Living the good life off of government benefits

[dblack]

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?

I don't like to talk down to people, but ...

That's truly an idiotic conception of freedom and coercion. By your logic, we're "free" to run stop signs, not pay our taxes, commit rape and murder, etc, etc... as long as we comply with any obligations imposed as a result (fines, jail time, capital punishment). And no one is ever coerced to do anything against their will. Any violence they face as a result of their resistance is their own doing.

I guess maybe you're riffing on some esoteric existential conception of freedom that bears no resemblance to the political concept. But here we're talking about the political version. You aren't "free" to do something if you face punishment for doing it. And threat of punishment, backed by violence if you resist, is most definitely "coercion".

Is your goal discussion, or derailing conversation with inane semantics?

 

[Aristotle]

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?

I don't like to talk down to people, but ...

That's truly an idiotic conception of freedom and coercion. By your logic, we're "free" to run stop signs, not pay our taxes, commit rape and murder, etc, etc... as long as we comply with any obligations imposed as a result (fines, jail time, capital punishment). And no one is ever coerced to do anything against their will. Any violence they face as a result of their resistance is their own doing.

I guess maybe you're riffing on some esoteric existential conception of freedom that bears no resemblance to the political concept. But here we're talking about the political version. You aren't "free" to do something if you face punishment for doing it. And threat of punishment, backed by violence if you resist, is most definitely "coercion".

Is your goal discussion, or derailing conversation with inane semantics?

First off I don't believe in freewill I am playing devil's advocate in this case. You call my line of reason idiotic yet you fail to give an example of coercion by stating oneliners. As far as "free to run lights." Yes we are in the sense free to do the aforementioned examples you gave. Negligence in filing taxes and having your wage garnished or serving jail time is the purest examples of freely choosing to not abide by the government. So alas unless you have a good example of governmental coercion your logic fails.

 

[JQPublic1]

Getting back to the title of this op, use of the term "government benefits " is somewhat problematic. Surely the person who initiated this thread did not mean to include Social Security, Medicare and other social social safety nets. After all, we paid for those programs and you're damn right, we do want to extract the maximum benefit allowed. Attempting to put welfare in the same basket as Social Security and Medicare is disingenuous to say the least. Beware, doing so may alienate you from the Tea Party and aging conservatives who are going to take advantage of those benefits very soon.

 

[dblack]

Getting back to the title of this op, use of the term "government benefits " is somewhat problematic. Surely the person who initiated this thread did not mean to include Social Security, Medicare and other social social safety nets. After all, we paid for those programs and you're damn right, we do want to extract the maximum benefit allowed. Attempting to put welfare in the same basket as Social Security and Medicare is disingenuous to say the least. Beware, doing so may alienate you from the Tea Party and aging conservatives who are going to take advantage of those benefits very soon.

Not sure I see any substantive difference. In my view, we're forced to pay into all those programs and there's no shame in using them. And it doesn't matter how much you "pay in", or whether you are a net maker or taker. That's the nature of government. Our rights under the law shouldn't depend on how much we've paid in taxes.

To be clear, I'm fundamentally opposed to the welfare state. But as long as it exists, blaming the victim - or condemning those who benefit from it is stupid. They didn't make the rules of the game. They're just making the best of a shitty situation.

 

[Dragonlady]

Getting back to the title of this op, use of the term "government benefits " is somewhat problematic. Surely the person who initiated this thread did not mean to include Social Security, Medicare and other social social safety nets. After all, we paid for those programs and you're damn right, we do want to extract the maximum benefit allowed. Attempting to put welfare in the same basket as Social Security and Medicare is disingenuous to say the least. Beware, doing so may alienate you from the Tea Party and aging conservatives who are going to take advantage of those benefits very soon.

Milton Friedman hated all social programs, and considered all social programs to be a distortion of the free market. When consulting with leaders of countries in transition Friedman's first advice was to dismantle govenment funded health care, old age security, and welfare. All are communistic and prevent the free market from functioning properly.

If you read about Friedman's economic theories, the rhetoric used to discuss social programs by conservatives makes so much sense. Friedman opposed public education and believed that the free market does EVERYTHING cheaper and better than private sector. Any sort of social program or safety net is Marxist or Communist, as is any government official who proposes public funding of social programs or welfare.

But Friedman's economic theories have not produced robust, healthy economies. They have produced great wealth at the top, and massive poverty at the bottom, and little in between. The free market economy is very volatile and has very sharp swings up and down, which wreak havoc on low income families. American mega-corporations come in and drain the wealth of countries under reform, scooping up publically held utilities, hospitals, railways at firesale prices and everybody gets richer, except the working people of the country who are left in poverty, and hopelessness.

I believe that in the future, Friedman will be viewed as a despot in the same terms as Hitler and Stalin.

 

[Meathead]

Getting back to the title of this op, use of the term "government benefits " is somewhat problematic. Surely the person who initiated this thread did not mean to include Social Security, Medicare and other social social safety nets. After all, we paid for those programs and you're damn right, we do want to extract the maximum benefit allowed. Attempting to put welfare in the same basket as Social Security and Medicare is disingenuous to say the least. Beware, doing so may alienate you from the Tea Party and aging conservatives who are going to take advantage of those benefits very soon.

Milton Friedman hated all social programs, and considered all social programs to be a distortion of the free market. When consulting with leaders of countries in transition Friedman's first advice was to dismantle govenment funded health care, old age security, and welfare. All are communistic and prevent the free market from functioning properly.

If you read about Friedman's economic theories, the rhetoric used to discuss social programs by conservatives makes so much sense. Friedman opposed public education and believed that the free market does EVERYTHING cheaper and better than private sector. Any sort of social program or safety net is Marxist or Communist, as is any government official who proposes public funding of social programs or welfare.

But Friedman's economic theories have not produced robust, healthy economies. They have produced great wealth at the top, and massive poverty at the bottom, and little in between. The free market economy is very volatile and has very sharp swings up and down, which wreak havoc on low income families. American mega-corporations come in and drain the wealth of countries under reform, scooping up publically held utilities, hospitals, railways at firesale prices and everybody gets richer, except the working people of the country who are left in poverty, and hopelessness.

I believe that in the future, Friedman will be viewed as a despot in the same terms as Hitler and Stalin.

I think if you ever get over your sef-righteous hissy-fit and become less influenced by the Chomsky brigade, you will find that Friedman was a brilliant independent thinker whose entire philosophy was the freedom of individuals. Heresy to some, especially those steeped in left-wing idealism, I'm sure.

Milton Friedman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Aristotle]

Getting back to the title of this op, use of the term "government benefits " is somewhat problematic. Surely the person who initiated this thread did not mean to include Social Security, Medicare and other social social safety nets. After all, we paid for those programs and you're damn right, we do want to extract the maximum benefit allowed. Attempting to put welfare in the same basket as Social Security and Medicare is disingenuous to say the least. Beware, doing so may alienate you from the Tea Party and aging conservatives who are going to take advantage of those benefits very soon.

Not sure I see any substantive difference. In my view, we're forced to pay into all those programs and there's no shame in using them. And it doesn't matter how much you "pay in", or whether you are a net maker or taker. That's the nature of government. Our rights under the law shouldn't depend on how much we've paid in taxes.

To be clear, I'm fundamentally opposed to the welfare state. But as long as it exists, blaming the victim - or condemning those who benefit from it is stupid. They didn't make the rules of the game. They're just making the best of a shitty situation.

You're opposed to a welfare state but cant tell me why the government is forcing people to pay taxes

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Jail is a consequence of being negligent of law not coercion.

too stupid!! In fact, jail is coercive and a consequence!!

Anyway I could dismantle your post but I will let you continue your rant

too stupid, 10 word responses are not a rant???? I guess you didn't know that Aristotle is often considered the first conservative. Live and learn.

 

[JQPublic1]

Getting back to the title of this op, use of the term "government benefits " is somewhat problematic. Surely the person who initiated this thread did not mean to include Social Security, Medicare and other social social safety nets. After all, we paid for those programs and you're damn right, we do want to extract the maximum benefit allowed. Attempting to put welfare in the same basket as Social Security and Medicare is disingenuous to say the least. Beware, doing so may alienate you from the Tea Party and aging conservatives who are going to take advantage of those benefits very soon.

Milton Friedman hated all social programs, and considered all social programs to be a distortion of the free market. When consulting with leaders of countries in transition Friedman's first advice was to dismantle govenment funded health care, old age security, and welfare. All are communistic and prevent the free market from functioning properly.

If you read about Friedman's economic theories, the rhetoric used to discuss social programs by conservatives makes so much sense. Friedman opposed public education and believed that the free market does EVERYTHING cheaper and better than private sector. Any sort of social program or safety net is Marxist or Communist, as is any government official who proposes public funding of social programs or welfare.

But Friedman's economic theories have not produced robust, healthy economies. They have produced great wealth at the top, and massive poverty at the bottom, and little in between. The free market economy is very volatile and has very sharp swings up and down, which wreak havoc on low income families. American mega-corporations come in and drain the wealth of countries under reform, scooping up publically held utilities, hospitals, railways at firesale prices and everybody gets richer, except the working people of the country who are left in poverty, and hopelessness.

I believe that in the future, Friedman will be viewed as a despot in the same terms as Hitler and Stalin.

I think if you ever get over your sef-righteous hissy-fit and become less influenced by the Chomsky brigade, you will find that Friedman was a brilliant independent thinker whose entire philosophy was the freedom of individuals. Heresy to some, especially those steeped in left-wing idealism, I'm sure.

Milton Friedman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't see why
we are focusing soley on Milton Friedman's philosophy when there are so many others out there to contradict it. Indeed, apparently Social Security has evolved into something completely different from that in Friedman's era. Today we recognize Social Security and Medicare as insurance programs. But, if your conservative mind cannot grasp that concept, consider funds paid into those programs as an investment. Surely you would not disagree with an investor getting the maximum return on their investment

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I don't see why
we are focusing soley on Milton Friedman's philosophy when there are so many others out there to contradict it.

of course if true you would not be so afraid to present the best example. What does your fear tell you about the liberal IQ and character??

But, if your conservative mind cannot grasp that concept, consider funds paid into those programs as an investment. Surely you would not disagree with an investor getting the maximum return on their investment

too stupid but perfectly 100% liberal!! If an average American put 15% of his lifetime income into a private account he'd retire with $1.4 million rather than the liberal dog food money he gets now!!!!

 

[JQPublic1]

I don't see why
we are focusing soley on Milton Friedman's philosophy when there are so many others out there to contradict it.

of course if true you would not be so afraid to present the best example. What does your fear tell you about the liberal IQ and character??

You sure like to make things up don't you? You can create illusory worlds for other people but don't try it on me, I'm not buying into it. Why don't youv go to a shrink and find out what's causing you to hallucinate?

But, if your conservative mind cannot grasp that concept, consider funds paid into those programs as an investment. Surely you would not disagree with an investor getting the maximum return on their investment

If an average American put 15% of his lifetime income into a private account he'd retire with $ç million rather than the liberal dog food money he gets now!!!!

Too puerile but perfectly 100% BS. If an average American put 15% of his lifetime income into a private account he'd broke by now. You and I both know that people like Bernie Madoff would be licking their chops at a chance to get their hands on it. And if the greedy bastards in the conservative banking industry didn't do it the volatile stock market would. Besides, the average American does not have access to insider trading that goes on at high levels. Any average Joe brave enough to take the risk of opening a private account is doing nothing more than gambling with his future; especially if he puts all of his eggs in that basket.

 

[Aristotle]

Jail is a consequence of being negligent of law not coercion.

too stupid!! In fact, jail is coercive and a consequence!!

Anyway I could dismantle your post but I will let you continue your rant

too stupid, 10 word responses are not a rant???? I guess you didn't know that Aristotle is often considered the first conservative. Live and learn.

Edward prove that me missing court and getting a bench warrant is government coercion....STFU

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Jail is a consequence of being negligent of law not coercion.

too stupid!! In fact, jail is coercive and a consequence!!

Anyway I could dismantle your post but I will let you continue your rant

too stupid, 10 word responses are not a rant???? I guess you didn't know that Aristotle is often considered the first conservative. Live and learn.

Edward prove that me missing court and getting a bench warrant is government coercion....STFU

too stupid!! Whose talking about missing court????? I guess you didn't know that Aristotle is often considered the first conservative??
No shame you can just come back as a liberal under another name and no one will know.

 

[Aristotle]

too stupid!! In fact, jail is coercive and a consequence!!




too stupid, 10 word responses are not a rant???? I guess you didn't know that Aristotle is often considered the first conservative. Live and learn.

Edward prove that me missing court and getting a bench warrant is government coercion....STFU

too stupid!! Whose talking about missing court????? I guess you didn't know that Aristotle is often considered the first conservative??
No shame you can just come back as a liberal under another name and no one will know.

How is a punishment based on negligence a coercive consequence? Please....You anarchist kill me... You guys have yet to explain governmental coercive tactics all you are doing is saying blah blah blah

 

[dblack]

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=cWk6RgQbPVc&desktop_uri=/watch?v=cWk6RgQbPVc

 

[Uncensored2008]

Jail is a consequence of being negligent of law not coercion.

Utter nonsense. Jail is one form of coercion used to enforce laws. You are coerced to pay taxes with the threat of jail.

co·erce
/kōˈərs/
Verb

1. Persuade (an unwilling person) to do something by using force or threats.
2. Obtain (something) by such means.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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

That wasn't the claim. Taxes are taken through coercion. The justification of taxes are that they are used for the good of all. Many question whether welfare meets the definition of "good for all," or even "good for any".

 

[Uncensored2008]

I think if you ever get over your sef-righteous hissy-fit and become less influenced by the Chomsky brigade, you will find that Friedman was a brilliant independent thinker whose entire philosophy was the freedom of individuals. Heresy to some, especially those steeped in left-wing idealism, I'm sure.

Milton Friedman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If she pisses herself that badly over Friedman, think what would happen should she ever read Rothbard....

 

[Uncensored2008]

I don't see why
we are focusing soley on Milton Friedman's philosophy when there are so many others out there to contradict it. Indeed, apparently Social Security has evolved into something completely different from that in Friedman's era. Today we recognize Social Security and Medicare as insurance programs. But, if your conservative mind cannot grasp that concept, consider funds paid into those programs as an investment. Surely you would not disagree with an investor getting the maximum return on their investment

Utter bullshit.

FDR sold Social Security as an insurance program - which with retirement is utterly absurd. Roosevelt constructed a Ponzi scheme. Milton Friedman merely pointed out the obvious, that the pyramid could not be sustained. We see that failing before us, despite repeated alterations to the contract between the purchaser, us, and the vendor, your beloved federal bureaucracy. Further, social security has devolved into yet another entitlement program. About a third of recipients never paid into the system and receive checks purely as a stipend.

While you of the left scream that Ayn Rand took Medicare, you will turn around and defend it as an insurance.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

How is a punishment based on negligence a coercive consequence?

if the government decides you were negligent they then use force or coercion to get you into jail unless you go voluntarily. Simple enough??


You didn't know that Aristotle was the first conservative did you? Why not switch to Plato?? The Republic was very liberal and coercive, you'd like it.

Please....You anarchist kill me...

why be so sloppy?? Republicans conservatives libertarians want limited government as our founders did so they are not anarchists. Are you slow?? MOst liberals are.

You guys have yet to explain governmental coercive tactics all you are doing is saying blah blah blah

are you saying they collect taxes and prevent crime without coercive tactics??