

>>3530330

I dont know, it just lists people and households. Im assuming children are counted as people, especially since they also list households.

>>3530343

Oh, no, you are right. I did mean tuition. I got confused because I was referring to a number of friends and family each using government money in their own way, which includes college tuition, but not explicitly only college tuition.

>>3530356

citation please I don't really doubt you and that makes me sad as fuck. i'm the main person who's been talking to resident.

>>3530363

Sneaky gubbmint people would just include those actually on the check.

> you confuse yourself
> forget what you talk about
> attempt to dress me down
> fail terribly
> mfw

>>3530058
I'd vote for sex welfare lol
Anyways welfare is almost exclusive to mothers with kids

>>3530432
prostitution should be legal, it's a valuable service, and would keep men calm.

>>3530442
Well it's not legal
but authorities kind of look the other way unless it's a street walker

>>3530368
citations for welfare payouts are difficlut and laborious to obtain. Answers.com come gives this: "There are formulas that each state puts into place to make this process unbiased and objective, which generally involves determining your income, compensating for your particular expenses, and dividing by a certain factor." Google supplied that in 1998 a woman in Northernr Virginia received 490$. In California, General Relief payout is $216 plus $146 in food stamps. Like I said, it's a mess.

For info about authoritarians, you can read the book, The Authoritarian Personality published five years ago by Theodore W. Adorno,. A paper about authoritarians and their motives by Richard Hofstader is here:
http://www.theamericanscholar.org/the-pseudo-conservative-revolt/
John Dean did a series on authoritarians here: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20070925.html

>>3530462
another Authoritarians home page is here:
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

>no such thing as sex welfare
actually, i remember reading about such a program for disabled people in some northern european socialist country. can't recall which one, unfortunately.

also, you'd be surprised at how many how many professional prostitutes will accept such cases to give themselves an ego boost. they don't offer themselves for free but shockingly they also don't typically charge extra.

if i had better social skills and investment money, i'd set up a website specifically catering prostitute services for disabled and aged persons. it's a rich, untapped market.