Why are Tea Partiers opposed to having a safety net?

[Foxfyre]

I suppose some would. Seeing how people on welfare live, I would personally do everything in my power to escape it.

'

But that is ingrained in your work ethic. Once even hard working people have experienced and become accustomed to government freebies and benefits, such changes us and becomes ingrained into our psyche as an entitlement or our right--people being people too quickly become addicted. And there is a natural resistance in giving up that we have become accustomed to having and enjoying.

Once government gets us into that frame of mind, we belong to the government. We will vote for those who promise to keep the freebies coming and reject those we are convinced could take the freebies away from us. The government owns us. And once it does, it can do any damn thing it wants to anybody.

You sound like you're from a state that has many residents of US Government Indian Reservations....

Naw. Those residents actually take care of themselves pretty well. But we probably do have too many government jobs that removes the necessity for our very business-unfriendly legislature to change policies that would allow the free market to work better here.

 

[JoeNormal]

Because people have come to rely on government charity. Like any animal, a person will keep coming back to where they got a free meal.

I suppose some would. Seeing how people on welfare live, I would personally do everything in my power to escape it.

'

But that is ingrained in your work ethic. Once even hard working people have experienced and become accustomed to government freebies and benefits, such changes us and becomes ingrained into our psyche as an entitlement or our right--people being people too quickly become addicted. And there is a natural resistance in giving up that we have become accustomed to having and enjoying.

Once government gets us into that frame of mind, we belong to the government. We will vote for those who promise to keep the freebies coming and reject those we are convinced could take the freebies away from us. The government owns us. And once it does, it can do any damn thing it wants to anybody.

Do you know anyone who would prefer welfare to a decent job? I don't. Maybe I'm lucky. I think the parasites in the system are less of a problem than the conditions that are causing the deterioration of the middle class.

 

[Ernie S.]

It's about the finite amount of time that people have for various endeavors. People make mistakes. They might not see the benefit of studying hard when they're young and have the time to do so. Then as they find that their skills don't amount to didley squat and would like to pursue some worthwhile training, they're trapped by circumstance. You think that's good?

It just is... one thing it's not is my problem.

So much for the the notion that 'people will voluntarily help others'.

Voluntarily is the operative word here. It is my moral obligation to help out those less fortunate than me, but I'm rather pissed that those I am Legally forced to help out, make little effort to help themselves.
Have you lost your job and your child is hungry? Here's a $50 and a bag of groceries.
Do you sit on your ass smoking dope and feel bitter because the world hasn't rewarded you as you feel you deserve? Fuck off!
Charity is a choice. Welfare is state sanctioned larceny.

 

[Foxfyre]

I am for voluntary safety nets... I fully support charity

But nobody owes you anything for your personal wants or needs.. you, as an adult, are responsible for your own upkeep, food, lodging, etc....

And how many soap box talking points are you going to try and string together in one mini-paragraph??

As many as it takes I guess.

So why has voluntary charity proven inadequate?

Because people have come to rely on government charity. Like any animal, a person will keep coming back to where they got a free meal.

Exactly. There was a time when people were in need that the American people opened their hearts and pocketbooks and donated tons of household goods, food, water, clothing, money, and more to help those flooded out, burned out, devastated by storms and earthquakes, famine etc.

Now when the federal government immediately sends tens to hundreds of millions or billions specified as relief funds, our little contribution seems puny, ineffective, unnecessary.

Unfortunately, the private relief efforts actually got to those who needed it. Too often a lot of the government monies get swallowed up in the bureaucracy or is confiscated by corrupt governments or warlords. We never know whether any of it actually helped.

 

[bripat9643]

So why has voluntary charity proven inadequate?

Where has anyone demonstrated that voluntary charity proved to be inadequate?

Liberals keep saying this, but it's an article of faith among them. It's not a scientific proposition.

 

[bripat9643]

Do you know anyone who would prefer welfare to a decent job? I don't. Maybe I'm lucky. I think the parasites in the system are less of a problem than the conditions that are causing the deterioration of the middle class.

I don't know anyone who would choose to become addicted to heroin, but we all know there are such people. Your personal experience isn't a reliable guide for anyone. There are plenty of people who are perfectly happy to live on welfare.

Furthermore, all the people "in the system" are parasites. If you are collecting a check from the government without providing anything in exchange, you fit the definition of "parasite."

 

[Ernie S.]

It's about the finite amount of time that people have for various endeavors. People make mistakes. They might not see the benefit of studying hard when they're young and have the time to do so. Then as they find that their skills don't amount to didley squat and would like to pursue some worthwhile training, they're trapped by circumstance. You think that's good?

"Trapped by circumstance" is bullshit.....It's about your life and you get to do with it what you want.

I'll bet you don't have any kids.

Both my father and I attended college after having children. My father drove 90 miles each way, 2 nights a week for years after working all day. It did cut down on our partying, but we were WILLING to make that sacrifice WITHOUT demanding that the government picking up the tab.

 

[bripat9643]

Are you suggesting that anything other than pure capitalism is socialism?

Pure capitalism is on one end of the political spectrum, and pure socialism is on the other end. In between are various mixtures of the two systems.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

I can't speak for all tea-partiers, but as someone who shares a few points of the tea party's fiscal mentality, I can give you two of the major points.

The first is a moral one regarding the involuntary nature of government safety nets: If I'm a responsible, economically intelligent individual who feels that I am capable of putting money aside into a retirement plan more lucrative than what the government's offering, why shouldn't I be able to opt to put my money there in stead of into the general fund on a promise (and, as we all know, politicians are ALL ABOUT keeping their promises) that someday down the road it will be given back by any means necessary? Did I not earn my money? Was I lied to by bosses or clients regarding the source of my income? Did Uncle Sam actually just give me everything that I mistakenly thought I had managed to acquire? If the answers to those questions are negative, then who is anybody else to tell me that I have to be held hostage by standards set in place to protect idiots from themselves?

The second reason I tend to disagree with government safety nets is purely practical. Look at the layout of Social Security. Initially, the thought was that we'd take that money that came in via social security taxing and set it aside in a fund. That was deemed unconstitutional, so to make it work they started throwing the money into the general fund with the thought that we'd pay off the Social Security debts down the road by taxing whoever's in the current income pool directly for those funds as the bills come due. This is why many conservative politicians in recent times have referred to SS as a ponzi scheme: in order for the burden of paying out the retirees' benefits to remain sustainable, we require an ever-expanding base of working people paying into those benefits. Whether or not you feel Social Security has been successful, the current format is undeniably a government enforced pyramid scheme. During the WWII-Baby Boom generations' time, that was fine. After that baby boom, the up and coming work force heavily outnumbered the WWII aged retirees. Those of us in the generation born of the Boom Babies, however, don't enjoy nearly the same proportionate numerical advantage, which is a big part of the reason that there's more and more speculation these days regarding Social Security's sustainability (or lack thereof). What I'm getting at here is that the people (government officials) that allowed the program to continue without any way to lock down the money that would be used to pay back the benefits of people retiring were either politically motivated, lacking in forethought, or lacking in the ability to conceptualize basic economic principles. In short, they were either dishonest or incompetent.

Compare today's political environment with that of decades past: by all accounts the environment has become less honest, more politicized, more polarized, and more locked down by various special interests than at any other time in recent history. Take the dishonesty and incompetence of the post World War II era that dreamed up this pyramid scheme, multiply it by the factors of dishonesty and incompetence evident today. . . and you wanna tell me that the best way to weather economic downturns is by giving more of my money to -THEM- to "invest"?

Also, let's not forget what "invest" means to the government. Remember that stimulus a few years back? The one that was used in large part to pay off ridiculously overly optomistic retirement plans offered by wrecklessly pandering politicians when the economy was booming? If you ask me, giving more money to the government is just as likely to mean giving that money indirectly to their buddies or investing it in sheer incompetence as it is to actually helping weather -anything-. I'd put my money on my own disgression over Congress's 10 times out of 10.

 

[Foxfyre]

I suppose some would. Seeing how people on welfare live, I would personally do everything in my power to escape it.

'

But that is ingrained in your work ethic. Once even hard working people have experienced and become accustomed to government freebies and benefits, such changes us and becomes ingrained into our psyche as an entitlement or our right--people being people too quickly become addicted. And there is a natural resistance in giving up that we have become accustomed to having and enjoying.

Once government gets us into that frame of mind, we belong to the government. We will vote for those who promise to keep the freebies coming and reject those we are convinced could take the freebies away from us. The government owns us. And once it does, it can do any damn thing it wants to anybody.

Do you know anyone who would prefer welfare to a decent job? I don't. Maybe I'm lucky. I think the parasites in the system are less of a problem than the conditions that are causing the deterioration of the middle class.

Yes. I work with welfare families all the time. And most prefer their government check to making the effort to work at a real job. By the time they buy the clothes they need, payfor transportation, pay taxes, and all the other expenses of working, they figure they come out just about as well with their government benefits.

Very few of us love our jobs enough to work without being paid to work. And if we can get paid pretty much the same whether we work or not, how many of us do you think would choose to work unless they really really loved their job?

Now, IF the government got smart and required recipiients of government charity to do community work for 30 or so hours a week--if they had to undergo the drug tests that are mandatory in much of private industry--in other words were required to merit that government check, I think that private industry job that paid better would start looking a lot better.

The real benefit would be kids that grew up seeing mom and/or dad getting up in the morning, getting cleaned up, making themselves presentable, and going to work to bring home a paycheck. That would be the greatest gift we could ever give those kids.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

'

But that is ingrained in your work ethic. Once even hard working people have experienced and become accustomed to government freebies and benefits, such changes us and becomes ingrained into our psyche as an entitlement or our right--people being people too quickly become addicted. And there is a natural resistance in giving up that we have become accustomed to having and enjoying.

Once government gets us into that frame of mind, we belong to the government. We will vote for those who promise to keep the freebies coming and reject those we are convinced could take the freebies away from us. The government owns us. And once it does, it can do any damn thing it wants to anybody.

Do you know anyone who would prefer welfare to a decent job? I don't. Maybe I'm lucky. I think the parasites in the system are less of a problem than the conditions that are causing the deterioration of the middle class.

Yes. I work with welfare families all the time. And most prefer their government check to making the effort to work at a real job. By the time they buy the clothes they need, payfor transportation, pay taxes, and all the other expenses of working, they figure they come out just about as well with their government benefits.

Very few of us love our jobs enough to work without being paid to work. And if we can get paid pretty much the same whether we work or not, how many of us do you think would choose to work unless they really really loved their job?

Now, IF the government got smart and required recipiients of government charity to do community work for 30 or so hours a week--if they had to undergo the drug tests that are mandatory in much of private industry--in other words were required to merit that government check, I think that private industry job that paid better would start looking a lot better.

The real benefit would be kids that grew up seeing mom and/or dad getting up in the morning, getting cleaned up, making themselves presentable, and going to work to bring home a paycheck. That would be the greatest gift we could ever give those kids.

On a sidenote, this brings up a good point. A common mistake of many people who are generally honest and have enough integrity to take pride in being self sufficient is to assume that most everyone else is like them in those respects. While most people may share reasonable levels of these two traits, the very fact that governments exist at all implies that there's enough dishonest looters out there, with no integrity and no honest drive, to completely fuck things up for the rest of us. Everytime you find yourself thinking that the world is generally populated with upstanding folks, remember why we have laws.

 

[JoeNormal]

So why has voluntary charity proven inadequate?

Where has anyone demonstrated that voluntary charity proved to be inadequate?

Liberals keep saying this, but it's an article of faith among them. It's not a scientific proposition.

It's been a long thread and I'm not surprised you missed this. The Great Depression was the acid test for voluntary charity and it was inadequate.

 

[Katzndogz]

'

But that is ingrained in your work ethic. Once even hard working people have experienced and become accustomed to government freebies and benefits, such changes us and becomes ingrained into our psyche as an entitlement or our right--people being people too quickly become addicted. And there is a natural resistance in giving up that we have become accustomed to having and enjoying.

Once government gets us into that frame of mind, we belong to the government. We will vote for those who promise to keep the freebies coming and reject those we are convinced could take the freebies away from us. The government owns us. And once it does, it can do any damn thing it wants to anybody.

Do you know anyone who would prefer welfare to a decent job? I don't. Maybe I'm lucky. I think the parasites in the system are less of a problem than the conditions that are causing the deterioration of the middle class.

Yes. I work with welfare families all the time. And most prefer their government check to making the effort to work at a real job. By the time they buy the clothes they need, payfor transportation, pay taxes, and all the other expenses of working, they figure they come out just about as well with their government benefits.

Very few of us love our jobs enough to work without being paid to work. And if we can get paid pretty much the same whether we work or not, how many of us do you think would choose to work unless they really really loved their job?

Now, IF the government got smart and required recipiients of government charity to do community work for 30 or so hours a week--if they had to undergo the drug tests that are mandatory in much of private industry--in other words were required to merit that government check, I think that private industry job that paid better would start looking a lot better.

The real benefit would be kids that grew up seeing mom and/or dad getting up in the morning, getting cleaned up, making themselves presentable, and going to work to bring home a paycheck. That would be the greatest gift we could ever give those kids.

Have you had experience with former welfare recipients who were required to work or get into a training program? Most, 9 out of 10, develop a towering resentment at being forced to be a slave and work for money. Because they resent being forced to work against their will, they treat co-workers like shit, sabotage the company, and do everything they can to make themselves unacceptable. Then, when they get fired, they were treated unfairly by rich people who don't understand and can't sympathize. They are jusitifiably outraged victims.

Once in a while one will rise to the top and be grateful for the experience.

 

[JoeNormal]

'

But that is ingrained in your work ethic. Once even hard working people have experienced and become accustomed to government freebies and benefits, such changes us and becomes ingrained into our psyche as an entitlement or our right--people being people too quickly become addicted. And there is a natural resistance in giving up that we have become accustomed to having and enjoying.

Once government gets us into that frame of mind, we belong to the government. We will vote for those who promise to keep the freebies coming and reject those we are convinced could take the freebies away from us. The government owns us. And once it does, it can do any damn thing it wants to anybody.

Do you know anyone who would prefer welfare to a decent job? I don't. Maybe I'm lucky. I think the parasites in the system are less of a problem than the conditions that are causing the deterioration of the middle class.

Yes. I work with welfare families all the time. And most prefer their government check to making the effort to work at a real job. By the time they buy the clothes they need, payfor transportation, pay taxes, and all the other expenses of working, they figure they come out just about as well with their government benefits.

Very few of us love our jobs enough to work without being paid to work. And if we can get paid pretty much the same whether we work or not, how many of us do you think would choose to work unless they really really loved their job?

Now, IF the government got smart and required recipiients of government charity to do community work for 30 or so hours a week--if they had to undergo the drug tests that are mandatory in much of private industry--in other words were required to merit that government check, I think that private industry job that paid better would start looking a lot better.

The real benefit would be kids that grew up seeing mom and/or dad getting up in the morning, getting cleaned up, making themselves presentable, and going to work to bring home a paycheck. That would be the greatest gift we could ever give those kids.

I would have no problem with the community service aspect of welfare. I think that might be one way to curb the habitual abuse. And maybe the role model benefits would kick in as well.

 

[Foxfyre]

So why has voluntary charity proven inadequate?

Where has anyone demonstrated that voluntary charity proved to be inadequate?

Liberals keep saying this, but it's an article of faith among them. It's not a scientific proposition.

It's been a long thread and I'm not surprised you missed this. The Great Depression was the acid test for voluntary charity and it was inadequate.

But people didn't get government checks without working for them. The government put together useful work projects that provided material benefits thus providing people with the dignity of work rather than being assigned as useless beneficiaries of charity. And it was temporary. And it was paid for by cutting back on other government expenditures. You can drive out through the great plains to this day and see the wind rows they planted and the conservation water projects they built.

There may always be reasons for Congress to institute temporary emergency legislation. And that doesn't get us into trouble. It is the entitloement mentality that is the problem--a sense that we are entitled to other people's money just because we want/need it that gets us into trouble. It saps personal initiative and pride and changes the culture.

 

[Ernie S.]

Its goofy to suggest you take personal responsibility and not rely on big government? Why?


Funny how righties support all the government programs that directly benefit THEM.

wtf? you're being a idiot..have at it

Please explain why MY tax dollars should fund a road and highway for you?

Be cause YOU get to use it too, or some other road in your state. When the government take MY money to pay for YOUR food, I am not getting equal benefit. There is something in the Constitution about equal protection, I believe, or does that only apply to gay marriage?

 

[Avatar4321]

In his case, I think he started believing that he had the Midas touch. His intial success was relatively easy, he figured the gravy train would keep rolling for him in one way or another. When he saw that the video business was starting to go to the big guys, he bought a hair cutting franchise which he was clearly not cut out for.

So it sounds like his pride did more than the "big corporations" did in hurtng his business.

Yes, probably. But I see his attitude in many (most?) conservatives. If they're not doing well at the moment, they soon will be. If they are doing well at the moment, it'll last forever.

Except conservatives arent taking that position.

 

[Avatar4321]

Please explain why MY tax dollars should fund a road and highway for you?

the disucssion is not about highways, roads, or other services.

No one here has even suggested that there are no uses for state governments.

Do try and focus and comprehend what is being discussed.

Why should government fund toll free roads for all?

Last time I checked, they charged quite a bit for those roads.

 

[Ernie S.]

Please explain why MY tax dollars should fund a road and highway for you?

the disucssion is not about highways, roads, or other services.

No one here has even suggested that there are no uses for state governments.

Do try and focus and comprehend what is being discussed.

Why should government fund toll free roads for all?

Because that's what general welfare means. Paying the bill for your section 8 housing is specific welfare for which I get zero benefit.

 

[Avatar4321]

I am for voluntary safety nets... I fully support charity

But nobody owes you anything for your personal wants or needs.. you, as an adult, are responsible for your own upkeep, food, lodging, etc....

And how many soap box talking points are you going to try and string together in one mini-paragraph??

As many as it takes I guess.

So why has voluntary charity proven inadequate?

Because people have come to rely on government charity. Like any animal, a person will keep coming back to where they got a free meal.

Government charity isnt possible. Charity requires a willing heart and mind. Government inherently involves violence/force thus negating any possibility of charity.