Daemonic-Fae's avatar
"Defense" goes under military spending, and it is still quite large. If my understanding is correct, that can be reduced. I can see spending a sizable amount, but it's the largest amount of government spending and everyone that is a threat to us has already been assassinated. Your video even says that a solution to this would be to get people who aren't sick, old or crippled off welfare. One way to do this would be to educate them enough to get a proper job, and this is difficult if they crushed by debt.

It is required to enter the labor force, here. Most jobs that aren't minimum wage (which in most of the US is not enough to live on) require it for some reason. It is not simply a single person in the long run, as people who can make an income they can live off of end up paying taxes (which would pay off their debt, indirectly). What OWS is protesting is corporations having unreasonable expectations and shit wages, along with the fact that generating a lump sum of debt with interest instead of spreading it out more evenly is sort of stupid.
foreverrussia1's avatar
Not larger than the entitlements. Your statement on the sick makes no sense, the video clearly stated that running both the government and the military would be cake if entitlements didn't drain all the tax money plus the deficit.

I was never told what OWS was protesting because they didn't have a coherent message. I assumed they ever got out because they wanted to fuck in sleeping bags and smoke more pot, but the ultimate result was that the evil corporate bosses laughed it out over a swill of French wine and carried on with their jobs, which is what I would do if I found out a bunch of college hippies were taking shits on the street to 'protest' me and my job. In any case, if you want to go to college get the damned money yourself because I'm not going to pay for you. I don't mind a small income tax to pay so promising students can become engineers and such, but I'm not going to finance your expedition into gender studies of medieval poetry, just so you can get drunk and fuck on campus. Believe it or not that's what the modern American university looks like, or at least what these faggots and their Marxist professors want it to, and I don't plan on paying for it.
Daemonic-Fae's avatar
Many entitlements are necessary, but such a large defense budget isn't always. For example, Social Security, one of the largest, is paid by the person receiving it years beforehand (in that case, the government is just holding it). The video stated that removing unnecessary entitlements would improve it, which making secondary education more available would do. If whoever is physically able to work can actually find and be qualified for a job, then obviously more people will be working.

You clearly did not do research at reputable places if that is what you thought of them (many biased news sources tend to focus on the absolute worst and ignore everything else, they do that with everything). There were people of all ages, occupations, and classes even if the poorer people did make up most of it. They had a lot of reasons to protest that have been building up for years, so I can see why that could be confusing to an outsider.

Why would someone outside the country pay for our college? :confused: Taxes would be from this country. Everyone in this country already pays taxes for elementary through high school, so it would not be a major change. It would not be free, it would simply be paid for differently. :u You can't choose what people major in, and every major does have some use that can get people a job (mostly because everything requires at least basic college-level Math/English/etc). Also, you do realize gender studies have and still are improving things, right? :lol: If no one studies social issues, no one will know why the fuck things happen and positive change will take ten times longer.
foreverrussia1's avatar
Making the workforce overprepared for what it is already ready to do will not remove entitlements, because no matter what you do in this regard the amount of jobs does go up or down as a result, so you still have to pay unemployment. A public works program would do instead of the welfare checks but no one seems to be willing to add two to two and get four.

Hardly an outsider, I participated in the movement in its early stages, I know what it's all about. Perhaps you're the one getting your news fed straight into you by the 'biased media.'

I imagine, since the colleges do not yet need police with metal detectors or have regular drug clap-downs, beatings, and shootings, keeping them in the private sector and not making your not-so-major change was a good call.

Quote:
Also, you do realize gender studies have and still are improving things, right?

:rofl:

Thanks for the convo mate.
Daemonic-Fae's avatar
The basics of secondary education are useful in daily life regardless of what you do. A lot of labor jobs also have people planning it at various stages, and you have to be smart enough to manage equipment and not screw up (if you can pass college, it's generally accepted you can do this). If they plan wrong or are just stupid, you get towns with lopsided roads everywhere, buildings that can't survive local weather, or other things to that effect.

I am participating and know several people planning local events in its current stages. I'm sort of there, at least in parts of the Midwest.

Wow, where the hell are you? :lol: Your profile says Russia? It might be different in Russia, but the changes the movement is trying to bring about here have nothing to do with drugs, and the movement as a whole is meant to be nonviolent on the part of protesters. Most violence is either a small minority of the protesters (which you could expect from any large public event really) or from police.

So making women's health treatment more readily available, running rape crisis/battered women's shelters, and programs helping single mothers aren't helpful at all? :o
foreverrussia1's avatar
YOU DID NOT ANSWER ME: I said that further spending on education would in no way lower entitlement costs, it would up them, because weather you educate people or not there's still the same amount of jobs to satisfy the population, educated or not. It would only HEIGHTEN the spending, and the US is already 15 trillion in debt. Please answer that already.

Where I am does not matter. Your movement left a hell of a smell on those American streets.

Women's health is a product of medical progress, nothing to do with gender studies. The fagots that force employers to pay for it are denying business rights.
Rape/battered shelters is called COMMUNITY, not gender studies class. You go to your FAMILY AND FRIENDS if you have any for support when raped, not a college whiz kid.
Single mothers raise three quarters of all criminals. Making single motherhood an easy option undermines the economic motive for marriage.

There you go :) now please stay on topic
Daemonic-Fae's avatar
I answered that as far back as you asked it: Cut down on the military ("Defense") spending now that the war stopped. Money from that can help pay off the debt, because if people are educated, more can make enough money to actually have to pay taxes. :lol: (It gets refunded if they are too poor)

If you aren't here now, you won't know how it is now. You may have a point about before, but not currently.

People who major as women's studies are the people who work for those types of charities. (The fact that they need to be charities..) Rape crisis centers are places for when your family and friends will not support you, which happens enough to be necessary. As for your single mother "point", you are confusing correlation with causation. They raise more criminals because they have a harder time, poverty and all the things that come with it contribute to the mentality that creates criminals.
foreverrussia1's avatar
Your answer did not coincide with economic reality. Modern market demands to attract the means of production is a cheap workforce, not a high quality one. The point is that making a more educated work force will not improve there chances of getting jobs because there already aren't enough, and said program will spend more money without creating ANY jobs. A public works program makes sense because it can utilize the skills that American workers ALREADY HAVE by creating new jobs for them to be applied to. I'll repeat this again: capital is being attracted away from wealthy industrialized state because of the fact that they only work for high capital, and no one wants to pay a lot. Educating them further and driving up the quality of the labor will be ineffectual, because no one needs that much labor of high quality. It's ECON101 really.

Suffice to say, I know how things are in America at the very least better than you, since I can name a basic economic principle.

Bull, bull, bull again. Regarding single mothers, if you agree with me that is a poor family system that produces poverty, despair and criminality, why try to repair it: women are only single mothers presumably because they left their husbands or their marriage did not work out. Raising material conditions for them will be an action that counter-acts marriage making it easier for women to abandon their families, therefore you will be serving to create more poverty, despair and criminality except now with government money, by further subverting the family institution.
View all replies