Why are Tea Partiers opposed to having a safety net?

[Darkwind]

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?

Yep, because the toll free roads are how we fund our safety nets and ensure that kids who are in bad situations can get help and that is why T.E.A. party members are such bad people.

Won't you toll My highway so we can have a safety net!

I can see the bumper sticker now.

 

[Stephanie]

Which state is it you live in that gets no federal highway dollars, dumbass?

omg..lol

The state of omg..lol? Never heard of it. Must be a new state for teabaggers who like the socialism they get but hate the socialism others get.

LOL, you're a joke
Maybe you should look up what it is our Federal and State Goverments are SUPPOSE to do with OUR TAX DOLLARS..

 

[Darkwind]

Here is another bumper sticker!

Toll the highways.....won't you think of the baby seals!

 

[MuadDib]

Unless you live in the STATE I live, you don't dumbass.

Which state is it you live in that gets no federal highway dollars, dumbass?

omg..lol

Lefties!

 

[Darkwind]

Un-tolled highways kill tuna!

 

[Darkwind]

Actually, I kind of liked that one. LOL

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

omg..lol

The state of omg..lol? Never heard of it. Must be a new state for teabaggers who like the socialism they get but hate the socialism others get.

LOL, you're a joke
Maybe you should look up what it is our Federal and State Goverments are SUPPOSE to do with OUR TAX DOLLARS..

Sure, just as soon as you tell me which state you live in that gets no federal highway funds.

 

[Darkwind]

They have lost the T.E.A. party argument so they are now trying to derail the topic to the illicit use of federal dollars to the states for roads they are not authorized to fund.

I wouldn't even bother to answer him.

 

[Douger]

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....

Dat Ryte ! Fucke'm and remember, Gawd Blast murka !
VIDEO: Wife Leaves Disfigured US Hero Ziegel - United States of America - World - Dalje.com

 

[Stephanie]

They have lost the T.E.A. party argument so they are now trying to derail the topic to the illicit use of federal dollars to the states for roads they are not authorized to fund.

I wouldn't even bother to answer him.

it's too goofy for words

 

[bripat9643]

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.

What difference does my situation make? I've pretty much changed my profession 3-4 times to avoid becomming obsolete.

The bottom line is that you can't prevent change. The opposite of change is stagnation. Preventing change would have meant preventing the telephone, the automobile, television, computers, cell phones, the iPad. New products and new means of production mean old products become obsolete. It means some companies have to go bankrupt. It means some people have to lose their jobs.

The reason the Soviet Union was so backwards is the fact that it couldn't adapt to changing technology. Furthermore, downturns are the result of governent meddling in the economy. They are not a justification for more meddling.

 

[Samson]

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.

What difference does my situation make?

One's particular situation above the safety net of social welfare makes a great deal of difference.

One meter above means you put relatively little effort into not falling into the net.

One hundred meters means you probably will try harder not to fall (i.e. save money for a rainy day).

The goal of socialism is to have everyone walking the tight-rope about an inch above the safety net; of course then the question becomes, why walk the rope?

 

[JoeNormal]

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.

What difference does my situation make?

One's particular situation above the safety net of social welfare makes a great deal of difference.

One meter above means you put relatively little effort into not falling into the net.

One hundred meters means you probably will try harder not to fall (i.e. save money for a rainy day).

The goal of socialism is to have everyone walking the tight-rope about an inch above the safety net; of course then the question becomes, why walk the rope?

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

 

[Foxfyre]

Indeed. It is not a perfect world and Utopia has never been guaranteed for any of us. There have always been recessions and economic downturns and ebbs and flows within various industries as well as mismanagement and/or corruption that affects many others. No political party and no government will ever be able to prevent or fully compensate for that.

But in a free society, those wth the work ethic and personal pride will do their damndest to carve out as secure a niche as possible for themselves which of necessity requires anticipating those downturns and setbacks and being able to weather them for a reasonable time while we regroup and reorganize our game plan.

I was counting up and including the temp jobs that I did not expect to hold for any length of time, I have worked 22 different paying jobs in my lifetime plus a lot of sideline mini jobs to make a little extra money. Those 21 jobs include a lot of different disciplines and career paths. Some sucked. Some I loved. Most were somewhere in between, but underscore that those who want to make it on their own can generally do so however the twists and turns the path to get there sometimes requires.

 

[Ernie S.]

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.

 

[JoeNormal]

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.

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

 

[Samson]

What difference does my situation make?

One's particular situation above the safety net of social welfare makes a great deal of difference.

One meter above means you put relatively little effort into not falling into the net.

One hundred meters means you probably will try harder not to fall (i.e. save money for a rainy day).

The goal of socialism is to have everyone walking the tight-rope about an inch above the safety net; of course then the question becomes, why walk the rope?

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

No, in fact, I agree that either "pure" form of either cannot exist for any length of time.

But on balance (no pun intended) I would rather have a weak safety net. Hitting the net should be unpleasent enough to inspire all to remain on their tightropes.

Rather than a net, I propose a soft pile of rotting feces.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

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.

 

[JoeNormal]

One's particular situation above the safety net of social welfare makes a great deal of difference.

One meter above means you put relatively little effort into not falling into the net.

One hundred meters means you probably will try harder not to fall (i.e. save money for a rainy day).

The goal of socialism is to have everyone walking the tight-rope about an inch above the safety net; of course then the question becomes, why walk the rope?

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

No, in fact, I agree that either "pure" form of either cannot exist for any length of time.

But on balance (no pun intended) I would rather have a weak safety net. Hitting the net should be unpleasent enough to inspire all to remain on their tightropes.

Rather than a net, I propose a soft pile of rotting feces.

LOL, that's not bad.

 

[Samson]

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....