White Privilege

[Danoff]

I prepaid over the years for my burial plot, grave opening and burial vault back in the 1980's with 1980's value money not having a clue what prices will be required or have to be applied when I die. But I know whether it is 1000 dollars or 10,000 dollars I will receive that burial.
Is that socialism as well since I paid in advance not knowing the amount of benefits I may receive years down the road?

No that's a purchase of goods and services with time difference between payment and receipt.

Social Security is socialism. You paid taxes (presumably) which was redistributed to others who were deemed to need it more than you (socialism). Now, since you paid taxes to them, you demand that others (me, specifically) pay taxes to you (also socialism).

 

[Joey D]

Is that socialism as well since I paid in advance not knowing the amount of benefits I may receive years down the road?

It's socialism when you steal my money every month to redistribute it to old people who think they're entitled to free money and healthcare.

I support precisely zero social programs, including Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, TARP, SNAP, subsidized housing, etc. While blacks and non-white Hispanics might use more programs like TARP and SNAP compared to their overall population, if you factor in social programs like Social Security and Medicare, that number skews vast in favor of whites.

I don't support socialism or racism. It appears you're in favor of socialism (well socialism that benefits you) and based on your posts, I can only assume you support racism too given how you stereotype blacks, make posts poking fun at ebonics, and overall continue the narrative that blacks can't see to run anything at all.

 

[Biggles]

Yes, because white people have totally never been the victim of scientific ignorance.

Just because something seems like it might be racist, doesn't mean it is. If you actually want things to change for the better, drop the "us vs. them" attitude, it does far more harm than good.

On the other hand, if something seems to be racist ... & correlates with a couple hundred years of overt racism ... then it might just BE racism. Crack cocaine, which was predominantly used in poor, urban black communities was treated with exponentially greater severity than powdered cocaine, which was used predominantly in more affluent, white communities. As a result, hundreds of thousands of African American men ended up incarcerated ...& then - the icing on the cake - racists use those statistics to argue that blacks represent a far higher proportion of "criminals".

Along comes opioid abuse - widespread, but not statically skewed towards African Americans, & rather than incarcerating hundreds of thousands of white citizens ... it's described as a terrible medical/psychological crisis - an "epidemic" that has to be treated with understanding & compassion. Yeah - it IS "us vs them".

 

[Danoff]

On the other hand, if something seems to be racist ... & correlates with a couple hundred years of overt racism ... then it might just BE racism. Crack cocaine, which was predominantly used in poor, urban black communities was treated with exponentially greater severity than powdered cocaine, which was used predominantly in more affluent, white communities. As a result, hundreds of thousands of African American men ended up incarcerated ...& then - the icing on the cake - racists use those statistics to argue that blacks represent a far higher proportion of "criminals".

Along comes opioid abuse - widespread, but not statically skewed towards African Americans, & rather than incarcerating hundreds of thousands of white citizens ... it's described as a terrible medical/psychological crisis - an "epidemic" that has to be treated with understanding & compassion. Yeah - it IS "us vs them".

Poor people drug use is associated with other crimes (theft and violent crime). Rich people drug use is not. That's why it's treated differently.

 

[PocketZeven]

It's socialism when you steal my money every month to redistribute it to old people who think they're entitled to free money and healthcare.

I support precisely zero social programs, including Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, TARP, SNAP, subsidized housing, etc. While blacks and non-white Hispanics might use more programs like TARP and SNAP compared to their overall population, if you factor in social programs like Social Security and Medicare, that number skews vast in favor of whites.

I don't support socialism or racism. It appears you're in favor of socialism (well socialism that benefits you) and based on your posts, I can only assume you support racism too given how you stereotype blacks, make posts poking fun at ebonics, and overall continue the narrative that blacks can't see to run anything at all.

A lot of americans think of socialism as if its communism. The right did a great job demonizing this word. Instead viewing it as stealing from the people to fund wellfare and pay for the hospital bills of the old and unhealthy. You should view it as the country you live in providing every citizen, regardless of social status, the right to healthcare and education. How often do you ever hear a european complaining about too much socialism?

 

[Danoff]

You should view it as the country you live in providing every citizen, regardless of social status, the right to healthcare and education. How often do you ever hear a european complaining about too much socialism?

You can't be generous with other people's money.

 

[PocketZeven]

You can't be generous with other peoples' money.

Its not being generous. In europe it makes perfect sense. It is many europeans eyes barbaric how the healthcare system in the US can leave people in debt and/or destroy their lives. Even if you disagree with welfare and affordable/ free education. In a modern society healthcare should be a right.

edit:
Isnt it barbaric how someone born with certain diseases can be denied insurance, because of pre-existing conditions? Or someone with a child born with a rare disease or forced to open a gofundme page and are dependant on charity?

 

[Danoff]

Its not being generous.

Then don't categorize it as "providing" for people.

In europe it makes perfect sense. It is many europeans eyes barbaric how the healthcare system in the US can leave people in debt and/or destroy their lives. Even if you disagree with welfare and affordable/ free education. In a modern society healthcare should be a right.

You can't have a right to something which must be taken from, or given to you by, someone else.

 

[PocketZeven]

Then don't categorize it as "providing" for people.



You can't have a right to something which must be taken from or given to you by someone else.

Providing = generous? Didnt know that. I dont see me providing for my family as being generous. Perhaps the word means something different in english?

Everyone does pay for it in the taxes they pay.

 

[Danoff]

Providing = generous?

Not in all contexts.

Didnt know that. I dont see me providing for my family as being generous.

Ok, fair enough. I misunderstood you. You meant providing in terms of fulfilling an obligation. That's even worse.

Everyone does pay for it in the taxes they pay.

No one has a right to have everyone else pay (work) for them.

 

[ryzno]

Everyone does pay for it in the taxes they pay.

And that's what Danoff and Joey D don't like.
I disagree with them though. We younger Americans might be paying in to SS now but, my dad paid in since the beginning of SS.
For them to think he doesn't deserve his portion for what he paid in is wrong to me.

 

[PocketZeven]

Not in all contexts.



Ok, fair enough. I misunderstood you. You meant providing in terms of fulfilling an obligation. That's even worse.



No one has a right to have everyone else pay (work) for them.

No it isnt. The government and or country that you elected, live on, pay taxes to has an obligation, in my opinion, to makes sure that its people are healthy and dont die from hunger.

If everyone agrees and passed as law it becomes one. You can disagree, but in a civilized country a goverment should not let someone die simply because he cant affordt healthcare.

And that's what Danoff and Joey D don't like.
I disagree with them though. We younger Americans might be paying in to SS now but, my dad paid in since the beginning of SS.
For them to think he doesn't deserve his portion for what he paid in is wrong to me.

Doesnt happen that much, we agree on something

 

[Danoff]

And that's what Danoff and Joey D don't like.
I disagree with them though. We younger Americans might be paying in to SS now but, my dad paid in since the beginning of SS.
For them to think he doesn't deserve his portion for what he paid in is wrong to me.

He doesn't. There is no portion of what he paid in that was saved for him. Social Security is straight redistribution, it is not a lock box. Your social security money goes directly to the people who are on the SS dole. It does not get set aside for you in an account that belongs to you.

The money anyone expects to get from SS in retirement will be redistributed to them from the paychecks of others.

We don't owe your dad. The people he paid owe him. And they're likely dead. To the extent that I ship money to your dad (which is very likely it seems), he owes me.

No it isnt. The government and or country that you elected, live on, pay taxes to has an obligation, in my opinion, to makes sure that its people are healthy and dont die from hunger.

That's not what government is for. Government does not exist to provide you with comfort and food. It exists to keep others from stealing from you and committing violence against you.

If everyone agrees and passed as law it becomes one.

Consent of the governed is a falsehood. Ironically this is trotted out as a reason why someone cannot refuse to consent. It's hilarious really.

You can disagree, but in a civilized country a goverment should not let someone die simply because he cant affordt healthcare.

Government is neither here nor there in that discussion. A civilized country should not let that happen because its people should be generous and voluntarily help those in need. If they don't, they have only themselves to blame.

 

[PocketZeven]

That's not what government is for. Government does not exist to provide you with comfort and food. It exists to keep others from stealing from you and committing violence against you.

Consent of the governed is a falsehood. Ironically this is trotted out as a reason why someone cannot refuse to consent. It's hilarious really.

Government is neither here nor there in that discussion. A civilized country should not let that happen because its people should be generous and voluntarily help those in need. If they don't, they have only themselves to blame.

I guess thats why I am happy I live here and you live in the USA. It's better not to go off-topic too much here.

edit: I realized it looks like I am suggesting I am happy you dont have a better healthcare and education system. I didnt mean it like that. Hopefully the US will eventually follow suit in some kind of compromise.

Generally people are selfish as individuals and very social as a collective. Do you agree?

 

[Sander 001]

You can't have a right to something which must be taken from, or given to you by, someone else.

What about the right to vote?

 

[Danoff]

What about the right to vote?

The function of government is the preservation of rights, it is not a right in and of itself. But it can violate rights in many many ways.

 

[BobK]

It is many europeans eyes barbaric how the healthcare system in the US can leave people in debt and/or destroy their lives.

Yes it is barbaric. But that has nothing to do with who pays for it and everything to do with how health care works in this country, with an almost complete lack of accountability, financially speaking, on the providers.

 

[Danoff]

Isnt it barbaric how someone born with certain diseases can be denied insurance, because of pre-existing conditions? Or someone with a child born with a rare disease or forced to open a gofundme page and are dependant on charity?

How is it barbaric for someone to ask for charity? Are you listening to yourself right now? Barbaric that someone had to open a godfundme page and ask for help? That's not barbaric! There's no part of that that is barbaric. This is a person who is in need, and the fact that you would have already demanded that people help this person whether they want to or not does not change the nature of it, of the need for charity.

Here's your scenario:

Child is born with rare disease
PocketZeven says "We've already stolen the money to pay for it!"

That's beautiful.

Here's my scenario:

Child is born with rare diease
Society says "we're happy to help"

Barbaric!

 

[PocketZeven]

Yes it is barbaric. But that has nothing to do with who pays for it and everything to do with how health care works in this country, with an almost complete lack of accountability, financially speaking, on the providers.

You are speaking about the US, correct?

How is it barbaric for someone to ask for charity? Are you listening to yourself right now? Barbaric that someone had to open a godfundme page and ask for help? That's not barbaric! There's no part of that that is barbaric. This is a person who is in need, and the fact that you would have already demanded that people help this person whether they want to or not does not change the nature of it, of the need for charity.

Here's your scenario:

Child is born with rare disease
PocketZeven says "We've already stolen the money to pay for it!"

That's beautiful.

Here's my scenario:

Child is born with rare diease
Society says "we're happy to help"

Barbaric!

Only an american would call that stealing money. You fail to share the outside perspective and stuck in your own worldview. Paying taxes or for single payer healthcare i dont consider stealing. It is the consequence and privelege of living in a certain country/society.

The correct scenario:

Child is born with rare disease
All children have acces to free care in our country, regardless of religion and nationality. We the people are happy to pay for it and the ones carrying it out are well compensated to carry it out.

Your scenerio:

That person has to ask or even beg for help. And then society "might" help. And certainly not in 100% of the cases!


edit: added comment

 

[BobK]

The function of government is the preservation of rights, it is not a right in and of itself. But it can and does violate rights in many many ways.

FTFY

 

[BobK]

You are speaking about the US, correct?

Yes I am.

 

[PocketZeven]

Yes I am.

Thats a whole other problem. In other threads I already called out how crazy it is how money plays a too big of a role in campaigning. Big Pharma has deep, deep Pockets.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

You paid taxes (presumably) which was redistributed to others who were deemed to need it more than you (socialism). Now, since you paid taxes to them, you demand that others (me, specifically) pay taxes to you (also socialism).

Social Security and Medicare are both insurance plans, the first for retirement income and the second for medical care.

It works no different than ANY insurance plan (excluding whole life).

You paid premiums which were redistributed to others who were deemed to need it more than you (make a claim) and now since you paid premiums to them you demand that others pay your claim amount to you.

There is no portion of what he paid in that was saved for him. Social Security is straight redistribution, it is not a lock box. Your social security money goes directly to the people who are on the SS dole. It does not get set aside for you in an account that belongs to you.

There is no portion of what premium he paid in that was saved for him. Insurance is straight redistribution, it is not a lock box. Your insurance premium money goes directly to the people who are making claims against their policy. It does not get set aside for you in an account that belongs to you, you are making premium payments that is redistributed as needed determined by the needs of the policy holders.

This goes for all insurance policies. In my state automobile insurance is mandatory period. If you have a loan on your home the mortgage company requires you maintain insurance on the property against loss.

If you make 3 premium payments of say 200 dollars and your 500,000 dollar insured house burns down then the insurance company is going to pay that 500,000 even though you only paid in 600 dollars total. Where is that lock box money? Is that socialism, you are required to have the insurance and pay the premiums. If you have that policy for 20 years and make no claims for loss even though you paid 200 a month premium there is no box with money in it or even a credit for an insured loss later if you stop making the payments.

And just like any other insurance if you die before you make a claim or in this case reach retirement qualification age you do not get a thing for the last 40 or more years you have paid in.

You call it socialism, I call it a required insurance premium just like my auto insurance. no one is stealing anything from anyone.

 

[Dobermann92]

How is it barbaric for someone to ask for charity? Are you listening to yourself right now? Barbaric that someone had to open a godfundme page and ask for help? That's not barbaric! There's no part of that that is barbaric. This is a person who is in need, and the fact that you would have already demanded that people help this person whether they want to or not does not change the nature of it, of the need for charity.

Here's your scenario:

Child is born with rare disease
PocketZeven says "We've already stolen the money to pay for it!"

That's beautiful.

Here's my scenario:

Child is born with rare diease
Society says "we're happy to help"

Barbaric!

The problem is that your scenario prerequisites that most of society has charitable attitude or that generous when it comes to helping other people. It could work in a society where only smart, kind, helpful people live, but it is utopistic nontheless. The social security tries to balance the negative attitudes of other people.

 

[Northstar]

On the other hand, if something seems to be racist ... & correlates with a couple hundred years of overt racism ... then it might just BE racism. Crack cocaine, which was predominantly used in poor, urban black communities was treated with exponentially greater severity than powdered cocaine, which was used predominantly in more affluent, white communities. As a result, hundreds of thousands of African American men ended up incarcerated ...& then - the icing on the cake - racists use those statistics to argue that blacks represent a far higher proportion of "criminals".

Along comes opioid abuse - widespread, but not statically skewed towards African Americans, & rather than incarcerating hundreds of thousands of white citizens ... it's described as a terrible medical/psychological crisis - an "epidemic" that has to be treated with understanding & compassion. Yeah - it IS "us vs them".

So I'm confused, are you saying we should treat everyone exactly like we did in the past? Because it seems like you're actually arguing against progress.

Now, I'm not saying racism isn't a factor because it obviously is, but I think making it out as being the only factor in how the two situations are viewed and treated is just as ignorant as those who are actually racist.

 

[Danoff]

The problem is that your scenario prerequisites that most of society has charitable attitude or that generous when it comes to helping other people. It could work in a society where only smart, kind, helpful people live, but it is utopistic nontheless. The social security tries to balance the negative attitudes of other people.

Can't be generous with other people's money. You're basically saying that because people can't be counted on to be charitable with their own money, but can be counted on to give away other people's money, that they should give away other people's money.

Social Security and Medicare are both insurance plans, the first for retirement income and the second for medical care.

I don't think you understand what an insurance plan is. You might want to look that one up.

It works no different than ANY insurance plan (excluding whole life).

Except for tons of fundamental differences which make it socialism.

 

[Sander 001]

The function of government is the preservation of rights, it is not a right in and of itself. But it can violate rights in many many ways.

Some governments preserve citizen rights like security and safety.

 

[Danoff]

Some governments preserve citizen rights like security and safety.

Obviously you don't mean all kinds of security and safety. Because I could get hit by lightning...

 

[Sander 001]

Obviously you don't mean all kinds of security and safety. Because I could get hit by lightning...

Well where I live, if a person gets struck by lightning, our government provides services which will render immediate assistance, treatment, rehabilitation etc.

 

[Danoff]

Well where I live, if a person gets struck by lightning, our government provides services which will render immediate assistance, treatment, rehabilitation etc.

But can they ensure safety from lightning?