what if

[ChristsSoldier115]

the ONLY government programs were based on either age OR whether or not YOU PERSONALLY served in the armed forces?

I get VA disability. Are you saying that is cool? because I think it is cool. Or are you saying we deserve more? I believe post army tricare is like dirt cheap insurance. I forget the numbers off the top of my head. of course i don't even need that not with the "awesome" VA healthcare.

So many states have so many vet benefits is not even funny. I believe Texas pays for the first two years of school. Oregon pays for half of your tuition if you have a purple heart. I just got $1,500 for serving in both iraq and afghanistan in ohio. I don't even know all the crazy benefits in ohio I am entitled to. Most states give you free license plates with certain medals[usually purple hearts]. i get so many fees waived for stuff because of my vet status it isn't even funny.

There are a lot of benefits for vets and they aren't even aware of it. If you're 65 or older and have served in a combat zone for a certain amount of time you are entitled to VA disability. [exact times for what wars I don't know off the top of my head]

 

[dogs4thewin]

I get VA disability. Are you saying that is cool? because I think it is cool. Or are you saying we deserve more? I believe post army tricare is like dirt cheap insurance. I forget the numbers off the top of my head. of course i don't even need that not with the "awesome" VA healthcare.

So many states have so many vet benefits is not even funny. I believe Texas pays for the first two years of school. Oregon pays for half of your tuition if you have a purple heart. I just got $1,500 for serving in both iraq and afghanistan in ohio. I don't even know all the crazy benefits in ohio I am entitled to. Most states give you free license plates with certain medals[usually purple hearts]. i get so many fees waived for stuff because of my vet status it isn't even funny.

There are a lot of benefits for vets and they aren't even aware of it. If you're 65 or older and have served in a combat zone for a certain amount of time you are entitled to VA disability. [exact times for what wars I don't know off the top of my head]

Yes you understood me correctly. Thank you so much for your service. I wish I could have when they told me I would NEVER be qualfied (I was underage at tbe time and knew it that did NOT go over too well.

 

[pdudgeon]

the ONLY government programs were based on either age OR whether or not YOU PERSONALLY served in the armed forces?

if they were, i would win on both counts.

 

[dogs4thewin]

if they were, i would win on both counts.

Well as for the age one everyone who lives long enough will. Although, I will say I support moving the retirement age to 70.

 

[JustOneWay]

I am no longer on a need based program . I wish I were, but I cannot change that. Surviorship benefits are not need based.

Actually, the New Deal passed in the 30s AFTER the great depression. This tells me that people lived before that without government benefits.

They did. A bunch of them also died young.

Then again we are talking about before the 1930's, and today is nothing like then.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Why is it necessary to reward people for not dying young ? Isn't being around reward enough? If one is old and incapable of carring for oneself I can see why society would feel good about itself for helping out but if one is old and fit and well off financially why does society not think it is wasting its resources on the well to do while not doing as much for the less fortunate. Is it all based upon an ageist stereotype?

 

[Desk trauma]

so then what is wrong with dirt roads?

Other then our entire food distribution system collapsing, nothing major.

 

[Belk]

I am no longer on a need based program . I wish I were, but I cannot change that. Surviorship benefits are not need based.

Actually, the New Deal passed in the 30s AFTER the great depression. This tells me that people lived before that without government benefits.

Well, that is the thing isn't it? Many of those who lived prior to government benefits did not live. Many of those who did live were able to do so because we were an agrarian society. To suggest that society today should limit safety nets because we did not have them in the 1890's seems rather a poor argument.

 

[Cracklin Rose]

because that is part of the contract. Honest question too how can the military be given TOO admiration?

because the amount of money the world spends in 8 days is more than enough to make sure that nobody on this planet ever goes hungry ever again.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Well, that is the thing isn't it? Many of those who lived prior to government benefits did not live. Many of those who did live were able to do so because we were an agrarian society. To suggest that society today should limit safety nets because we did not have them in the 1890's seems rather a poor argument.

Do you know of any reliable study that proves lack of government benefit programs are any kind of major reason people died in the past? For some reason, people still seem to still be dying despite the existence of multiple government benefit programs. To suggest that only government benefit programs can keep people alive or that no one ought to attempt something different or people will surely die is a rather silly argument based upon a an entirely biased assumption of what life would be like if they were in any way re thought, re worked or even if some were eliminated. As most government benefit programs are not aimed at increasing survivability that seems a bit over the top.

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

Why is it necessary to reward people for not dying young ? Isn't being around reward enough? If one is old and incapable of carring for oneself I can see why society would feel good about itself for helping out but if one is old and fit and well off financially why does society not think it is wasting its resources on the well to do while not doing as much for the less fortunate. Is it all based upon an ageist stereotype?

it isn't 'ageist" is is because in 1970 25% of people 65 and older were in crippling poverty. Today that is around a mere 9%.. interesting enough Children in poverty in 1970 were 15% but today they are more like 17%.

 

[dogs4thewin]

yep, republicans and libertarians don't care if you have a problem, they only want to blame you or your parents.

governments didn't just come out of thin air, they were established because people realized that anarchy and "the wild west" situations were not working out.




were you really? or are you just willing to lie and belittle people who are suffering for your own amusement?

No, I am ( in most respects a hard-core Republican/Libertarian However, feel that it should be on the person to take care of themselves and others to ON THEIR OWN FREEWILL not based on the government take care of each other.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Also, let us be frank money is NOT the only issue when it comes to feeding billions of people. There are AT LEAST two other factors.

 

[Belk]

Do you know of any reliable study that proves lack of government benefit programs are any kind of major reason people died in the past? For some reason, people still seem to still be dying despite the existence of multiple government benefit programs. To suggest that only government benefit programs can keep people alive or that no one ought to attempt something different or people will surely die is a rather silly argument based upon a an entirely biased assumption of what life would be like if they were in any way re thought, re worked or even if some were eliminated. As most government benefit programs are not aimed at increasing survivability that seems a bit over the top.

I do not. There are surprisingly few studies done on "How many people died because of this program we do not have".


As far as the rest of your post, if you feel you have a viable idea to replace our current safety net then by all means let us know. What I am decrying is what seems to be the current push to reduce or eliminate safety nets without any alternatives or sub standard alternatives. I made no claims of only government programs being good enough nor did I claim that something different could not be tried so i have no idea why you are saying that?

 

[grasping the after wind]

it isn't 'ageist" is is because in 1970 25% of people 65 and older were in crippling poverty. Today that is around a mere 9%.. interesting enough Children in poverty in 1970 were 15% but today they are more like 17%.

So in 1970 75% of 65 and older were recieving government benefits and were not in crippling poverty and today 91% are recieving government benefits and are not in crippling poverty. Meanwhile 15% in 1970and 17% of children today are unnecessarily in crippling poverty and the vast majority of children are not recieving government benefits. Why? because we as a society are ageist and think anyone over 65 needs the government to provide for them.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I do not. There are surprisingly few studies done on "How many people died because of this program we do not have".

Is then your earlier assertion, that lack of government programs in the past caused deaths, simply an unsubstantiated opinion you have arrived at through speculation. If you cannot actually show any evidence that the deaths you are mentioning were from lack of government programs I must assume it is merely your speculation based upon some assumptions you personally hold to be self evident. I must tell you that I do not necessarily agree with whatever those assumptions might be.

[QUOTE="Belk, post: 67506978, member: 134829"
As far as the rest of your post, if you feel you have a viable idea to replace our current safety net then by all means let us know. What I am decrying is what seems to be the current push to reduce or eliminate safety nets without any alternatives or sub standard alternatives. I made no claims of only government programs being good enough nor did I claim that something different could not be tried so i have no idea why you are saying that?[/QUOTE]


Why do you insist I must replace the whole thing if I only wish to do away with the programs and benefits that have nothing to do with survivability? If a citizen of the US is incapable of providing for their own food and shelter I am more than happy for the federal government to be involved in helping them with that. The programs for doing that already exist AFAIK and are very well funded. I do not wish to replace them. I only would like to see those benefit programs that go beyond survivability eliminated. I wouldn't mind if those programs that I wish to continue became somewhat more efficiently run and if we could eliminate the unnecessary overhead and featherbedding that causes ridiculous amounts of the funding in those programs to end up in the pockets of rich bureaucrats and politicians rather than the poor that are in need of basic necessities. I have always found it somewhat unsavory for any person, let alone a group of people, to gain their livelihood by using the plight of the poor as an excuse for themselves to be paid royally. Paid handsomely and with benefits unavailable to the average worker to supposedly "help" the poor while the poor somehow remain poor. Of course, should the poor no longer remain poor the ones that profit from "helping" the poor would not be able to justify the existence of their lucrative positions.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Collective punishment is not as realistic answer.

And age and/or service do not mean that abuse doesn't happen by those of said age and/or service.

Very true...while I like the idea of scaling back our social programs (I'd rather see us move toward the "teach a man to fish" rather than the "give a man a fish" methodology), the idea of basing it off of age or military service is a poorly thought out standard.

Don't get me wrong, I have respect for the elderly and respect for those who have served...the premise in the OP is somehow suggesting that people from those to groups are a step above everyone else in honesty and integrity and that's false.

I can introduce you to a family member who served 6 years in the military, his service record is sterling...yet, he's abused disability programs at least a half dozen times in the last decade. "I have lower back problems, so I'm off work for the next 4 months....by the way, you want to go golf this Friday???"

 

[TerranceL]

It creates a class system where there are citizens (those who served in the military) and non-citizens (those who for whatever reason didn't).

We are all citizens. The very concept is vile, Starship Trooper is a novel and it would be a very poor idea to use it as a map for society.