Living the good life off of government benefits

[Aristotle]

I don't think you read my side story of my experience.

Yeah, I read it. I don't blame anyone for taking advantage of these programs. I certainly won't hesitate, if and when I qualify

How exactly is the government coercive?

How is it not? Laws are enforced. Government programs aren't voluntarily financed. Coercion, the exclusive right to use violent force to achieve its ends, is what distinguishes government from all other social institutions.

You actually believe social aid assistance ought to be left to the people to assist other people in need?

Yes. And to the degree that we are decent, compassionate society we will.

Can you show me evidence of this coersive government to which you refer?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I don't think you read my side story of my experience.

Yeah, I read it. I don't blame anyone for taking advantage of these programs. I certainly won't hesitate, if and when I qualify



How is it not? Laws are enforced. Government programs aren't voluntarily financed. Coercion, the exclusive right to use violent force to achieve its ends, is what distinguishes government from all other social institutions.

You actually believe social aid assistance ought to be left to the people to assist other people in need?

Yes. And to the degree that we are decent, compassionate society we will.

Can you show me evidence of this coersive government to which you refer?

too stupid!! if you don't pay 50% of your income in taxes men with guns come and take you to jail!!!

 

[Aristotle]

Yeah, I read it. I don't blame anyone for taking advantage of these programs. I certainly won't hesitate, if and when I qualify



How is it not? Laws are enforced. Government programs aren't voluntarily financed. Coercion, the exclusive right to use violent force to achieve its ends, is what distinguishes government from all other social institutions.



Yes. And to the degree that we are decent, compassionate society we will.

Can you show me evidence of this coersive government to which you refer?

too stupid!! if you don't pay 50% of your income in taxes men with guns come and take you to jail!!!

First and foremost watch who you call stupid because you'll make an ass out of yourself.

For one, the comment wasn't addressee to you, it was for dblack.

Two, the comment was referring to the issue of welfare. How is the government coersive in getting people to pay for welfare? I made it clear that people are free to not work.

Three, if you dont pay taxes you get:

Nothing becauee you dont work

If you work and choose to not file your taxes you get:

1)Wage garnishment

2) Repossession

3) Jail time--You have to actually owe a lot of money and dodge authorities to get to this point.

So before you make stupid comments about my intelligence know who you are speaking to.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

First and foremost watch who you call stupid because you'll make an ass out of yourself.

well given that Aristotle is often thought of as the first conservative I perhaps should be careful!!

Two, the comment was referring to the issue of welfare. How is the government coersive in getting people to pay for welfare? I made it clear that people are free to not work.

free to starve is not really free

Three, if you dont pay taxes you get:

Nothing becauee you dont work

one can work and not pay taxes!!!

If you work and choose to not file your taxes you get:

3) Jail time--You have to actually owe a lot of money and dodge authorities to get to this point.

isn't jail time coercive??????????????

 

[Uncensored2008]

isn't jail time coercive??????????????

Only if BOOOOSHHH is president!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

isn't jail time coercive??????????????

Only if BOOOOSHHH is president!

I guess under Obama jail is not coercive, its more of a re-education camp. You learn to be a better Muslim and to think you're a better criminal even after several return trips.

 

[dblack]

Except that, historically, people don't behave in that way.

Sure they do. We'd have died out long ago if the hadn't. By and large people are decent. And if they're not, if we don't care enough about each other to suffice - will forcing it with government really change that?

Considering the positive effects of past Civil Rights legislation and the Voting Rights Act, I'd say that government intervention has done wonders for millions of formerly disenfranchised women and men!

Of course it has. Voting rights is a simple matter of equal protection. And civil rights legislation, despite the fact that in some cases it sacrifices important freedoms, has obviously done more good than harm. But the harm is worth noting - especially when it sets potentially dangerous precedent - and its worth asking whether we could have achieved similar or better results without giving up important freedoms.

 

[Dragonlady]

Of course it has. Voting rights is a simple matter of equal protection. And civil rights legislation, despite the fact that in some cases it sacrifices important freedoms, has obviously done more good than harm. But the harm is worth noting - especially when it sets potentially dangerous precedent - and its worth asking whether we could have achieved similar or better results without giving up important freedoms.

What important freedoms did people give up under Civil Rights Legislation, other than the right to treat some people as inferior to white people.

Eddie keeps harping on civil rights legislation as being the root of poverty and social problems among the poor. I think Eddie has it backwards. The Civil Rights legislation was too little too late for urban blacks. Systemic racism and lack of rights or opportunities for black people which had gone on since blacks were first brought to American in chains, resulted in riots in the 1960's, all across the US.

Since that time, and with the assistance of civil rights legislation, jobs programs, educational opportunities, and other programs, there is now a healthy, vibrant black middle class that you would have been hard pressed to find in the 1950's. At that time, blacks couldn't stay in the same hotel as as white person, and black accommodations were hardly swanky. There were no black business executives, travelling on company expense accounts.

Things are a lot different today and Eddie can't stand it.

 

[dblack]

Of course it has. Voting rights is a simple matter of equal protection. And civil rights legislation, despite the fact that in some cases it sacrifices important freedoms, has obviously done more good than harm. But the harm is worth noting - especially when it sets potentially dangerous precedent - and its worth asking whether we could have achieved similar or better results without giving up important freedoms.

What important freedoms did people give up under Civil Rights Legislation, other than the right to treat some people as inferior to white people.

The freedom of association. The freedom to live and work with who we choose, regardless of our reasons.

But it's the precedent that's most worrisome. What difference, in principle, is there between telling someone that can't refuse to hire someone because of their race, and telling girls the can't refuse the advances of guys just because they're fat? Don't we all have a right to our preferences, no matter how irrational they might seem to others?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

What important freedoms did people give up under Civil Rights Legislation, other than the right to treat some people as inferior to white people.

since the Civil Rights era most black men gave up their right to live outside of the prison system!! No biggie to a libturd-right!!

Since that time, and with the assistance of civil rights legislation, jobs programs, educational opportunities, and other programs, there is now a healthy, vibrant black middle class that you would have been hard pressed to find in the 1950's. .

too stupid by 1000%!!! Focus on the tiny middle class and ignore the huge hip hop prison class!!! How dumb and brainwashed can one person be??? If 75% of black kids are born to very poor single mothers with unknown fathers in prison is that not enough to make liberals illegal in America and make you see the middle class is very very tiny compared to what it would have been without the liberal genocide of the 1960's. No one would think or your monumantal indifference as racist - right?? After all you're a liberal with a great big bleeding heart!!

 

[Aristotle]

First and foremost watch who you call stupid because you'll make an ass out of yourself.

well given that Aristotle is often thought of as the first conservative I perhaps should be careful!!

Two, the comment was referring to the issue of welfare. How is the government coersive in getting people to pay for welfare? I made it clear that people are free to not work.

free to starve is not really free

Three, if you dont pay taxes you get:

Nothing becauee you dont work

one can work and not pay taxes!!!

If you work and choose to not file your taxes you get:

3) Jail time--You have to actually owe a lot of money and dodge authorities to get to this point.

isn't jail time coercive??????????????

Jail is a consequence of being negligent of law not coercion. Anyway I could dismantle your post but I will let you continue your rant

 

[dblack]

First and foremost watch who you call stupid because you'll make an ass out of yourself.

well given that Aristotle is often thought of as the first conservative I perhaps should be careful!!



free to starve is not really free



one can work and not pay taxes!!!

If you work and choose to not file your taxes you get:

3) Jail time--You have to actually owe a lot of money and dodge authorities to get to this point.

isn't jail time coercive??????????????

Jail is a consequence of being negligent of law not coercion. Anyway I could dismantle your post but I will let you continue your rant

Either you're being deliberately specious, or you're going with utterly different definitions - of either 'coercion', 'government' or both.

Coercion isn't the act of violence, it's using the threat of violence to get your way. And that's the singular trait of government that distinguishes it from all other societal institutions. Every single law is validated and enforced via the threat of violence to any who defy it. Even something as innocuous as a parking ticket is backed by this threat. Taxation is based on this threat.

 

[Aristotle]

well given that Aristotle is often thought of as the first conservative I perhaps should be careful!!



free to starve is not really free



one can work and not pay taxes!!!



isn't jail time coercive??????????????

Jail is a consequence of being negligent of law not coercion. Anyway I could dismantle your post but I will let you continue your rant

Either you're being deliberately specious, or you're going with utterly different definitions - of either 'coercion', 'government' or both.

Coercion isn't the act of violence, it's using the threat of violence to get your way. And that's the singular trait of government that distinguishes it from all other societal institutions. Every single law is validated and enforced via the threat of violence to any who defy it. Even something as innocuous as a parking ticket is backed by this threat. Taxation is based on this threat.

So tell me how the government coerce the people regarding welfare?

 

[JQPublic1]

Considering the positive effects of past Civil Rights legislation and the Voting Rights Act, I'd say that government intervention has done wonders for millions of formerly disenfranchised women and men!

Too stupid and 100% liberal!! Civil Rights and voting rights did no good whatsoever since most of the newly enfranchised voted liberal and thus against their best interests. Blacks where the primary target of the legislation.It amounted to a near genocide featuring most young black men in jail, the black family destroyed, and kids born into broken impoverished homes.

Is that really over a liberal's head???

TOO Purile and 100% bullshit! You have no idea how the newly enfranchised voted. There have been several Republican presidents since the Civil Rights Era , including your guru, Ronald Reagan. Get your head outta your arse son!

 

[JQPublic1]

There isn't any evolutionary advantage to taking care of the old and severely disabled.

too stupid!! the old have knowledge and wisdom, and at worst, experience. For example, the old can remember when America was a conservative safe place, when you didn't have to lock your door at night against liberalism. That experience is priceless.

Remember when Reagan said we were always just one generation away from pure barbarism. Well, the old, those from a previous generation, can teach us that the current sickening liberal reality is not the only option. Conservative 1950's Republican America was actually a safe place where people respected each other and left their doors open.

TOO puerile and ignorant! The 1950s saw the rise of Motorcycle gangs like the Hells Angels.
Meanwhile, the Mafia was winding down in the big metropolitan areas of the North and East and Las Vegas. But the violence didn't stop there. KKK terrorism flourished throughout the south and lynchings continued throughout the '50s. I doubt if any of those violent groups I just mentioned were liberal, but , knowing you, I suppose you will try to paint them that way!

 

[dblack]

Jail is a consequence of being negligent of law not coercion. Anyway I could dismantle your post but I will let you continue your rant

Either you're being deliberately specious, or you're going with utterly different definitions - of either 'coercion', 'government' or both.

Coercion isn't the act of violence, it's using the threat of violence to get your way. And that's the singular trait of government that distinguishes it from all other societal institutions. Every single law is validated and enforced via the threat of violence to any who defy it. Even something as innocuous as a parking ticket is backed by this threat. Taxation is based on this threat.

So tell me how the government coerce the people regarding welfare?

The taxes that pay for it.

 

[JQPublic1]

[
Poverty, crime and lack of opportunity destroyed black families. Systemic racism, and lack of meaningful opportunities, and government policies which allowed poisonous drugs to flow into urban ghettos.

too stupid, liberal, and 100% illiterate as always!!!

Even in the antebellum era, when slaves often weren’t permitted to wed, most black children lived with a biological mother and father. During Reconstruction and up until the 1940s, 75% to 85% of black children lived in two-parent families. Today, more than 70% of black children are born to single women. “The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn’t do, what Jim Crow couldn’t do, what the harshest racism couldn’t do,” Mr. Williams says. “And that is to destroy the black family

The black family survived centuries of slavery and generations of Jim Crow, but it has disintegrated in the wake of the liberals' expansion of the welfare state. Most black children grew up in homes with two parents during all that time but most grow up with only one parent today.

Liberals have pushed affirmative action, supposedly for the benefit of blacks and other minorities. But two recent factual studies show that affirmative action in college admissions has led to black students with every qualification for success being artificially turned into failures by being mismatched with colleges for the sake of racial body count.

The two most recent books that show this with hard facts are "Mismatch" by Richard Sander and Stuart Taylor, Jr., and "Wounds That Will Not Heal" by Russell K. Nieli. My own book "Affirmative Action Around the World" shows the same thing with different evidence.



Thus began an unprecedented commitment of federal funds to a wide range of measures aimed at redistributing wealth in the United States.[1] From 1965 to 2008, nearly $16 trillion of taxpayer money (in constant 2008 dollars) was spent onmeans-tested welfare programs for the poor.

The economic milieu in which the War on Poverty arose is noteworthy. As of 1965, the number of Americans living below the official poverty line had been declining continuously since the beginning of the decade and was only about half of what it had been fifteen years earlier. Between 1950 and 1965, the proportion of people whose earnings put them below the poverty level, had decreased by more than 30%. The black poverty rate had been cut nearly in half between 1940 and 1960. In various skilled trades during the period of 1936-59, the incomes of blacks relative to whites had more than doubled. Further, the representation of blacks in professional and other high-level occupations grew more quickly during the five years preceding the launch of the War on Poverty than during the five years thereafter.

Despite these trends, the welfare state expanded dramatically after LBJ's statement. Between the mid-Sixties and the mid-Seventies, the dollar value of public housing quintupled and the amount spent on food stamps rose more than tenfold. From 1965 to 1969, government-provided benefits increased by a factor of 8; by 1974 such benefits were an astounding 20 times higher than they had been in 1965. Alsoas of 1974, federal spending on social-welfare programs amounted to 16% of America’s Gross National Product, a far cry from the 8% figure of 1960. By 1977 the number of people receiving public assistance had more than doubled since 1960.


The most devastating by-product of the mushrooming welfare state was the corrosive effect it had (along with powerful cultural phenomena such as the feminist and Black Power movements) on American family life, particularly in the black community.
 As provisions in welfare laws offered ever-increasing economic incentives for shunning marriage and avoiding the formation of two-parent families, illegitimacy rates rose dramatically.

The calamitous breakdown of the black family is a comparatively recent phenomenon, coinciding precisely with the rise of the welfare state. Throughout the epoch of slavery and into the early decades of the twentieth century, most black children grew up in two-parent households.
 Post-Civil War studies revealed that most black couples in their forties had been together for at least twenty years. In southern urban areas around 1880, nearly three-fourths of black households were husband-or father-present; in southern rural settings, the figure approached 86%. As of 1940, the illegitimacy rate among blacks nationwide was approximately 15%—scarcely one-fifth of the current figure.
 As late as 1950, black women were more likely to be married than white women, and only 9% of black families with children were headed by a single parent.

During the nine decades between the Emancipation Proclamation and the 1950s, the black family remained a strong, stable institution. Its cataclysmic destruction was subsequently set in motion by such policies as the anti-marriage incentives that are built into the welfare system have served only to exacerbate the problem. As George Mason University professor Walter E. Williams puts it: “The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn't do, what Jim Crow couldn't do, what the harshest racism couldn't do. And that is to destroy the black family.” Hoover Institution Fellow Thomas Sowell concurs: “The black family, which had survived centuries of slavery and discrimination, began rapidly disintegrating in the liberal welfare state that subsidized unwed pregnancy and changed welfare from an emergency rescue to a way of life.”

TOO long, too plagiaristic and too obtuse! Keep it short and someone might read it!

 

[Aristotle]

Either you're being deliberately specious, or you're going with utterly different definitions - of either 'coercion', 'government' or both.

Coercion isn't the act of violence, it's using the threat of violence to get your way. And that's the singular trait of government that distinguishes it from all other societal institutions. Every single law is validated and enforced via the threat of violence to any who defy it. Even something as innocuous as a parking ticket is backed by this threat. Taxation is based on this threat.

So tell me how the government coerce the people regarding welfare?

The taxes that pay for it.

You are free to not pay taxes

 

[dblack]

So tell me how the government coerce the people regarding welfare?

The taxes that pay for it.

You are free to not pay taxes

Ok, so you are just being specious. Carry on...

 

[Aristotle]

The taxes that pay for it.

You are free to not pay taxes

Ok, so you are just being specious. Carry on...

Your not understanding logic.

If one does not want to be taxed one is free to not be within the arena to be taxed. For example if you feel the government shouldnt tax your paycheck then you are free to not work. Of course the consequence of that is tue failure to maintain your financial obligations. You would realize that your line of thinking fails when you look at it. The government isnt forcing you to do anything.


The government doesnt force the homeless to pay taxes, so what makes you think you are forced to?