Why are Tea Partiers opposed to having a safety net?

[TakeAStepBack]

Social Security was actually declared unconstitutional (rightfully so, as it is) by the first circuit court of appeals back in 1937. In two related cases, Davis v. Boston Mane R. Co. (89 F.2d 386) and Davis v. Edison Electric Illuminating Co. of Boston et al. (89 F2d 393), the court ruled the social security Act unconstitutional. According to the court, the act, which contained numerous titles establishing benefits for the aged, unemployed and dependent children, and imposed two new taxes, an excise tax on employers and a special income tax on employees, was unconstitutional on a variety of grounds.

One in particular was that the social security act violated the "general welfare" clause of the Constitution, in that SS taxes were paid by some for the SPECIFIC benefits of others. Ini doing so, the act did not promote the general welfare of all, but the specific welfare of some.

To counter this claim, the govt. argued that the tax and benefit provisions of the SSA were in no way related. The taxes were "true" taxes, paid unrestricted into the US treasury (which they are, the pay in, in no way guarantees benefits later. Congress can simply change their mind and continue to collect the tax). for the general support of govt. They claimed that SS taxes were enacted for the sole purpose of raising revenue and were not earmarked for any particular purpose.

Actually, if you look carefully at the formula used to calculate SS benefits, you'll see that benefits are determined not by amount paid in taxes - as insurance plans would - but by how much you earn in wages. So in truth, SS was two separate programs - one defined benefit pension and the other a payroll tax (excise tax on employers, inncome tax on employees)- that coincidentally just happen to be passed at the same time under the same name.

The exact opposite of what the public was fed to buy into the program. the first circuit court saw right through the ploy. It correctly observed, "Congress has not an unlimited power of taxation; but is limited tospecific objects - the payment of the public debt (not its creation), and the providing of the common defense and general welfare. A tax, therefore, laid by congress for neither of these objectives, would be unconstitutional, as an excess of its legitimate authority,"

The court went on to state:

" A tax, in the general understanding of the term, and as used in the constitution, signifies an exaction for the support of govt. The word has never been thought to connote the expropriation of money from one group for the benefit of another, The exaction cannot be wrested out of its setting, denominated an excise for raisingrevenue and legalized by ignoring its purpose as a mere instrumentfor bringing about a desired end. To do this would be to shut our eyes to what all others than we can see and understand.

In further observation the court:

"If the act is carried out as planned by congress...it amounts, in effect, to taking the property of every employer for the benefit of a certain class of employees. The entire plan, viewed as a whole, is an attempt to do indirectly what congress can not to directly, and to assume national control over a subject clearly within jurisdictionof the states."

The supreme court reversed this decision. Of the myriad of grounds established by the first circuit court, only two were brought to the supreme court. Which they ignored and declared SSA constitutional. One was the act sought to raise revenue. Repeating that the SSA was actually two separate acts passed under the same name at the same time.

In short form, it is unconstitutional and an over reach of power not granted by the constitution. At worst it should be voluntary participation and at best, left to the states entirely.

 

[DiamondDave]

More government money than ever before is thrown at 'entitlement' or 'safety net' programs, yet the problems don't improve no matter how many agencies or programs are created.. so the solution is to throw MORE money at it??

And this is with it going even WAYYYYY beyond 'necessities', with no entitlement junkies getting cell phones, transportation, etc.. and yet we have ones getting assistance who have money to buy cable tv, computers, video games, sports equipment, movie tickets, restaurant food, you name it..

It is the entitlement mantra that is the problem, not charities or the charitable giving of earners or the 'evil rich'

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Social Security was actually declared unconstitutional (rightfully so, as it is) by the first circuit court of appeals back in 1937. In two related cases, Davis v. Boston Mane R. Co. (89 F.2d 386) and Davis v. Edison Electric Illuminating Co. of Boston et al. (89 F2d 393), the court ruled the social security Act unconstitutional. According to the court, the act, which contained numerous titles establishing benefits for the aged, unemployed and dependent children, and imposed two new taxes, an excise tax on employers and a special income tax on employees, was unconstitutional on a variety of grounds.

One in particular was that the social security act violated the "general welfare" clause of the Constitution, in that SS taxes were paid by some for the SPECIFIC benefits of others. Ini doing so, the act did not promote the general welfare of all, but the specific welfare of some.

To counter this claim, the govt. argued that the tax and benefit provisions of the SSA were in no way related. The taxes were "true" taxes, paid unrestricted into the US treasury (which they are, the pay in, in no way guarantees benefits later. Congress can simply change their mind and continue to collect the tax). for the general support of govt. They claimed that SS taxes were enacted for the sole purpose of raising revenue and were not earmarked for any particular purpose.

Actually, if you look carefully at the formula used to calculate SS benefits, you'll see that benefits are determined not by amount paid in taxes - as insurance plans would - but by how much you earn in wages. So in truth, SS was two separate programs - one defined benefit pension and the other a payroll tax (excise tax on employers, inncome tax on employees)- that coincidentally just happen to be passed at the same time under the same name.

The exact opposite of what the public was fed to buy into the program. the first circuit court saw right through the ploy. It correctly observed, "Congress has not an unlimited power of taxation; but is limited tospecific objects - the payment of the public debt (not its creation), and the providing of the common defense and general welfare. A tax, therefore, laid by congress for neither of these objectives, would be unconstitutional, as an excess of its legitimate authority,"

The court went on to state:

" A tax, in the general understanding of the term, and as used in the constitution, signifies an exaction for the support of govt. The word has never been thought to connote the expropriation of money from one group for the benefit of another, The exaction cannot be wrested out of its setting, denominated an excise for raisingrevenue and legalized by ignoring its purpose as a mere instrumentfor bringing about a desired end. To do this would be to shut our eyes to what all others than we can see and understand.

In further observation the court:

"If the act is carried out as planned by congress...it amounts, in effect, to taking the property of every employer for the benefit of a certain class of employees. The entire plan, viewed as a whole, is an attempt to do indirectly what congress can not to directly, and to assume national control over a subject clearly within jurisdictionof the states."

The supreme court reversed this decision. Of the myriad of grounds established by the first circuit court, only two were brought to the supreme court. Which they ignored and declared SSA constitutional. One was the act sought to raise revenue. Repeating that the SSA was actually two separate acts passed under the same name at the same time.

In short form, it is unconstitutional and an over reach of power not granted by the constitution. At worst it should be voluntary participation and at best, left to the states entirely.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Why are Tea Partiers opposed to having a safety net?

Social Security was actually declared unconstitutional (rightfully so, as it is) by the first circuit court of appeals back in 1937. In two related cases, Davis v. Boston Mane R. Co. (89 F.2d 386) and Davis v. Edison Electric Illuminating Co. of Boston et al. (89 F2d 393), the court ruled the social security Act unconstitutional. According to the court, the act, which contained numerous titles establishing benefits for the aged, unemployed and dependent children, and imposed two new taxes, an excise tax on employers and a special income tax on employees, was unconstitutional on a variety of grounds.

One in particular was that the social security act violated the "general welfare" clause of the Constitution, in that SS taxes were paid by some for the SPECIFIC benefits of others. In doing so, the act did not promote the general welfare of all, but the specific welfare of some.

To counter this claim, the govt. argued that the tax and benefit provisions of the SSA were in no way related. The taxes were "true" taxes, paid unrestricted into the US treasury (which they are, the pay in, in no way guarantees benefits later. Congress can simply change their mind and continue to collect the tax). for the general support of govt. They claimed that SS taxes were enacted for the sole purpose of raising revenue and were not earmarked for any particular purpose.

Actually, if you look carefully at the formula used to calculate SS benefits, you'll see that benefits are determined not by amount paid in taxes - as insurance plans would - but by how much you earn in wages. So in truth, SS was two separate programs - one defined benefit pension and the other a payroll tax (excise tax on employers, inncome tax on employees)- that coincidentally just happen to be passed at the same time under the same name.

The exact opposite of what the public was fed to buy into the program. the first circuit court saw right through the ploy. It correctly observed, "Congress has not an unlimited power of taxation; but is limited tospecific objects - the payment of the public debt (not its creation), and the providing of the common defense and general welfare. A tax, therefore, laid by congress for neither of these objectives, would be unconstitutional, as an excess of its legitimate authority,"

The court went on to state:

" A tax, in the general understanding of the term, and as used in the constitution, signifies an exaction for the support of govt. The word has never been thought to connote the expropriation of money from one group for the benefit of another, The exaction cannot be wrested out of its setting, denominated an excise for raisingrevenue and legalized by ignoring its purpose as a mere instrument for bringing about a desired end. To do this would be to shut our eyes to what all others than we can see and understand.
In further observation the court:

"If the act is carried out as planned by congress...it amounts, in effect, to taking the property of every employer for the benefit of a certain class of employees. The entire plan, viewed as a whole, is an attempt to do indirectly what congress can not to directly, and to assume national control over a subject clearly within jurisdictionof the states."

The supreme court reversed this decision. Of the myriad of grounds established by the first circuit court, only two were brought to the supreme court. Which they ignored and declared SSA constitutional. One was the act sought to raise revenue. Repeating that the SSA was actually two separate acts passed under the same name at the same time.

In short form, the act is completely unconstitutional and over steps the boundaries established by the constitution in laying taxation for specific benefits received by some and paid for by others, and also breask the general welfare clause of the constitution. This is a state as enumerated by the constitution taken over by congress in a roughshod fashion to meet the end results of a desired goal. In the end, it is a burden and should be voluntary in basis at worst and left tot he states at best.

 

[The T]

I think ya better take a trip down to your local Social Services office.

Loads of ladies with illigitimate kids all over the place. Hell. We just had one in court who has already had 13 kid. She has em, immediately get pregnant again and signs all the kids over to the State ot raise.

She is permenantly on Welfare and her kids are being raised in Foster care at the expense of the taxpayers.

She's just one of many no doubt all across this country. She has never worked a day in her life and probably won't.

Talk about being a candidate for spaying.

I might second your motion for spaying if that's the case.

YOU are a fucking idiot.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Social Security was actually declared unconstitutional (rightfully so, as it is) by the first circuit court of appeals back in 1937. In two related cases, Davis v. Boston Mane R. Co. (89 F.2d 386) and Davis v. Edison Electric Illuminating Co. of Boston et al. (89 F2d 393), the court ruled the social security Act unconstitutional. According to the court, the act, which contained numerous titles establishing benefits for the aged, unemployed and dependent children, and imposed two new taxes, an excise tax on employers and a special income tax on employees, was unconstitutional on a variety of grounds.

One in particular was that the social security act violated the "general welfare" clause of the Constitution, in that SS taxes were paid by some for the SPECIFIC benefits of others. Ini doing so, the act did not promote the general welfare of all, but the specific welfare of some.

To counter this claim, the govt. argued that the tax and benefit provisions of the SSA were in no way related. The taxes were "true" taxes, paid unrestricted into the US treasury (which they are, the pay in, in no way guarantees benefits later. Congress can simply change their mind and continue to collect the tax). for the general support of govt. They claimed that SS taxes were enacted for the sole purpose of raising revenue and were not earmarked for any particular purpose.

Actually, if you look carefully at the formula used to calculate SS benefits, you'll see that benefits are determined not by amount paid in taxes - as insurance plans would - but by how much you earn in wages. So in truth, SS was two separate programs - one defined benefit pension and the other a payroll tax (excise tax on employers, inncome tax on employees)- that coincidentally just happen to be passed at the same time under the same name.

The exact opposite of what the public was fed to buy into the program. the first circuit court saw right through the ploy. It correctly observed, "Congress has not an unlimited power of taxation; but is limited tospecific objects - the payment of the public debt (not its creation), and the providing of the common defense and general welfare. A tax, therefore, laid by congress for neither of these objectives, would be unconstitutional, as an excess of its legitimate authority,"

The court went on to state:

" A tax, in the general understanding of the term, and as used in the constitution, signifies an exaction for the support of govt. The word has never been thought to connote the expropriation of money from one group for the benefit of another, The exaction cannot be wrested out of its setting, denominated an excise for raisingrevenue and legalized by ignoring its purpose as a mere instrumentfor bringing about a desired end. To do this would be to shut our eyes to what all others than we can see and understand.

In further observation the court:

"If the act is carried out as planned by congress...it amounts, in effect, to taking the property of every employer for the benefit of a certain class of employees. The entire plan, viewed as a whole, is an attempt to do indirectly what congress can not to directly, and to assume national control over a subject clearly within jurisdictionof the states."

The supreme court reversed this decision. Of the myriad of grounds established by the first circuit court, only two were brought to the supreme court. Which they ignored and declared SSA constitutional. One was the act sought to raise revenue. Repeating that the SSA was actually two separate acts passed under the same name at the same time.

In short form, it is unconstitutional and an over reach of power not granted by the constitution. At worst it should be voluntary participation and at best, left to the states entirely.

 

[P@triot]

Delete duplicate post

 

[P@triot]

Delete duplicate post

 

[P@triot]

I think ya better take a trip down to your local Social Services office.

Loads of ladies with illigitimate kids all over the place. Hell. We just had one in court who has already had 13 kid. She has em, immediately get pregnant again and signs all the kids over to the State ot raise.

She is permenantly on Welfare and her kids are being raised in Foster care at the expense of the taxpayers.

She's just one of many no doubt all across this country. She has never worked a day in her life and probably won't.

Talk about being a candidate for spaying.

I'll do you one better - there was just a news story from (Ohio, I think?) where a man fathered 18 children with like 12 different women. You read that right- 18 children!!! And you know what the story was about? The fact that he wanted the goverment to take care of them because he simply couldn't provide for 18 children. So I guess Joe was right, thanks to Clinton's "reforms" we don't have parents with 8 babies now. We have parents with 18 babies now...

 

[DiamondDave]

More government money than ever before is thrown at 'entitlement' or 'safety net' programs, yet the problems don't improve no matter how many agencies or programs are created.. so the solution is to throw MORE money at it??

And this is with it going even WAYYYYY beyond 'necessities', with no entitlement junkies getting cell phones, transportation, etc.. and yet we have ones getting assistance who have money to buy cable tv, computers, video games, sports equipment, movie tickets, restaurant food, you name it..

It is the entitlement mantra that is the problem, not charities or the charitable giving of earners or the 'evil rich'

 

[Darkwind]

In other words, why do you think you'll never need to be supported through rough times? Our economy is rapidly changing - moving towards a knowledge based system. Outsourcing to third world countries is killing our manufacturing base and thanks to trade agreements, no one profits from that except the multinational corporations. Illegal immigrants fill the niche for unskilled labor. Few people have enough land or have sufficient water rights to produce their own food. And most middle class Americans are drowning in a sea of mortgage and credit card debt.

The "safety net" is a euphemism for organized plunder. The economy has been changing rapidly for 200 years. Rapid change is the hallmark of capitalism. Ossifying the economy doesn't help us compete in the global market. It does precisely the opposite.

So what's your situation? I have a good education and a lot of work experience. I'm way more immune to downturns than most but I still have to wonder what I'd do to stay afloat if things turned sour.

I know what you should do. If you have the willingness to do it is beyond the scope of this forum and only you can answer that.

Your assertion that the great depression is somehow an indicator that a safety net is needed is quite a stretch. Hope you didn't pull anything.

 

[DiamondDave]

Social Security was actually declared unconstitutional (rightfully so, as it is) by the first circuit court of appeals back in 1937. In two related cases, Davis v. Boston Mane R. Co. (89 F.2d 386) and Davis v. Edison Electric Illuminating Co. of Boston et al. (89 F2d 393), the court ruled the social security Act unconstitutional. According to the court, the act, which contained numerous titles establishing benefits for the aged, unemployed and dependent children, and imposed two new taxes, an excise tax on employers and a special income tax on employees, was unconstitutional on a variety of grounds.

On ein particular was that the social security act violated the "general welfare" clause of the Constitution, in that SS taxes were paid by some for the SPECIFIC benefits of others. Ini doing so, the act did not promote the general welfare of all, but the specific welfare of some.

To counter this claim, the govt. argued that the tax and benefit provisions of the SSA were in no way related. The taxes were "true" taxes, paid unrestricted into the US treasury (which they are, the pay in, in no way guarantees benefits later. Congress can simply change their mind and continue to collect the tax). for the general support of govt. They claimed that SS taxes were enacted for the sole purpose of raising revenue and were not earmarked for any particular purpose.

Actually, if you look carefully atthe formula used to calculate SS benefits, you'll see that benefits are determined not by amount paid in taxes - as insurance plans would - but by how much you earn in wages. So in truth, SS was two separate programs - one definedbenefit pension and the other a payroll tax (excise tax on employers, inncome tax on employees)- that coincidentally just happen to be passed at the same time under the same name.

The exact opposite of what the public was fed to buy into the program. the first circuit court saw right through the ploy. It correctly observed, "Congress has not an unlimited power of taxation; but is limited tospecific objects - the payment of the public debt (not its creation), and the providing of the common defense and general welfare. A tax, therefore, laid by congress for neither of these objectives, would be unconstitutional, as an excess of its legitimate authority,"

The court went on to state:

" A tax, in the general understanding of the term, and as used in the constitution, signifies an exaction for the support of govt. The word has never been thought to connote the expropriation of money from one group for the benefit of another, The exaction cannot be wrested out of its setting, denominated an excise for raisingrevenue and legalized by ignoring its purpose as a mere instrumentfor bringing about a desired end. To do this would be to shut our eyes to what all others than we can see and understand.

In further observation the court:

"If the act is carried out as planned by congress...it amounts, in effect, to taking the property of every employer for the benefit of a certain class of employees. The entire plan, viewed as a whole, is an attempt to do indirectly what congress can not to directly, and to assume national control over a subject clearly within jurisdictionof the states."

The supreme court reversed this decision. Of the myriad of grounds established by the first circuit court, only two were brought to the supreme court. Which they ignored and declared SSA constitutional. One was the act sought to raise revenue. Repeating that the SSA was actually two separate acts passed under the same name at the same time.

And hence why Roosevelt, in a HORRIBLE move, went and attempted to change the supreme court to get what he wanted anyway...

Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[P@triot]

In other words, why do you think you'll never need to be supported through rough times? Our economy is rapidly changing - moving towards a knowledge based system. Outsourcing to third world countries is killing our manufacturing base and thanks to trade agreements, no one profits from that except the multinational corporations. Illegal immigrants fill the niche for unskilled labor. Few people have enough land or have sufficient water rights to produce their own food. And most middle class Americans are drowning in a sea of mortgage and credit card debt.

Because history has taught us that centralized government solutions = catastrophic failure. First, it penalizes hard working income earners and rewards the crack addict with 8 babies from 8 different fathers. That's like beating your oldest child for a 4.0 report card, and rewarding your youngest child with a $1,000 for telling their teacher to "f*ck off" and dropping out of school. Nobody would do that, yet the left thinks that very philosophy will bring success to America.

Second, all the federal government does is create waste. Endless waste. Volumes of waste. It wastes money, time, resources, and more. It is the epitome of waste and inefficiency. Anything the government does, can be done 100,000x better by the private sector - including charity.

Third, it imposes on freedom. There is a price to be paid for the freedoms you enjoy, and that price is called personal responsibility. If you lose your job in England, the goverment pays your mortgage for you. If you lose your job in America, you lose your home. There is no safety net - which is why this is and has been, the greatest country in the world. Because the lack of safety net lights a fire under the majority of us and causes us to get up every day and produce at the highest levels. It's why America created the nuclear bomb and not Russia. It's why America first achieved flight and not England. It's why America created the iPad and not China. The fact that my money is taken against my will and used for a program - Social Security (nothing secure about the mess by the way) - that I don't want to be a part of and which, is NOT authorized in the US Constitution, is a major infringement on my freedoms.

Fourth, we already have 5 layers of safety nets in place. First is your family. If you're family won't help you (well, you're probably a jerk), then second you haver friends. If you're friends won't help you (well, you're probably a major friggin jerk), then you have your neighbors. If you're neighbors won't help you (again, you're probably a major friggin jerk), then you have your church. If your church can't provide you with enough help, then you have charity. If 5 "safety nets" aren't enough for a person, then they should probably just give up and die. Sorry, but I don't know what else to tell you - that's more than enough for any person.

I could keep going, but I think that's more than enough information to explain why the so-called "governmet safety net" is despised by true conservatives. To sum it up best though, go back to the first point. It creates FAILURE.

Most of what you've posted seems like Fox News cliches. There was a major welfare reform that happened under Clinton. I think the era of crack moms with 8 kids is long gone. And do you actually know anyone who works for the government? The ones I do take their jobs as seriously as anyone I know in private enterprise. Seriously, you can't see a good reason for regulation of any kind?

If we're going to have a real discussion on this, you can't just throw "Fox News" at me and call it day. Can you cite which of my points were wrong and back it up with something concrete? I gave you very specific answers to your question.

And yes, I honestly know dozens of government workers and almost everyone one of them howls about the government gravytrain they are riding. Limmited effort, maximum holidays, and compensation that far exceeds their counterparts in the private sector. One individual I am very close with is in charge of a county service. If he doesn't spend all of his budget for the year, he doesn't receive the same amount the following year. So of course, that kind of stupidity just promotes waste. He had a vendor hand him an invoice for $200. He asked the vendor for his pen (so the ink would match) and placed a 1 in front of the 2, changing a $200 job into a $1,200 job just so he could get closer to spending his budget. True story - and glaring example of what goes on in government.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Sorry for the 9 million posts, i dont know what happened, but like a responsible adult, i cleaned it up without any govt. involvement.

 

[JoeNormal]

I think ya better take a trip down to your local Social Services office.

Loads of ladies with illigitimate kids all over the place. Hell. We just had one in court who has already had 13 kid. She has em, immediately get pregnant again and signs all the kids over to the State ot raise.

She is permenantly on Welfare and her kids are being raised in Foster care at the expense of the taxpayers.

She's just one of many no doubt all across this country. She has never worked a day in her life and probably won't.

Talk about being a candidate for spaying.

I might second your motion for spaying if that's the case.

YOU are a fucking idiot.

Of all my statements, I would have thought that you might actually agree with that one. You are a riddle wrapped in an enigma.

 

[Darkwind]

sorry for the 9 million posts, i dont know what happened, but like a responsible adult, i cleaned it up without any govt. Involvement.

no soup for you!

 

[JoeNormal]

The "safety net" is a euphemism for organized plunder. The economy has been changing rapidly for 200 years. Rapid change is the hallmark of capitalism. Ossifying the economy doesn't help us compete in the global market. It does precisely the opposite.

So what's your situation? I have a good education and a lot of work experience. I'm way more immune to downturns than most but I still have to wonder what I'd do to stay afloat if things turned sour.

I know what you should do. If you have the willingness to do it is beyond the scope of this forum and only you can answer that.

Your assertion that the great depression is somehow an indicator that a safety net is needed is quite a stretch. Hope you didn't pull anything.

I'm really trying to understand the Tea Party mentality. From what I understand now, you guys don't seem to have a very realistic idea of the complexities of living in a technologically advanced society with high population density and the myriad things that can cause collapse. Please help me understand how you can think the things that you do.

 

[JoeNormal]

Because history has taught us that centralized government solutions = catastrophic failure. First, it penalizes hard working income earners and rewards the crack addict with 8 babies from 8 different fathers. That's like beating your oldest child for a 4.0 report card, and rewarding your youngest child with a $1,000 for telling their teacher to "f*ck off" and dropping out of school. Nobody would do that, yet the left thinks that very philosophy will bring success to America.

Second, all the federal government does is create waste. Endless waste. Volumes of waste. It wastes money, time, resources, and more. It is the epitome of waste and inefficiency. Anything the government does, can be done 100,000x better by the private sector - including charity.

Third, it imposes on freedom. There is a price to be paid for the freedoms you enjoy, and that price is called personal responsibility. If you lose your job in England, the goverment pays your mortgage for you. If you lose your job in America, you lose your home. There is no safety net - which is why this is and has been, the greatest country in the world. Because the lack of safety net lights a fire under the majority of us and causes us to get up every day and produce at the highest levels. It's why America created the nuclear bomb and not Russia. It's why America first achieved flight and not England. It's why America created the iPad and not China. The fact that my money is taken against my will and used for a program - Social Security (nothing secure about the mess by the way) - that I don't want to be a part of and which, is NOT authorized in the US Constitution, is a major infringement on my freedoms.

Fourth, we already have 5 layers of safety nets in place. First is your family. If you're family won't help you (well, you're probably a jerk), then second you haver friends. If you're friends won't help you (well, you're probably a major friggin jerk), then you have your neighbors. If you're neighbors won't help you (again, you're probably a major friggin jerk), then you have your church. If your church can't provide you with enough help, then you have charity. If 5 "safety nets" aren't enough for a person, then they should probably just give up and die. Sorry, but I don't know what else to tell you - that's more than enough for any person.

I could keep going, but I think that's more than enough information to explain why the so-called "governmet safety net" is despised by true conservatives. To sum it up best though, go back to the first point. It creates FAILURE.

Most of what you've posted seems like Fox News cliches. There was a major welfare reform that happened under Clinton. I think the era of crack moms with 8 kids is long gone. And do you actually know anyone who works for the government? The ones I do take their jobs as seriously as anyone I know in private enterprise. Seriously, you can't see a good reason for regulation of any kind?

If we're going to have a real discussion on this, you can't just throw "Fox News" at me and call it day. Can you cite which of my points were wrong and back it up with something concrete? I gave you very specific answers to your question.

And yes, I honestly know dozens of government workers and almost everyone one of them howls about the government gravytrain they are riding. Limmited effort, maximum holidays, and compensation that far exceeds their counterparts in the private sector. One individual I am very close with is in charge of a county service. If he doesn't spend all of his budget for the year, he doesn't receive the same amount the following year. So of course, that kind of stupidity just promotes waste. He had a vendor hand him an invoice for $200. He asked the vendor for his pen (so the ink would match) and placed a 1 in front of the 2, changing a $200 job into a $1,200 job just so he could get closer to spending his budget. True story - and glaring example of what goes on in government.

Ok, I'll have to get back to you when I have some time for in-depth discussion. Things are getting busy here.

 

[The Infidel]

So what's your situation? I have a good education and a lot of work experience. I'm way more immune to downturns than most but I still have to wonder what I'd do to stay afloat if things turned sour.

I know what you should do. If you have the willingness to do it is beyond the scope of this forum and only you can answer that.

Your assertion that the great depression is somehow an indicator that a safety net is needed is quite a stretch. Hope you didn't pull anything.

I'm really trying to understand the Tea Party mentality. From what I understand now, you guys don't seem to have a very realistic idea of the complexities of living in a technologically advanced society with high population density and the myriad things that can cause collapse. Please help me understand how you can think the things that you do.

You are a troll and it would be a waste of time... end of story.

 

[Darkwind]

So what's your situation? I have a good education and a lot of work experience. I'm way more immune to downturns than most but I still have to wonder what I'd do to stay afloat if things turned sour.

I know what you should do. If you have the willingness to do it is beyond the scope of this forum and only you can answer that.

Your assertion that the great depression is somehow an indicator that a safety net is needed is quite a stretch. Hope you didn't pull anything.

I'm really trying to understand the Tea Party mentality. From what I understand now, you guys don't seem to have a very realistic idea of the complexities of living in a technologically advanced society with high population density and the myriad things that can cause collapse. Please help me understand how you can think the things that you do.

We actually have a perfect understanding of it.

If you've paid any attention at all to the philosophy of personal responsibility and limited government, you'll know that a safety net is not the complaint, but that the safety net is not a Federal authorized program.

You'll also understand that teaching people to be responsible for themselves and to actually PLAN AHEAD for rough times will in fact, keep them from having to depend upon government.

That kind of thing DOES work, and it works every time. The only question that needs to be asked, is why are people so selfish that they'll willing to risk their own lives on a bet that government will be there for them.