or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Anyone NOT gettting a Social Security Number for their children?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Anyone NOT gettting a Social Security Number for their children? - Page 9

post #161 of 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by carolynrosa
People here seem to think I must be a rather negative person or something, like I'm against charity somehow or something. But what's really sad, is all of you who seem to believe that if people were not forced to 'help' through threats of violence and jail, that no one would help. That's a really sad veiw of the world.
And yes, look at Katrina. Who got in there and gave and helped the most, and with the least bureaucratic bullshit? Was it FEMA (who deliberately turned away people bringing food and water, and cut the local police communications lines so that they could have power over everything and everyone) or was is the generous average citizen, who helped not under threat, but out of compassion?
People are a lot more motivated to help out when there is some disaster that's "out of the ordinary" and whose victims are "innocent." Most people are not so inclined to help with the more omnipresent and intractible social issues that plague our country. You don't see millions of people rushing to send food, clothes, and money to the poorest of the poor in Mott Haven, NYC.

I don't necessarily believe that government programs funded by tax monies are very efficient. However, before we had taxes and government-funded social programs, things were not better. People were not rushing to help the poor then, either. The haves continually and egregiously abused the have-nots. I can't think of any time in history when the haves have really worked hard on behalf of the have-nots just because they have a social conscience. Our government started enacting social programs in the early part of the last century BECAUSE things like the problems described in Upton Sinclair's _The Jungle_ were happening. People were being worked 60 to 80 hours a week and were not paid anything even approaching a wage they could survive on. It continues today with our $5.25 minimum wage. You don't see big corporations running out to give the working poor a leg up just because it's the right thing to do.

I'm not sure what the answer is, but I'm pretty sure that it's not "let's just hope that those in need have people to help them out." Generally, the people who are in need are there in large part because they DON'T have those people.

Namaste!
post #162 of 205
Considering the government the US elected last time (or didn't elect, or whatever) I have to say my faith in the bountiless goodness of the American people as a body has pretty much been shattered. I also don't believe that if social welfare programs ceased to be federally funded, the luncheon crowd in Beverly Hills would be organising Meals on Wheels for their neighbours in Watts.

carolynrosa, if you wouldn't mind having your brain picked for a minute? Just as a practical matter, since I have no idea about this, if there were no federal taxes, how would things like the FDA and the Army Crops of Engineers get funded? Or would they just not need to exist?

[crossposted with dharmamama, who said what I was trying to say, but better!]
post #163 of 205
Carolynrosa, that was very eloquent about the generosity of the American people during times of disaster. But as pp pointed out, people are much more inclined to assist hapless, innocent victims in a dramatic, out-of-the ordinary situation.

I'm still interested in the answer to my question: in your scenario, what happens to the needy folks who people are unwilling to help? To those who have no relatives to take them in?
post #164 of 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by zinemama
I'm still interested in the answer to my question: in your scenario, what happens to the needy folks who people are unwilling to help? To those who have no relatives to take them in?
I think carolynrosa and I have very similar beliefs on this issue, but I am not trying to speak for her here. Is that person a member of a church? Gee I seem to remeber as a kid helping my mom make meals for people who were sick or injured or out of a job. This was a program that our church had created. The red cross and the salvation army are both private charities and they do way more good than the government will ever be able to do. If regular people wern't taxed and they had more money to donate, people would donate more. Some people are saying that the rich won't help out their poor neighbors. Umm actually THEY DO! Have you ever heard of a philanthropist? There are plenty of rich people who donate money to charities. Big businesses do it too. Why? because they get more than the "warm fuzzy feeling" by doing it, they get to put out commercials telling their consumers "Look how good of a company we are, look how much we care, we donate millions of dollars to charities every year". Do you donate to charites? How about the people you know? I sure do and I know everyone else in my family does. Why do you think so poorly of people that you seem to think we don't care enough to find a way to help people. Some were saying "we only donate in times of disasters". No we don't. People are donating money every single day. People donate food to homeless shelters. People donate clothes and warm coats so the poor don't have to worry about keeping warm in the cold. Schools regularly hold can food drives for the local people who need help feeding their families. Don't try to tell me that people are so horrible they only help if forced to (by taxation). Mabye I'm the only optomistic one here who likes to see the good in people and trust that people in general will do the right thing.
post #165 of 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by zinemama
Bailey228, this is an outrageous statement. You know nothing about Velochic's mother's situation. Has it ever ocurred to you that there are people who literally cannot afford to save money for their retirement? That there are people whose entire income go to rent, food and keeping their kids clothed? That there are people who are alone in old age, with no relatives to take them in?

Exactly how do you propose that such elderly people survive? Your arrogance is breathtaking.
Haha apparently you never finished reading that particular post, because the very next paragraph I stated that some people do have hard times and that No i don't think they should be punished for it. There are private charities that will help people like that. Yes HER CHOICES put her in this situation! I stand by that no matter what anyone thinks of my opinion. You seem to think that I'm some spoiled rich b*tch. No, my family has had to WORK for everything they have. It would be arrogant for me to say that my dad is just smarter than her mother and so he managed to get himself out of poverty because he knew how to. It's not that he was any smarter than the average person, he just realized that if he wanted a real future he had to work for it. All of his money was going to food, housing and clothing, but somehow he managed to just not spend so much on that stuff so he could save for himself going to college to get a real job, for his retirement, for both mine and my sister's college. He saved for all of this while we was working for minimum wage at an auto parts store. You can not try to tell me that he was just lucky or had an opportunity. PEOPLE CREATE THEIR OWN OPPORTUNITIES! No one can HAND you an opportunity. Sorry life just doesn't work that way. You get back what you put in. No one handed my dad the desire to stop drinking and go back to college to become an engineer. Today, I have learned from my dad how to save even if you don't have a lot. The entirety of my husband's and my income goes to pay for food and housing. We still save. How? well we don't spend money on frivilous things, we don't eat out, we don't go to the movies. Our entire month's food bill is 100 dollars. I understand what it's like to not have much money at all. We are in that position right now. And no matter how bad it gets, I personally have enough respect for my fellow citizens to learn how to support myself rather than use the government to steal your money. How dare you call me arrogant. I only speak from experience. So yes, her mother CHOSE not to save.
post #166 of 205
If some churches, some regular folks and some philanthropists are doing all these great things you mention, why are there still people in need? Why are there families faced with the choice of food or electricity? Why are there elderly people who must choose between food and medicines?

Do you honestly believe that if we take away the minimal safety net now in place (Social Security) more people and institutions will just naturally step into the breach? And help everyone? For the first time in our nation's history? I just don't buy that.
post #167 of 205
And yes I am a libertarian and I am damn proud of it. A libertarians belief is that no one can use force apon another person for ANY reason. Other people seem to think that using force is ok as long as it's helping other people. Robin hood was a criminal!!!
post #168 of 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by zinemama
If some churches, some regular folks and some philanthropists are doing all these great things you mention, why are there still people in need? Why are there families faced with the choice of food or electricity? Why are there elderly people who must choose between food and medicines?

Do you honestly believe that if we take away the minimal safety net now in place (Social Security) more people and institutions will just naturally step into the breach? And help everyone? For the first time in our nation's history? I just don't buy that.
We do not live in a utopia. I'm sorry it will never happen. There will always be people in need. Yes if people wern't taxed so much, they would give more money. The ammount of money that people donate is directly connected to the ammount that they have. My husband and I pay hundreds of dollars a month in taxes. Including sales taxes and the price increase of goods that companies must charge to cover THEIR taxes, among many many other taxes well over 70% of our income is going to the government. If we had that money back, you better believe that we would be donating a heck of a lot more to charities that actually HELP people. A private charity is always more effective than a government program. Private charities help many more people than the government. Also another thing to think about, government does not create change. They didn't just decide to start welfare programs. No people demaded them because they cared and wanted to help but didn't know how so they made the government help. People are the ones that cared enough to get welfare programs in place. On a side note, who here knows that social security was A. NOT meant as a retirement program, and B was only supposed to be temporary?? That's not something they want to teach you in schools.
post #169 of 205
Income tax was supposed to be temporary too...and is still technically *voluntary*...try telling that to the IRS.
post #170 of 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by captain crunchy
Income tax was supposed to be temporary too...and is still technically *voluntary*...try telling that to the IRS.
yeah and watch and see how quickly they come and arrest you. Poor larkin rose, he lost, now his wife is on trial...
post #171 of 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by bailey228
There will always be people in need.
You say that as though that is just a fact we have to throw up our hands about. "Oh well, there will always be people in need, too bad." That's not a good enough answer to me. Even with a framework of government AND private charities, we are not reaching everyone. Not even close. Ditching the government part and saying, "Well, at least no one is robbing me to help other people" is not a solution to me. In Thomas More's Utopia, he writes about how there is no glory in ruling a nation of beggars. The glory comes from a nation's prosperity. In my mind, a nation cannot be prosperous if its government gives the bird to anyone who doesn't succeed in a capitalist environment, which is INHERENTLY, by it's VERY NATURE, shaped like a pyramid. And the rich are NOT at that wide bottom. I wholeheartedly believe that any government worth the title of "civilized" has a responsibility to the welfare of its people, and especially the most vulnerable. I am not ok with a country saying, "Too bad for you, pull yourself up by your d*mn bootstraps." I have worked for a number of private charities, and to they are completely, utterly, undeniably swamped by the demand for their services is a vast understatement. Putting more money in people's pockets and saying, "Here, donate this to offset the huge sucking sound that is the government removing all social funds" will result in one thing: fewer people getting help. If you put more money in people's pockets, they are more likely to spend it on themselves than on others. Indeed, Bush based his entire "tax rebate" of several years ago on that premise. He didn't give families $600 so the could donate it to charity. He gave it to them because he knew they would buy stuff with it.

Quote:
No one can HAND you an opportunity.
Not true. People absolutely can be handed opportunties. The non-poor benefit from the opportunities they have never had to work for every day.

Namaste!
post #172 of 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by dharmamama
Not true. People absolutely can be handed opportunties. The non-poor benefit from the opportunities they have never had to work for every day.
Acutally yes it is. Even people born into rich families have to recognize the opportunities they have. There are opportunities surrounding every person, it's just a matter if they are willing to recognize them or not. I promise no one will walk up to you and say "here have an opportunity". And opportunity does not just mean money. The greatest opportunity I've gotten in my life is having incredible parents that taught me how to work hard for what I have.

And no I don't say that there will always be needy people as if we shoud give up, right after I said it I stated how to help more people. It's just a fact of life. It is something you have to realize while you try your best to help those that you can help.

I'm so sorry that I can't justify theft like the rest of you can. I wouldn't be able to live with myself knowing that I stole from someone else to get what I wanted in life. Theft in ANY form is wrong.
post #173 of 205
Phew. I can't believe I read the whole thread, but I did! Really interesting.

I understand the concern about the misuse of ssn's, yet not enough to ever think of going without one. Just as one can trust one's neighbor, we have to be able to trust our gov't to some extent as well. I remember watching an interview of some ex-FBI guy and he was laughing at the notion that people felt watched by the gov't. He said that their surveillance equipment was so few and cost-prohibitive that they're probably not going to tap your phone or whatever. But I don't want to diminish people's experiences with true run-ins with gov't which I know mdc'ers have experienced. I also don't believe in blind loyalty either.

I wanted to chime in about the libertarian view v. pro-social services view. I flirted with libertarianism for like 2 seconds in high school, but came to my senses. There are a lot of reasons why I don't think the libertarian view works. I think most libertarians misunderstand liberty. It's not something that's given by some natural right. Our earliest societies were ALL built on master/slave relationships. Liberty has been hard-earned by the slow progress of democracies that have become progressively socialized.

Look at early America when there were NO social programs, no minimum wages, no nothing to protect the poor of this country. Carnegie owned 70% of America and Morgan owned the rest (the figures are made up, but are probably not too far off). They paid workers a few dollars a day, 16 hour days, 6,7 day weeks, back-breaking labor. Children were often forced to work to help make ends meet. And on top of it, the workers were often forced to live in shelters provided by the company, and were charged exorbitant rents and prices at the company store. You could work your a** off all your life and live a short, brutal existence. When the union tried to organize, the corporations actually had the right to use force to stop them - actually killed workers with impunity. Without government intervention, the greed of a few would dominate the misfortune of the many. I guess to libertarians, that sounds like skepticism of human nature, but I say that it's a valid, well-supported skepticism. There's a place for that and another place for genuine compassion and optimism.

It's not like I need big brother to watch over my personal life. But I do want/need a watch dog to protect my interests as a citizen. Another quick example. The days of "patents". In the early 1900's companies started making these cure-alls that were often 50% morphine. Kids were often "dosed" with these patents. There was no law that forced companies to list ingredients on these patents. Now I can be a good-hearted person all I want to be, but there's no way that I could know what the heck was in these bottles. Same with the FDA. Aren't you glad that there's an agency that monitors what goes in our food? They're not perfect, but at least we know if there's heroine in the cough drops. If the gov't doesn't do it, who will? Does some individual wake up one morning and say I'll do that. And then what sort of power does he/she have to enforce what companies put in food?

I also support social service programs. I wish my mom had gone on welfare when we were growing up. She thought she had to do it all. A year after we came to the US my dad was in an accident that left him paraplegic, and she had to step up to the role of provider without ever having worked. Without any english, she worked, raised 3 kids, took care of my dad, and helped us all through college. We all graduated. All her jobs were crap jobs too, as she is not educated. The whole experience really broke her. She's in an assisted living program now because she had a break down a few years ago. I feel that if she could have allowed herself help in the early years, her life would have been much different. And yes, we kids did try to "do it ourselves" too. She lived with me for a while, but what do I know how to treat psychosis, etc.? She was starving herself to death among other very destructive things, so I had to get her help.

I usually don't try to judge people, and I hope I haven't. But I gotta tell you, the smug libertarian attitude really gets to me.
post #174 of 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mommay
I think most libertarians misunderstand liberty. It's not something that's given by some natural right. Our earliest societies were ALL built on master/slave relationships. Liberty has been hard-earned by the slow progress of democracies that have become progressively socialized.

It's not like I need big brother to watch over my personal life. But I do want/need a watch dog to protect my interests as a citizen. Another quick example. The days of "patents". In the early 1900's companies started making these cure-alls that were often 50% morphine. Kids were often "dosed" with these patents. There was no law that forced companies to list ingredients on these patents. Now I can be a good-hearted person all I want to be, but there's no way that I could know what the heck was in these bottles. Same with the FDA. Aren't you glad that there's an agency that monitors what goes in our food? They're not perfect, but at least we know if there's heroine in the cough drops. If the gov't doesn't do it, who will? Does some individual wake up one morning and say I'll do that. And then what sort of power does he/she have to enforce what companies put in food?

I usually don't try to judge people, and I hope I haven't. But I gotta tell you, the smug libertarian attitude really gets to me.
This first paragraph has gotta be the funniest thing I've seen all day! Do you think that governments just decided to give people rights??? Think again hun. You are the one that doesn't understand how rights work. PEOPLE FOUGHT AND DIED FOR THEIR RIGHTS! They demanded that government recognize their rights. The government didn't just one day say "well we're gonna be a democracy and give people some rights". People are not GIVEN rights, not by a government and not just by being born human. People get rights by fighting for them! They know what they deserve and they will give their lives rather than let someone take away what they feel is precious to them. THAT is the ONLY way that people have ever gotten rights, by fighting for them.

You don't need government to have regulations for companies. A private company can inspect quality and safety of foods and Drugs to make sure no one is putting in anything dangerous. Then that company that is selling the product can advertise to it's consumers that they have certified their product through XYZ company and it is proven safe by XYZ's company standards. If you are scared of ingesting something dangerous, don't buy from someone that didn't certify their product. This actually happens today belive it or not. In web design/programming, there is an organization called W3C. They set standards for code that all designers/programmers should use and that all internet browsers should use to display pages. No one forces anyone to follow these standards, but many many people do because they recognize that if they do, they will produce a quality product. Many companies advertise their browsers as being standards compliant (the W3C set standards) so that people will know that pages on the internet will dispaly correctly in their browser.

This last line that you wrote WAS intended to judge and you know it. Please explain to me how I am smug. And if you can, please explain to me how you are NOT smug for thinking that what YOU think is right. Go ahead, I'm listening.
post #175 of 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by bailey228
This last line that you wrote WAS intended to judge and you know it. Please explain to me how I am smug. And if you can, please explain to me how you are NOT smug for thinking that what YOU think is right. Go ahead, I'm listening.


love and peace.
post #176 of 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by bailey228
I'm so sorry that I can't justify theft like the rest of you can. I wouldn't be able to live with myself knowing that I stole from someone else to get what I wanted in life. Theft in ANY form is wrong.
Did someone say "smug"?

I don't think accusing the non-Libertarians of "theft" is really progressing your arguments much, but that's just me.

My POV: The Fedaral government requires payment of taxes as they're entitled to under under the Sixteenth Amendment:

Quote:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
If I pay taxes because I am legally required to, that is not theft. If the government throws me in jail for not paying taxes, that is not theft. If the government divvies up tax money for social welfare programmes, that's not theft, and if I recieve those monies, that is not theft, either.

There's an amendment to the constitution right there that says they can do that. Now, if you don't think that amendment is constitutional, you can lobby against it and mount a legal battle to get it repealed. Or, you know, go take over the state of Montana or whatever the Free State plan currently is.

As a case in point, I don't think regular citizens should be able to carry guns of any kind. However, the 2nd Amendment says otherwise:

Quote:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
So, even though I think they're harmful, I strongly believe that people have this right and that to protect the integrity of the constitution, this right must be defended. It is both my right and my responsibility (if I care enough) to lobby for a change to that amendment, not to just ignore the amendment because I don't like it.

And I gotta say, the 2nd is a lot less clear than the 16th. But I prefer to err on the side of strict constitutional interpretation.
post #177 of 205
Bailey, are you willing to explain to us why you think that things would be different without government taxation/assistance now than they were in years past?

Namaste!
post #178 of 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hells_Belle
I don't think accusing the non-Libertarians of "theft" is really progressing your arguments much, but that's just me.
First of all, thanks but I don't need an education on what's in the constitution, I've already done that for myself. I don't know if you realize this, but the constitution means absolute crap today. There are sooo many laws that are an infringement on our basic rights that are stated in the constitution that really it is worthless. Constitutions don't give people rights, only their willingness to defend their rights does. People today hand over their rights left and right to the governement. So no, if they gave them up, they don't have any rights, a piece of paper can not protect you.

I am not accusing non-libertarians of theft. No one in my family is a libertarian and they do not steal. The only people who I accuse of stealing are those who justify getting what they want out of life by using the government to take money out of the pockets of others. If you don't like someone and you hire a few thugs to go out and kill that person, are you guilty of murder even though you didn't personally go out and commit that crime? Of course you are, you can not use force apon someone else by any means, whether that is actually commiting the act of force yourself or hiring someone else to do it for you. The people who support government welfare are using the government to go out and steal from others the exact same as if they had hired someone to go kill someone else.
post #179 of 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by dharmamama
Bailey, are you willing to explain to us why you think that things would be different without government taxation/assistance now than they were in years past?
Sure! Why do you think that we have welfare today? Did the government just decide one day to start caring about people and give them money? The government doesn't change people, people change the government. Back during the depression is when many of the welfare programs we have today were started. The depression was a terrible time in history and there were lots of people suffering. Those people looked around for someone to blame and spotted the government and they cried "YOU! YOU DIDN'T PROTECT US!" People's mindsets changed and then they expected the government to take on the extra duty of providing a standard of living to it's citizens. That is not a government's intended job. The government is supposed to be there to protect it's citizens from others using force apon them whether from outside invaders or from each other commiting crimes apon each other. That's it. But people were so insistant that the government do something to help so they did. Over the years this "help" has only made the government more corrupt and bigger and stronger to the point where people no longer rule the government like they are supposed to, the government rules the people. So how do I know that people are kind and generous enough to provide voluntarily help to those that need it? Because first of all, we wouldn't have welfare today if people didn't care enough about others to want to do something. Welfare is something citizens created, not the government. Also I see the proof right here. There are so many of you who care enough about others that you're concerned that if the government stopped providing welfare to people that need it, that they would suffer. All of you care enough about helping other people that I know there are enough good people out there who will donate time, money, food, and clothing to people that have fallen on hard times. I may disagree with a lot of you on how exactly to help people, but you are my proof that we don't need to use the government to FORCE people to help.
post #180 of 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by carolynrosa
Well, my DH decided that if that's the case, we simply will not get the tax refund. Bummer, but oh, well.
And you can work in the US without a SSN; the difficult thing is to find an employer who will hire you. Some employers don't pay taxes anyway (since they're unconstititional), but that's a whole other pickle....
Egads, I bet I just opened a whole other can of worms.... If anyone is so inclined, you can find plenty on info on the subject on income taxes neing unconstitutional by doing a search. Or renting "The Truth About the Income Tax."
Yikes. No one likes taxes - but, are there not some public works that you benefit from? Roads maybe? I recall my BIL had this same opinion and burned his SS card - but was pretty happy that medical care was available for his kids when they were sick? I love my BIL - but remember thinking - its a good thing that I am paying taxes otherwise my nephews would have no medical care?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Parenting
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Anyone NOT gettting a Social Security Number for their children?