Austerity is state sponsored murder

[McGiver]

Opinions?

[Queen Victoria]

I agree in broad principle, but I need some clarity please.

Austerity at what level of government?  National, state/province, county, city?

Across the board, selective departments, specific services?

What percentage cut results in austerity?

[odeon]

Yup, I need more input.

[Jack]

Capital punishment is state sponsored murder.

[McGiver]

Capital punishment is state sponsored murder.

that to.  Austerity when it cuts programs for the needy like shelters, medical, and food.

More importantly I am thinking about the sequester that is going on in America where austerity is across the board cuts to all federal programs.

[McGiver]

Just tax those who have benefitted the most from the system....eat the rich.

[RageBeoulve]

Actually, we should give them more, and make everyone suffer enough to get them angry.

[Adam]

Yes, it is  murder

[Scrapheap]

Capital punishment is state sponsored murder.

that to.  Austerity when it cuts programs for the needy like shelters, medical, and food.

More importantly I am thinking about the sequester that is going on in America where austerity is across the board cuts to all federal programs.

Your problem is that you fail to see that the government is the tool of the rich.

Programs for the needy aren't to help them, it's to control them and make them dependent on handouts.

A person on the street didn't need a handout any more than AIG did.

[El]

Capital punishment is state sponsored murder.

that to.  Austerity when it cuts programs for the needy like shelters, medical, and food.

More importantly I am thinking about the sequester that is going on in America where austerity is across the board cuts to all federal programs.

Your problem is that you fail to see that the government is the tool of the rich.

Programs for the needy aren't to help them, it's to control them and make them dependent on handouts.

A person on the street didn't need a handout any more than AIG did.

*some* do.  But some do get caught in the mental traps of being dependent on the system.

[TheoK]

It can be a real trap and not just a mental one. When I got my disability, it was first temporarily. I didn't get study loans, because my studying went bad due to concentration problems. I didn't get any work either, because I didn't have a university exam. I had no contacts to fix me a decent work. But my shrink fixed temporarily disability for me.

A couple of years later the social insurance authority themselves almost forced permanent disability on me.

But Scrap is also right that this is the way of the rich to control the poor. Back in an agricultural society I could easily have gotten work on some relative's farm or something like that. This society is made up in a way that even makes it hard to get a work that doesn't require any certain skills.

[McGiver]

Wrong.
Force all people off welfare and into work.  Now you have a larger pool of people NEEDING work.  What you have created is a supply and demand issue.  Real wages will certainly drop since you have more people competing for a limited resource....jobs.

[TheoK]

Wrong.
Force all people off welfare and into work.  Now you have a larger pool of people NEEDING work.  What you have created is a supply and demand issue.  Real wages will certainly drop since you have more people competing for a limited resource....jobs.

Well, that's also true - in a society where most are wage labourers. If you had a society where all people worked for themselves but didn't have an employer, the most skillful in their respective field would earn best.

This kind of society is incredibly hard to achieve, though, although such a society existed only some 300 years ago.

[McGiver]

Wrong.
Force all people off welfare and into work.  Now you have a larger pool of people NEEDING work.  What you have created is a supply and demand issue.  Real wages will certainly drop since you have more people competing for a limited resource....jobs.

Well, that's also true - in a society where most are wage labourers. If you had a society where all people worked for themselves but didn't have an employer, the most skillful in their respective field would earn best.

This kind of society is incredibly hard to achieve, though, although such a society existed only some 300 years ago.

evrybody owning their own business, having their own skills sounds like a barter society.

[TheoK]

Wrong.
Force all people off welfare and into work.  Now you have a larger pool of people NEEDING work.  What you have created is a supply and demand issue.  Real wages will certainly drop since you have more people competing for a limited resource....jobs.

Well, that's also true - in a society where most are wage labourers. If you had a society where all people worked for themselves but didn't have an employer, the most skillful in their respective field would earn best.

This kind of society is incredibly hard to achieve, though, although such a society existed only some 300 years ago.

evrybody owning their own business, having their own skills sounds like a barter society.

It mustn't be. You can have a monetary system anyway.