Pension Debate: 'No One Has the Guts' to Let the Poor 'Wither and Die'

I said it before and I'll say it again... this is where the pension debate is headed step by step.

I've heard this here in Australia behind closed doors. Of course they will not come straight out with it. But this is where it is headed just like in the US.

They want to remove medicare despite having one of the lowest spends of GDP in the OECD. Removal of pensions and eventually and I'm not kidding as I've heard it "State means tested mandatory euthanasia programs". Meaning the state gets to kill anyone.

Anyway here's an article showing you this very attitude from the US.

Indiana Republican: 'No One Has the Guts' to Let the Poor 'Wither and Die'
June 12, 2014 By Allen Clifton 141 Comments 35k429

Republican in Indiana has once again proven just how much disdain the GOP has for the poor by saying one of the most disgusting things about them that I've ever heard. During an online discussion about poverty, Republican John Johnston said of the poor, "no one has the guts to just let them wither and die."

But to grasp just how much Johnston hates the poor, you really need to see his comments in their full context. "For almost three generations people, in some cases, have been given handouts," Johnston said. "They have been 'enabled' so much that their paradigm in life is simply being given the stuff of life, however meager." "What you see is a setting for a life of misery is life to them never-the-less," he continued. "No one has the guts to just let them wither and die. No one who wants votes is willing to call a spade a spade. As long as the Dems can get their votes the enabling will continue. The Republicans need their votes and dare not cut the fiscal tether. It is really a political Catch-22." But Johnston didn't stop there, "The voters are the ones in charge. However when only 10-11 percent show up to vote, not much will change. People simply are not hurting enough, or simply happy enough that they will do nothing. Consequently the dole continues." It's the typical "people are poor because they've been enabled" right-wing propaganda.

This fool seems unaware that millions of Americans work full-time jobs yet still rely on help from the government because they make so little due to his party continuing to oppose any hike in the minimum wage. Are there people who abuse the system? Absolutely. But the way many Republicans perpetuate this myth that the majority of Americans living in poverty are living that way because they're lazy is, quite frankly, pathetic. Oh, someone might also want to inform him that there are more liberals than conservatives.

Typically the higher the voter turnout, the better that is for Democrats not Republicans. That's why Republicans are trying so hard to pass new voter ID laws that make it harder for people to vote. They know the lower the turnout, the better it is for the GOP. But once again John Johnston proved just how much Republicans loathe Americans who are living in poverty.

Read more at: http://www.forwardprogressives.com/indiana-republican-one-guts-let-poor-wither-die/

 

source?

 

As abhorrent as the proposed outcome is, the argument is valid. In Australia we refer to it as the handout mentality which enfeebles the recipricants. The answer is a system that will empower the disadvantaged.

Now that's the Pollyanna solution, but is it possible. We are living in an overpopulated world, where there are not enough resources; food, water, shelter, money, to be shared equitably. As a consequence, the rich, through an excess of these resources are getting richer, and the poor poorer.

There is probably a valid argument to take out the say, bottom 10%. The world will be a better place. We can then move on to the next 10%. I'm not feeling nervous yet. Then the next 10%. A little bit of a sweat now....

We won't see a solution until after 2050 when the world population is set to peak at 9,000,000,000 before it starts dropping back. However, if we're lucky, famine, climate change, nuclear war, or disease, may speed up the process.

 

Sauce? We're not going to eat them are we?

 

The way I would do it is I would pick a time line, say 10 years, that way people have time to plan, after that 10 year time line (during of which information campaigns would be pushed) the age pension would be cut and we would transfer to a china based state pension system, you're too old and can't work? F&@$ YOU! Disability pensions would still be in place, however they would be heavily regulated

 

I am surprised you have not been called a socilist yet.

I can understand the point of view of kill them off based on some people's thinking I have seen on this forum. For some though it is to "in your face" another option is to just have charity look after them or their families blah blah blah. Or they can just forage for food on land that is not owned by others if they can not afford to look after themselves.

Another alternative is just ignoring the fact that money is involved and anyone over a certain age say 65 gets a green needle on their birthday no matter how much money they have. I think that would be very unpopular with the people that have money though

Why should money have be a factor? If you are old you are not contributing so let's not discriminate

 

I'm of pension age next year. Stupid idea!

 

Lets just face facts please.
There are far far to many living off the backs of others.
We pay enough tax in this house each week to finance an entire family of 5, and we know that money is going to people that think they ARE ENTITLED TO IT.
What do we do about this?
Well i would love to see these people living on the streets and then they would be forced to really make an effort to participate in society, instead of just leaching off it.

Sure there are people that are not fit and healthy enough to work,but if we were not paying so much to support these lowlife leechers then people would be able to willingly support the members of their families that were unhealthy.
This is never going to happen of course.
The only thing we can really do is keep our heads down and do as much income earning work OFF THE BOOKS as we can.
The leechers make me sick (as i personally know plenty) with their I AM ENTITLED to this and that attitude.

Edit:Killing them is NOT an option in my book.
Allowing them to die would be fine though.
Funny thing is, if we allowed them to die i bet they would get their shit together and do whatever was needed to survive.
The survival drive is strong, but if we keep supplying these people with everything they need then this "survival drive" never needs to kick in.

 

Problem is people think that their taxes pay for things. Can't have this debate without bringing how money is created and distributed and why the populace are becoming ever more indebted.

Now let me get this point, people should be productive and not have an entitlement attitude, I totally agree. Though my point goes much much further than that.

In truth humans are far more productive than ever before. The concept of scarcity has been hoisted upon us and overgeneralized. I think the current system is inherently flawed as are people's values and attitudes.

Although I do not support the views entirely of this video, it has some excellent points. For example in Japan families take care of their parents, it is a larger family unit. Here it is uncommon for families to remain together. We can look at the majority of traditional and modern groups (this is anthropology) and find that our current system is sick, unhealthy, extremely egocentric and based on opposition rather than co-operation for the so much interaction.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxPVrr44KHI[/youtube]

 

Unfortunately this is very true, albeit politically incorrect to actually say it! :lol:

 

Good.

 

Miloman you present these stories, they are all conjecture and then you speak about them as they were truth. So much of what you are posting is paranoia.

 

ALL conjecture? Paranoia?

As for the euthanasia debate the discussion is there. There are even parodies about it.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzfHPgvJNDI[/youtube]

In the Netherlands there are a significant number of deaths that are from euthanasia, conjecture? And it has rise by an average of 10% per year, with the recent yearly rise of 13%.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...and-euthanasia-choosing-end-lives-cancer.html

That was in the 1990's and the death rate has jumped very significantly since then. I suppose these stats are cool with you.

Democide has been practiced by all government throughout human history, true or false?

It's a slippery slope. Do you really think the mentality of the elites has changed over time or country? I see it as the same agenda.

 

It would appear to me that the fact that you are able to produce figures for the assisted death rate ,that they are following the law and reporting these deaths.
It would also appear to me that the rate of death (per 1000) in the Netherlands has been consistent for at least the last 15years.
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=nl&v=26
As there has not been a dramatic increase in the per1000 death rate i would surmise that these people WERE GOING TO DIE ANYWAY and be helped to avoid pain is preferred.
This particular argument is very similar to abortion, in that you have people opposed and will never sway, and you have people in favour and we will never sway.
I will do more research into this ,but from what i have seen so far i am betting (as far as Netherlands are concerned) that i will see a decrease in the death rate per1000
the further back i look.
On a personal note, if i was dying of a disease with NO HOPE of recovery and i had the option to take myself out humanly YOU CAN BET YOUR ASS I WOULD

 

Look into the evidence. Doctors are killing infants too with any defects.

Sure the line is NO HOPE of recovery and PAIN, I get that. And to take yourself out with your consent and will then that's your choice.

However I draw the line when it becomes democide and the government and social mentality is that it's okay to kill. No consent. Or even with a mild defect. Just look.

Here's the conjecture when doctors decide to kill people and they do, it's called medical negligence and they are protected by law and do act with impunity. A third of all deaths are due to medical "negligence". And although I haven't checked I think the stats would be similar worldwide.

It's surprising when you look into it.

EDIT: Your link does not go far back enough to include stats prior to the introduction of euthanasia, age, demographics - population, number etc. It is far from accurate.

 

Would you NOT kill a new born with serious defects?
I am of the opinion that if a woman gets pregnant and decides to end the pregnancy that is her right.
For the sake of context could you please tell me if you agree with a womans right to end a pregnancy?
Depending on your answer i will happily continue this discussion and seek more indepth and accurate information.
Thanks Milo.
Ps:Just read your writ up and the 2 Krug coin,very nice catch

 

Thanks, yeah that krug is something, they're getting better.

I will keep my views on abortion private for the moment. I do not think that should preclude a discussion. Should you wish to continue I am happy to discuss.

We are talking about defects both serious and minor. Is dwarfism a serious defect? Would you kill a child if it were a dwarf?

You know a living breathing baby child. Would you kill the baby?

What are defects that are ok to kill for?

Do you believe in Eugenics?

 

Just because you're paranoid, don't mean they're not after you

 

If the rules are to change with no pensions etc, make a timetable for it to start..Pick a time , say 2040 for implementation..

Oh how that would change the buying patterns of the people between the ages of 40 to 65..The closer they got to retirement age, the more they would save for a rainy day. What would this mean for the consumer society? Less goods sold means less jobs.

Everyone would hang onto their job for as long as possible thus again means less jobs for the young.

Do you young fellows really think that this society is going to hold up for another 50years plus?

It is obvious that many here on SS think that it will not. Thats why they stack silver/gold.

Many people believe that super is the answer..IMO it might well be as long as you have A SMSF. IF YOU DONT, you wake up one morning and they own your stocks...

TPTB don't want anyone to save except in shares...Saving is out , LIVING ON DEBT IS IN.

Robert Kiyosaki, has it right, the world has changed. Control your own destiny..However this information is too late to benefit most..You have to know this when you are young. If you do then you can get up each day and know that you are in control of what you do.

However, most of us become wage slaves, trying to raise our children, pay of a house and survive. Looks like now we will have to figure out how to survive in old age by SAVING SILVER.


Regards Errol 43

 

A few will openly admit they do not care if the old and sick, people with mental problems etc just die from starvation, exposure etc after all why should others have to support them if they did not have the support of there families etc. that is fine let them die but it would be wrong to kill them. People do not seem to be able to think ahead a few steps though.

You have some homeless dude who thinks turtle it I am turtled anyway I might as well just rob someone and kill them if I get caught and fed in prison, what is there to loose? Or they might decide to do an armed robbery, home invasion etc. Look at some of the crazy stuff that happens in some countries that do not have safety nets.

You put people in a position where they have nothing to loose and you can end up with an epic poo storm, if people do not have options a certain percentage will do some crazy poo.

You offer support and you get a much more stable society, in the US I was not far from Union Square and I was told not to take a short cut (it was about 0300) as the area was "dangerous". Well I ignored that advice and "dangerous" was an understatement. I would have called it a no go area.