115
Social responsibility and balance : Swingers Discussion 219510
Busy Swingers Forum - everything you always wanted to know about swingers.
SwingLifeStyle Swingers Personal Ads. | SwingLifeStyle Swingers Clubs

Busy Swingers Forum

Everything you always wanted to know about swingers.

Create A Free Account

HELP
FORUMSGeneral DiscussionsPoliticsSocial responsibility and balance
TOPIC: Social responsibility and balance
Created by: Robert_Hil
Original Starting post for this thread:
The reason we have a social responsibility to each other is that we as a lone person cannot survive. Without the greater society, individuals would fight and kill one and another.

To prevent this and adapt to the fact that we are mostly defenseless as animals go, we primates formed social groups. From that group, we evolved into the modern day humans with complex systems of governance. Social welfare is a key component of that evolution.

Unlike simple primates, we humans have those who's job it is to protect us from threats. The silver back typically did this job in the wild, but today the tribe is too large for one leader and warrior to defend the whole.

There for we, like the ant world have formed armies. We have leaders, and we have subordinates. 

Unlike the ant, we humans aren't born knowing our job in life... We must learn it or be assigned one. Many never find their calling, others are prevented from achieving it by disability or environmental causes like economics, poor education or unbalance in society.

The reason we have leaders is to maintain balance. To maintain peace and order. To ensure the survival of our social group and tribe.

Smart and benevolent leaders know that they rule from the will of the people and they act as a guide to the people, not the engine which drives the people.

Benevolence has its limits. A leader who is too benevolent loses power to stronger, less benevolent leaders and these strong men would lead claiming to do it for the people and initially they might... But power corrupts the ambitious and as they think that they are owed more than they are owed.

A balanced society is one where the people feed the leaders, and the leaders provide for the people's needs. It doesn't matter how this happens, capitalism, communism, democratically, dictatorship, republic or even through socialism. So long as balance is kept, the people provided for and working... The kings can do as they please.

This is social responsibility. To ensure that the people under you are able to afford more than the basics of life. (food, shelter and medical) but also enough entertainment to keep them pacified and not waring for it is war that is imbalance.

War didn't bring peace to Europe, it brought death and only once death took the nazi and Italian leaders unto the next life, did peace finally come.

In Japan, reason returned and the cretins knowledge that we would bring unlimited death to those who resisted.

It is true that if the masses ask for too much, that this will cause imbalance, that the system will collapse. But asking those who have more wealth than they can burn, for food, shelter, life and enough entertainment to be pacified is never asking for too much.

9/10 people want work. Work that allows them to educate their children, to see them grow up and not be a slave to 90 hours a week, just to survive.

Many times on these forums, this is exactly what the so called conservatives demand. Either work until the sweet release of death finally takes you, or die of starvation.

This is imbalance and the only logical end to it is at the end of someone's sword. Thankfully we live in a republic, with a democratic form of governance and election. The sword will be the pen and if the capitalist don't find balance, they will be forced to do business under the laws of socialism and communism.

I do hope reason wins this battle, that the so called capitslist realize that you are unbalanced and that you demand too much and must ignore the childish demands of the angry who say work harder for yesterdays pay.

GoTo Page: 1 2
 1 to 10 of 13   End
User Details are only visible to members.
Party:

"If you are going to engage in class envy, you really should pick a group more worthy of envy than the working poor"

But that is all the right have to attack... The working poor, those who come here to make a better living for their families...

Hazle Township PA
Username hidden
(7344 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Mark....tell people at any level from production to retail you want to cut of ban food stamps, and see what they tell you....it will NOT be a positive response Food stamps, contrary to popular belief, do not originate at HHS, they are in fact, a program of the Department of Agriculture, and are in fact more of a food industry price support than a social welfare program. Once you crunch the numbers, and add up the ripple effect from grocery store back to the feed plant and farm, the program in all probability operates at a net surplus. BTW....the VAST majority of those in the food stamps program work, and anyone who works, or has ever worked, pays into the program. If you are going to engage in class envy, you really should pick a group more worthy of envy than the working poor

Rosemont IL
Username hidden
(3841 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
did you know 80% of fema trailers were put in storage that were suppose to go to katrine and never used.while people were homeless.....BS

Kingston TN
Username hidden
(1991 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
sweettart, it's still that way at the community level. At least in some communities it's that way. These are sometimes "intentional communities", and sometimes it's spontaneous, as in a crisis such as tornado or flooding.

Back in the '30s, the whole state of Arkansas was starving, and no neighbor could really help another. That's when the federal government started to be the entity of last resort which could help.

Since private parties can't react quickly enough to move on a Katrina or a Sandy relief effort, we have FEMA. When the administration is a good one, they act quickly.

The OP seems rather misguided in asserting that without Big Brother, we'd all just kill one another. There's still more good than evil in the ordinary citizen. Govt shouldn't be your only friend, but they also shouldn't be the enemy. No need to go out making new enemies.

Flat Rock NC
Username hidden
(2984 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Hell could have saved the money on a condom could of just swallowed lol

Berryville VA
Username hidden
(1750 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
LMAO But so true.

Mickey.

Rayne LA
Username hidden
(4859 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Just think a condom could have prevented all this.....sheesh

Rio Rancho NM
Username hidden
(319 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
The block. It is used for more than ignoring people who you don't like. It is also used to hijack post and not allowing others to see what you are posting. (Fjep, Mark, others on the right)

Oh and it makes postiphilia much easier if you have the anonymity of the block.

Hazle Township PA
Username hidden
(7344 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
(CBS News) In a video unearthed yesterday by Mother Jones, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney was captured making some inflammatory comments about people who don't pay income tax in America - the people he says will vote for President Obama "no matter what." Below, CBS News looks into the validity of his controversial statement. The Quote "There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it -- that that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. ... These are people who pay no income tax. ... [M]y job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives." True? Much of Romney's statement relies on assumptions about one demographic: The 47 percent of Americans who he says "pay no income tax." So is it true that 47 percent of Americans don't pay income tax? Essentially, yes, according to the the Tax Policy Center, which provides data showing that in 2011, 46.4 percent of American households paid no federal income tax. The same data shows, however, that nearly two-thirds of households that paid no income tax did pay payroll taxes. And most people also pay some combination of state, local, sales, gas and property taxes. In order to assess whether or not, as Romney claims, these non-income tax payers "will vote for the president no matter what," it's helpful to look at a breakdown of who they are. According to 2011 data from the Tax Policy Center, more than half of the filing units not paying income taxes are those with incomes less than $16,812 per year. Nearly a third - 29.2 percent - of those paying no income taxes are tax filers earning between $16,812 and $33,542, and 12.8 percent are those with incomes between $33,542 and $59,486. In other words, the poor are least likely to pay federal income taxes, but many middle-class families are also exempt. Smaller but significant numbers of the higher-income earners are also exempt: The same data shows that in 2011, 78,000 tax filers with incomes between $211,000 and $533,000 paid no income taxes; 24,000 households with incomes of $533,000 to $2.2 million paid no income taxes, and 3,000 tax filers with incomes above $2.2 million paid no income taxes. Overall, according to the Tax Policy Center, "of the 38 million tax units made nontaxable by the addition of tax expenditures, 44 percent are moved off the tax rolls by elderly tax benefits and another 30 percent by credits for children and the working poor." Moreover, only 18.1 percent of American households paid neither federal income taxes nor payroll taxes in 2011, says the Tax Policy Center. Of that 18.1 percent, 10.3 percent were elderly and 6.9 percent were non-elderly households earning less than $20,000 year, which include low-income families and students. About one in 20 is non-elderly with income over $20,000. At least one of the demographics that is less likely to pay income taxes (or income and payroll taxes) tends to vote Republican: In 2008, voters 65 and over voted for Republican nominee John McCain over President Obama 53 percent to 45 percent, an eight-point margin. The latest CBS News/New York Times poll also shows Romney winning the support of these voters nationally: 53 percent of voters 65 and older support Romney and 38 percent support Mr. Obama. Voters in households with household incomes of less than $30,000 a year tend to favor Mr. Obama, according to the latest CBS News/New York Times poll, with 61 percent supporting the president and 32 percent supporting Romney, according to the latest CBS News/New York Times poll.

Tulare CA
Username hidden
(1880 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Unbelievable Statistics About Food Stamps This isn’t just a fringe problem. Food stamps are becoming an inherent part of American life as almost every grocery line has someone using a debit card filled with other peoples’ money to spend on whatever they choose. In fact: ¦Over 45,000,000 Americans are on food stamps. That means 1 in 7. To visualize this, that means every pew in every church is filled with someone who is living — literally — off the money of everyone else sitting on that pew. Not family members, not kids living off parents — adults living off of other adults. ¦Food stamps cover luxury items like lobster and filet mignon. An image circulated a few days ago of a recipt in which someone had $200+ worth of lobster tail and Mountain Dew and paid for it with a food stamp card. The grocery store confirmed it was true. When I was poor, I ate rice and beans and worried about paying my bills on time. For those on food stamps, eating cheaply isn’t necessary. This is disgusting, and is a backwards incentive. When I was poor I had a friend who began smoking pot an living off of welfare, bragging at how easy it was. Lives are ruined when you have broken policy. ¦A family of five gets $700+ for food alone. However, people who are on food stamps get at least $100 per person, on average alone. That means people who are actually poor receive well over this per person. From the federal government alone, a family of five can receive $793 per month, not including the 180 free meals also offered at public school for the school-aged kids. This is just food stamps alone. This isn’t about housing welfare, free college payments, infant assistance, free public schooling, or actual cash from the government. This is the food program alone. For many people, it makes far more sense to eat salmon on food stamps than to accept a part time job and risk losing the “free” money. People on welfare eat better than many people in the middle class who don’t qualify. That is wrong. And no, this isn’t just an occasional bit of fraud. This is what the system is supposed to do. Someone told me yesterday that he worked in a grocery store, told a lady that food stamps didn’t cover the dog food she picked, so she went back and got t-bones. That should upset you. If you support welfare existing to stop starvation from being possible, then that’s one thing. I get it. Babies dying of malnutrition isn’t exactly what the goal is. But there’s no way around the fact that welfare should be reformed, cut, and that we should focus on giving tax cuts to the middle class to make it easier to leave poverty in the first place. Why Welfare Reform Matters Why does this matter? Because 1 in 7 Americans are on food stamps. Average it out, and almost every house in America has a welfare recipient in food stamps alone — not counting Social Security, disability, or the billions in other programs. This is insane. And to the libertarians reading this — this should upset you just as much as corporate welfare, if not more, because these people are voters. At some point, that number is going to be so high that it won’t matter anymore, because defeating a socialist when half the voters are getting checks will be impossible. This isn’t about being anti-poor. This is about saving the republic and saving capitalism. Poor people not getting free lobsters at the cost of the middle class is just basic common sense — but if you dare say this in public, you’ll be demonized. This isn’t a theoretical risk in the future. This is right now. The system is working as it’s planned to work — to create a dependent class of people who will vote for any socialist because they want cash and all the food they can eat. This is wrong. And that’s why welfare reform matters.

Tulare CA
Username hidden
(1880 posts)
GoTo Page: 1 2
 1 to 10 of 13   End
TOPIC: Social responsibility and balance