Anyone NOT gettting a Social Security Number for their children? - Page 10

[TripMom]

Originally Posted by zinemama

And if they have no family? Or if no one is "willing"? What happens then?

Surely you know that there are plenty of people in this world that no one is willing to help.

:

[Mommay]

When did I say government granted us those rights? I'm thinking more in terms of the French and American Revolution when people died for freedoms. Those were democratic movements; not libertarian. You make a distinction between the gov't granting us rights and giving us the right to defend them. Actually, it is the law that gives us rights, and the government's role to enforce them. It is the law that grants us rights; no person grants them to me. That would be a monarchy. To shift the grantor to the law makes it impersonal and equal to everyone. But we leave it up to the gov't to enforce those laws, lest vigilantes run amock. Tell me you don't believe that citizens should take to the streets and hang those whom they think have wronged them.

Originally Posted by bailey228

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.

Are you kidding me? Are you saying that corporations should regulate themselves? You want to show that corporations can actually do this by giving a small, esoteric example. But I think we both know that leaving corporations to regulate themselves would be a disaster. Look at Enron. I think the way you feel about corporations is how I feel about government. They may not always or even mostly get it right, but are necessary and are usually trustworthy if they have a good track record. The way you feel about goverment is how I feel about corporations. They are never going to look out after my interest. When money is on the line, they are never going to look after consumer interest unless their forced to.

But I'd like you to also address the times before there were regulatory laws. Why did no regulation not work in the 20's and 30's? Why has our way of life expotentially become better once minimum wages and social programs were put into effect? The American economy boomed even after these programs were put into place.

The last line was egregious, I admit, but I am not the winner of the 'who can judge the most' contest.

[Godiva]

Originally Posted by dharmamama

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.

Ok, so not everyone will donate money directly to help people who need it, I know that. But whenever you spend money on anything, you are helping people who need help. The more money that is being spent in the economy means a stronger economy. A stronger economy means that there are more jobs for people available. Meaning someone who didn't have a job before now has a way to work and support their family because someone used that $600 to buy a new tv. Also a stonger economy means that employers can pay higher wages to it's workers. In a poor economy, people just can't get paid as well because the people employing them can't afford to pay them more. What makes an employer willingly pay people more without government force (like raising minimum wages)? There is a saying that many of us go by and that is "you get what you pay for". If they aren't willing to pay fair wages, they will either have very bad workers who aren't productive for their company, or they won't get anyone to work at all. They will all go work for the person willing to pay them what they're worth. We do that today. If you are working somewhere that isn't paying you what you are worth, you will go work for someone else. Even if a bad company does get people to work for them for less than what they should be paid, it is those worker's choice to stay working there. Obviously it isn't that bad or they wouldn't keep doing it. For some people, just being able to work for less money is better than having no job at all.

[dharmamama]

Originally Posted by bailey228

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.

Thanks for taking the time to answer, but I see that as quite a misrepresentation of what actually happened. You also didn't actually answer me as to how things would actually be better for poor people now than they were from day one of this country (and maybe from day one of civilization), when poor people lived in squalor and were basically treated as untouchables. I'm looking for what, specifically, has changed in people to make it such that the things that went in in the past, before government social programs, wouldn't happen again if government programs no longer existed. I don't buy the idea that suddenly, for the first time in human history, people are going to go running out and provide for the needs of your average poor person, a person who is not the unfortunate victim of some sort of major catastrophe such as the stock market crash or Hurricane Katrina. People in general tend mainly to villify those who are merely poor while sainting those whose misfortune is seen as something outside their immediate control. I have seen it in your posts, and I disagree with you that simply because people at MDC, which, as we know is not a representative sampling of the population, express kindness and good will toward others, we would be able to meet all this nation's social needs privately. We never have, and if you could show me why we would now rather than simply stating that it will happen because people will donate money, I'd be interested to read that.

Do you believe that people of today have changed so much that they would be willing to do, privately, what the people of 100 years ago weren't?

Namaste!

[Godiva]

Originally Posted by Mommay

When did I say government granted us those rights? I'm thinking more in terms of the French and American Revolution when people died for freedoms. Those were democratic movements; not libertarian. You make a distinction between the gov't granting us rights and giving us the right to defend them. Actually, it is the law that gives us rights, and the government's role to enforce them. It is the law that grants us rights; no person grants them to me. That would be a monarchy. To shift the grantor to the law makes it impersonal and equal to everyone. But we leave it up to the gov't to enforce those laws, lest vigilantes run amock. Tell me you don't believe that citizens should take to the streets and hang those whom they think have wronged them.



Are you kidding me? Are you saying that corporations should regulate themselves? You want to show that corporations can actually do this by giving a small, esoteric example. But I think we both know that leaving corporations to regulate themselves would be a disaster.

Your first paragraph is really rather confusing. First you agree with me on saying that people got rights by figting for them, then you say that people get rights from the law (which is government by the way, the government makes the laws). So which one do you beleive? And this really isn't about political parties, it is about beliefs. The government when it was first created is definatly one I would have wanted to live in. The government today bears no resemblance to that. And FYI, this is not a democracy. It was never intended to be a democracy.

And really? I gave a small esoteric example like the entire internet world wide? Wow I didn't realize that the internet that almost every person uses every day was small and esotaric. Oh and Microsoft, yup, they're real small and esoteric as well. it's not like they have a huge monolopy over pretty much anything to do with software. Yet this small esoteric company is willingly trying to make their small esotaric broswer (ya know, that one called internet explorer) standards compliant because that is what people are demanding from them? And please, do not try to tell me what I know. I completly DISAGREE with you when you said "But I think we both know that leaving corporations to regulate themselves would be a disaster." I don't allow people to speak for me, I can do that just fine on my own thanks.

[Mommay]

Originally Posted by bailey228

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.

I'm sorry dharma, this is your issue, but couldn't resist responding.

Who are you to say what is and is not the gov't's intended job? That's what's under debate here, isn't it? In the scenario you give, who is to blame then? Or is no one to blame? It sounds to me that either 1. no one is to blame or 2. the people are. But too often I think people blame the poor for their plight or owe it to bad luck, even the poor themselves, without looking at the big picture. If wall street treats trading like gambling and the gov't turns a blind eye, and then if the citizens who are led to believe that there is easy money to be had on wall street buys into it and loses all their money, I say that it is wall street and the gov't that needs to reevaulate their roles. I'm not sure blame is the right word, but it was a kick in the butt that we needed to expose the corruption that was ripe in wall street. Now how does that become about people not taking responsibility for themselves. If you're told that Enron is a solid company and put money into it, yet if Enron is corrupt and has mishandled your money, then how is it the people's fault? Of course it is Enron's fault. And that gov't needs to regulate such industries is also clear. What is the alternative? A reversion into big monopolies and $2 a day wages for 16 hours work?

Secondly, and I think someone else made the same point, how are we to fund the defense of our country? Wouldn't they have to "steal" it from us through taxes. And if in principle, you don't have a problem with giving money for defense, then why not money for other necessary protective and social services?

I won't even get into the welfare except to say that it is a drop in the ocean of money going to defense and other things. Before welfare, people just died if it got that bad. In North Korea today, for example, starving kids are regularly shooed away by vendors when the kids try to pick grains from the ground beneath. Then when the kids become too hungry, they lie somewhere in the open public and start dying without anyone blinking an eye. It's that desperate in North Korea. Volunteering is wonderful, but too inconsistent to be a protection for the extremely unfortunate.

Getting off the soap box now...

[Mommay]

Originally Posted by bailey228

And really? I gave a small esoteric example like the entire internet world wide? Wow I didn't realize that the internet that almost every person uses every day was small and esotaric. Oh and Microsoft, yup, they're real small and esoteric as well. it's not like they have a huge monolopy over pretty much anything to do with software. Yet this small esoteric company is willingly trying to make their small esotaric broswer (ya know, that one called internet explorer) standards compliant because that is what people are demanding from them?

The internet and Microsoft is not esoteric, but your example was. How about another to clarify? Also, can you make your point without the sarcasm? Or maybe you need the sarcasm to cover up the fact that you have no point.

I guess you really do believe corporations can regulate themselves. I stand corrected. Wow.

Got to run, but thanks for a stimulating debate.

[Godiva]

Originally Posted by dharmamama

Thanks for taking the time to answer, but I see that as quite a misrepresentation of what actually happened. You also didn't actually answer me as to how things would actually be better for poor people now than they were from day one of this country (and maybe from day one of civilization), when poor people lived in squalor and were basically treated as untouchables. I'm looking for what, specifically, has changed in people to make it such that the things that went in in the past, before government social programs, wouldn't happen again if government programs no longer existed. I don't buy the idea that suddenly, for the first time in human history, people are going to go running out and provide for the needs of your average poor person, a person who is not the unfortunate victim of some sort of major catastrophe such as the stock market crash or Hurricane Katrina. People in general tend mainly to villify those who are merely poor while sainting those whose misfortune is seen as something outside their immediate control. I have seen it in your posts, and I disagree with you that simply because people at MDC, which, as we know is not a representative sampling of the population, express kindness and good will toward others, we would be able to meet all this nation's social needs privately. We never have, and if you could show me why we would now rather than simply stating that it will happen because people will donate money, I'd be interested to read that.

Do you believe that people of today have changed so much that they would be willing to do, privately, what the people of 100 years ago weren't?

Namaste!

Actually I do feel like I answered you, but you just didn't understand it. The very fact that we have welfare today is the proof that people have changed and want to help the less fortunate. Like I said, PEOPLE created welfare, not the government. People started caring and wanting to help others. People's mindsets have changed and they want to help people every day not just those in disasters. We have people donating blood every single day, not just in times of disaster. It is such a common thing though that it goes unnoticed. People donate money and clothes to organizations like the red cross and salvation army every day, not just in times of disaster. I also wasn't just refering to people on MDC, I'm talking about all people with that mindset which is a majority of the country. Everyone I have come across in my life has proven to me that people care. My parents have offered my dad's old high school friend a room in their house because he lost his job as a school bus driver due to severe narcolepsy. He has refused and is living in a homeless shelter, but my parents still insist on him comming over every weekend to get decent food and rest. My parents also donate to the homeless shelter where he is staying to help make sure that he and everyone else there is getting decent food. This isn't something that happened in time of a natural disaster, this is someone helping out someone else just because they need it. And I know that my parents aren't the only people in this country who care about people enough to try to help as much as they can. I know many of you have the argument that some people just don't have friends or family to help them. There are private organizations set up by concerned citizens that want to help that do help out complete strangers who need it. My church growing up had it's members cook meals for people that needed it. This is a service they provided to the community just like many other churches and synagouges do. (and any other religous houses of worship, I gotta be politically correct here). My proof that people have changed their minds about helping the poor is that the poor are getting help today.

[dharmamama]

Originally Posted by bailey228

The more money that is being spent in the economy means a stronger economy.

So we should all buy crap we don't need as our way of insuring that poor people have jobs? :

If they aren't willing to pay fair wages, they will either have very bad workers who aren't productive for their company, or they won't get anyone to work at all. They will all go work for the person willing to pay them what they're worth. We do that today. If you are working somewhere that isn't paying you what you are worth, you will go work for someone else. Even if a bad company does get people to work for them for less than what they should be paid, it is those worker's choice to stay working there.

Or, in the case of Tyson Chicken, they will just bus in people from Mexico and South America and house them in locked warehouses and pay them illegally so that they can get away with the lowest, most rock-bottom labor costs that they can. If they won't even follow the labor laws that are in place, how can we expect that they will act ethically if those laws are removed?

Even if a bad company does get people to work for them for less than what they should be paid, it is those worker's choice to stay working there. Obviously it isn't that bad or they wouldn't keep doing it. For some people, just being able to work for less money is better than having no job at all.

You are assuming that all people have the types of choices you do, and perhaps you fail to understand that the poorest of the poor simply do not have these choices. And I find you last comment highly offensive. Those with the poorest quality, most poorly-paid jobs, who are often outrightly abused by their employers, should just quit complaining and go somewhere else? If you are a non-educated, non-English-speaking person with no job skills, there is no place to go! (Except maybe to another equally crappy job.)

Namaste!

[Mommay]

Thought I got away, but had to address your admiration for our founding democracy. I wanted to say that though those revolutionary times are crucial to the times of peace that follow, they are not models for the times of peace. Just as the way treating sick people should not be models for the way we treat healthy, pregnant women.

Bailey, I didn't mean to cop out. I just have a lot to do while ds sleeps. But let me have it. I'll get back to the thread later...

[Godiva]

Originally Posted by Mommay

The internet and Microsoft is not esoteric, but your example was. How about another to clarify? Also, can you make your point without the sarcasm? Or maybe you need the sarcasm to cover up the fact that you have no point.

Sorry about the sarcasam, I'm just highly amused by what is going on here and I do tend to be sarcastic at times. I would rather be sarcastic than mean and yelling at people. I am confused though, the internet and microsoft WAS my example. So if they are not small and esoteric, how then is my example that is based on Microsoft small and esoteric?

How do I propose that a government get money for defense without taxes? People dontate. I know I'm gonna get the "omg, you are gonna base the defense of this country on donations??" and yup, I would. Why? because would you donate to a military that is promising to defend you against foreign invaders? Sure you would, most people would. Enough people to keep a sufficient military in place. And should we ever be attacked, you better beleive that more people would all of a sudden donate much more money to ensure that the military has the funding to properly protect us. This isn't really an issue I want to get into though, it's has nothing to do with welfare.

We have monopolies today because they are protected by the government. Just to start up a business, you have to first bribe the government to allow you to do so. Many people can't afford those bribes so they get stuck working for someone else at a crappy job (I gave an example of this a few pages back of when this happened to a poor woman trying to open a shop for hair braiding).

[Godiva]

Originally Posted by dharmamama

So we should all buy crap we don't need as our way of insuring that poor people have jobs? :

Haha, except that yeah, people do that no matter what. It's amazing what people "need" the more money they have. Just one benefit of it is that more jobs are created.

Or, in the case of Tyson Chicken, they will just bus in people from Mexico and South America and house them in locked warehouses and pay them illegally so that they can get away with the lowest, most rock-bottom labor costs that they can. If they won't even follow the labor laws that are in place, how can we expect that they will act ethically if those laws are removed?

Because the consumers (people like you) when they find out about this will refuse to buy their products. I haven't actually heard about this, but from what it sounds like when you say that they locked them in warehouses, it sounds like they were holding the workers against their will. Which then, yes the people in charge should be arrested for using force apon someone else. I'm not sure though if you mean that they were actually held against their will. A company's image means alot to them. When people find out that they are corrupt they fail. (or at least they would if we didn't have corporate welfare either. I'm not discriminatory, I don't want to give my money to rich people either )

You are assuming that all people have the types of choices you do, and perhaps you fail to understand that the poorest of the poor simply do not have these choices. And I find you last comment highly offensive. Those with the poorest quality, most poorly-paid jobs, who are often outrightly abused by their employers, should just quit complaining and go somewhere else? If you are a non-educated, non-English-speaking person with no job skills, there is no place to go! (Except maybe to another equally crappy job.)

Sorry you're not gonna like my answer. If they want a better job, the have to learn english and learn some job skills. If they refuse to grow and try to become better, then yes the only jobs they get will be crappy jobs. And let me tell ya, as a 19 year old mom, with no college degree, I sure got a lot of choices.. McDonalds, Burger King, Taco bell.... Actually the one thing that is stopping me from having to work in one of those places is that I have one skill that I have learned how to market. I know horses, so I am opening my own business boarding horses on my property. I do not believe that someone can not have ANY job skills at all. If you have the capacity to learn, you have job skills. You don't have to know how to do something, as long as you know how to LEARN to do something. There are many jobs out there that state that no training is nessicary, they will train you. And not all of those jobs are bad, I've worked at a few and did quite well at them.

[BlueStateMama]

: This back and forth is the most interesting I've read in a while!!! Please continue :

[dharmamama]

Originally Posted by bailey228

We have monopolies today because they are protected by the government.

We seem to have such different interpretations of history. Do you remember learning about trustbusting and the Sherman Anti-Trust Law? About the Standard Oil, railroad, beef, and tobacco trusts? The more recent example of the Bell Telephone trust? It took government intervention to break those monopolies.

Btw, this morning I went to a site called Libertarianism.com and did some reading. I took their (very short) political test called "Are you a Libertarian?" I agreed with all their personal issues questions but disagreed with most of their economic issues. My scores were

PERSONAL issues Score is 100%
ECONOMIC issues Score is 30%

I'm also planning to look at the Free State Project website. I just want you to know that I am not just dismissing your ideas out of hand. I am looking into these things.

Namaste!

[dharmamama]

Originally Posted by bailey228

Because the consumers (people like you) when they find out about this will refuse to buy their products.

Hey! Don't implicate me in this! I do not consume the flesh of other sentient creatures!

Actually, Tyson Chicken has been publicly castigated for their abuses of workers (including holding them against their will) for many years and they continue to be one of the largest, if not the largest, chicken company in the USA. Why? Because they offer cheap prices. People can absolutely be bought. If I had a nickel for every time I heard someone say, "I know Walmart doesn't treat their employees well, but their prices are SO LOW" I would be able to provide private welfare for everyone in this country! (I just Googled "tyson chicken labor abuses" and came up with myriad websites about it. Check it out, if you're so inclined.)

Anyway, I have a lot to do and my kids are awake now, so ...

Namaste!

[dharmamama]

Originally Posted by bailey228

If they want a better job, the have to learn english and learn some job skills. If they refuse to grow and try to become better, then yes the only jobs they get will be crappy jobs.

Sorry, forgot to address this. If these people are being illegally trucked in and locked up, or even if that is not the case and they are just working 60 or so hours a week trying to provide for their families on sub-poverty-level wages, when will they find the time for job training?

Namaste!

[Godiva]

remember history is written by the victor there are different intrepretations of history everywhere. And thank you for actually take the time to reasearch my beleifs a little. From your scores I'd say it sounds like you're a liberal (not trying to label you or anything). Liberals tend to belive in social freedom but economic control while conservatives believe in economic freedom but social control. Libertarains beleive in both economic AND social freedom. The reason why we feel we need both is because any ammount of power you give to the governement, they will take that plus another 10 yards. Plus I really feel like they go hand in hand, how can you be socially free if someone tells you what you can and can't do with your money? And how can your economy be free if socially you must abide by "moral" laws that people set. I'm really not for complete anarchy. I feel that SOME governement regulation is nessicary to protect people. I am truly scared of what I see the governement turning into. People no longer have control of the governement, the government is controlling people. The second that happens corruption and tyrannay immeaditly follow. The government slowly over history has pushed and pushed to see what kind of power the people are willing to give them. It is like a horse that is still learning what a new rider will let them get away with. They will slowly speed up and if the rider doesn't pull them back in the horse will just continue to get faster and stronger til the rider no longer has control and they are just clinging to the horse's neck for dear life. (sorry for the horse reference, it's what I know ) If people had control of the governement again and this time they didn't give that control up, I'd be satisfied. And remember there is much much more to the government than just the federal governement, we also have state and local governments as well. If people need help they should first look closer to home than immeaditly going to the federal level. That way if you lived in a state that you didn't agree with, you can just move to one that's more in line with how you want to live.

[Godiva]

Originally Posted by dharmamama

Sorry, forgot to address this. If these people are being illegally trucked in and locked up, or even if that is not the case and they are just working 60 or so hours a week trying to provide for their families on sub-poverty-level wages, when will they find the time for job training?

Like I said, if those people were being locked up as slaves, then yes the people in charge deserve to be in jail. And if they are spending all that time working, surely then they have aquired job skills from working. You don't just get job skills by going to a school. Mabye someone is working in a bad job but they have dreams of becomming a mechanic. They should go work in a garage at an entry level job, gain skills, get promoted, gain more skills, have enough income to be able to not work 60 hour weeks and be able to go to college to get certified to become a mechanic, get promoted to mechanic at the garage where he started out mopping floors. I know this can be done, I watched my dad do it. He didn't work his way up though, he worked and saved util he had enough saved for tuition and to be able to live without working while he finished 2 years at a university. (first 2 spent at a community college while working) He went from selling parts in a auto parts store to being the top engineer at his company.

Also, the reason why people NEED to shop at walmart is because the governement steals over 70% of their income from them I know my husband and I wouldn't be shopping there if we had all of our income available to us.

[Godiva]

So I did go and look to see what the whole tyson chicken thing was about. What I found wasn't that there were any reports of them holding immigrants hostage, the governemnt was bringing charges against them for smuggling in illegal immigrants to work. Once here the immigrants could leave at any time. I don't see how this is actually hurting the immigrants. They are helped out in escaping into a country they want to be in and they are given a job. They were not being abused at all.

[annakiss]

Perhaps since this discussion has veered off so far into political-land, someone might like to redirect to a new thread in News & Current Events to continue the conversation...