TFerWannaBe: 1. "I would benefit instead if the money weren't taken from me." But you wouldn't go out and buy a couple extra packets of Ramen or a new sweater with the money. It will sit in your bank account. Sally will go out and spend it; she must to support her family.

Money in my bank account is a benefit to me. Is money in your bank account not a benefit for you?

sonnymaou: A Dark Evil Omen: sonnymaou: My contributing to road upkeep is different from my contributing to Sally's upkeep (or Juan's or Shaniqua's). Right?

Not really, no. The well-being of every person in the country affects yours, if indirectly. That is what society means.

And if you follow your logic to its end result, you end up with... North Korea?

Society means "people respecting other people's rights while freely associating and freely transacting." That's it. It doesn't mean "some people leeching off the rest."

Anyway...

When I contribute to road upkeep, I (and others) can use that road.
When I contribute to Sally's upkeep, she's the sole beneficiary.

Do you see the difference?

Let me explain something to you. Everyone has a cost to society. You can pay for sally's food and medical care. Or you can pay for her medical care with higher costs for medical care to subsidize her free emergency room visits. You can pay for her subsidized housing. Or you can pay for the law enforcement that deals with her when she resorts to crime. The goal is to handle these issues in the most beneficial way. If you just pay for the law enforcement and jailing, Sally is really a sponge. If you pay for social safety nets, that money finds its way back into the economy and benefits you.

max_pooper: qorkfiend: sonnymaou: When I contribute to Sally's upkeep, she's the sole beneficiary.

Yeah, you don't benefit at all from having Sally be a healthy, productive member of society.

You need to look at from his perspective. In his mind, Sally's not a down her luck mother of two with cancer and a deceased husband who uses her welfare pittance to keep her children just barely fed and clothed enough to keep them from a turning to a life of stealing from the likes sonnymaou. She's just a mooch on society.


Bringing Sally into it in the first place is a bit of a straw man. He is paying for his own social safety net, that sally is using the net she paid for/will pay for is not relevant to him. It would be just as aplicable for me to say when I pay for a social safety net I protect my future, but when I pay for upkeep on Elm Street the only beneficiaries are the people of Elm Street.

Philip Francis Queeg: How is that different than the Fire Department or the military then? What if I don't want to pay for those? Should I be forced to pay for them?


Yes, sorry. Because that's called a "societal" benefit. You know, "society," that thing you love, benefits.

Note, when I pay for Fire Department, I benefit from Fire Department. When I pay for military, I benefit from military.

When I pay for SallyJuanShaniqua, I benefit in no way (except for those good feelies).

When I pay for social security, I benefit LESS than if I had not had to do that. (I manage my retirement funds far better than the government does.)

It's good to know that nothing could ever possibly happen to your retirement account and that it's so incredibly safe that you could never need any kind of help from society.

I'm a big boy. When you move out of momma's basement, you'll love the autonomy. Or maybe not. *shrug*

CPennypacker: Social safety nets contribute to economic stability and prosperity.

[Citation needed]

CPennypacker: sonnymaou: A Dark Evil Omen: sonnymaou: My contributing to road upkeep is different from my contributing to Sally's upkeep (or Juan's or Shaniqua's). Right?

Not really, no. The well-being of every person in the country affects yours, if indirectly. That is what society means.

And if you follow your logic to its end result, you end up with... North Korea?

Society means "people respecting other people's rights while freely associating and freely transacting." That's it. It doesn't mean "some people leeching off the rest."

Anyway...

When I contribute to road upkeep, I (and others) can use that road.
When I contribute to Sally's upkeep, she's the sole beneficiary.

Do you see the difference?

Let me explain something to you. Everyone has a cost to society. You can pay for sally's food and medical care. Or you can pay for her medical care with higher costs for medical care to subsidize her free emergency room visits. You can pay for her subsidized housing. Or you can pay for the law enforcement that deals with her when she resorts to crime. The goal is to handle these issues in the most beneficial way. If you just pay for the law enforcement and jailing, Sally is really a sponge. If you pay for social safety nets, that money finds its way back into the economy and benefits you.

Well actually, the costs of police and jails would also trickle back into the economy since police and correction officers are participants in the economy who purchase good and services as well. With that little detail out of the way, you are correct in that providing social safety nets is much more productive than fighting against the problems associated with not having them.

CPennypacker: sonnymaou: A Dark Evil Omen: sonnymaou: My contributing to road upkeep is different from my contributing to Sally's upkeep (or Juan's or Shaniqua's). Right?

Not really, no. The well-being of every person in the country affects yours, if indirectly. That is what society means.

And if you follow your logic to its end result, you end up with... North Korea?

Society means "people respecting other people's rights while freely associating and freely transacting." That's it. It doesn't mean "some people leeching off the rest."

Anyway...

When I contribute to road upkeep, I (and others) can use that road.
When I contribute to Sally's upkeep, she's the sole beneficiary.

Do you see the difference?

Let me explain something to you. Everyone has a cost to society. You can pay for sally's food and medical care. Or you can pay for her medical care with higher costs for medical care to subsidize her free emergency room visits. You can pay for her subsidized housing. Or you can pay for the law enforcement that deals with her when she resorts to crime. The goal is to handle these issues in the most beneficial way. If you just pay for the law enforcement and jailing, Sally is really a sponge. If you pay for social safety nets, that money finds its way back into the economy and benefits you.

Or, you can kill Sally as she tries to steal from you.

sonnymaou: CPennypacker: Social safety nets contribute to economic stability and prosperity.

[Citation needed]

Pretty much every economist that isn't tripping over their own derp?

sonnymaou: CPennypacker: Social safety nets contribute to economic stability and prosperity.

[Citation needed]

The history of the human civilization: you should read up on it.

max_pooper: CPennypacker: sonnymaou: A Dark Evil Omen: sonnymaou: My contributing to road upkeep is different from my contributing to Sally's upkeep (or Juan's or Shaniqua's). Right?

Not really, no. The well-being of every person in the country affects yours, if indirectly. That is what society means.

And if you follow your logic to its end result, you end up with... North Korea?

Society means "people respecting other people's rights while freely associating and freely transacting." That's it. It doesn't mean "some people leeching off the rest."

Anyway...

When I contribute to road upkeep, I (and others) can use that road.
When I contribute to Sally's upkeep, she's the sole beneficiary.

Do you see the difference?

Let me explain something to you. Everyone has a cost to society. You can pay for sally's food and medical care. Or you can pay for her medical care with higher costs for medical care to subsidize her free emergency room visits. You can pay for her subsidized housing. Or you can pay for the law enforcement that deals with her when she resorts to crime. The goal is to handle these issues in the most beneficial way. If you just pay for the law enforcement and jailing, Sally is really a sponge. If you pay for social safety nets, that money finds its way back into the economy and benefits you.

Well actually, the costs of police and jails would also trickle back into the economy since police and correction officers are participants in the economy who purchase good and services as well. With that little detail out of the way, you are correct in that providing social safety nets is much more productive than fighting against the problems associated with not having them.

They purchase goods and services with wealth stolen from others. Reality proves that they do not contribute, but take away.

qorkfiend:
That retirement account will DEFINITELY be there in the future. There's absolutely ZERO chance that anything bad could happen to it.

I appreciate your concern, qorkfiend, but that's not your responsibility. It's mine. And if something bad does happen, I have friends and family who are charitable enough to lend a helping hand until such time as I can stand on my own again.

I don't need nor want government welfare. That's blood money.

sonnymaou: Philip Francis Queeg: How is that different than the Fire Department or the military then? What if I don't want to pay for those? Should I be forced to pay for them?


Yes, sorry. Because that's called a "societal" benefit. You know, "society," that thing you love, benefits.

Note, when I pay for Fire Department, I benefit from Fire Department. When I pay for military, I benefit from military.

*

When you pay for welfare you benefit from it just as much as you benefit from thee Fire Department. You have the benefit of the safety net just as much as those moochers Sally , Juan and Shaniqua. It's a societal benefit just like the Fire Department, champ.

You honestly believe that you could never possibly be in need don't you? I hope no one ever has to face a dire tragedy, but if someone does I hope it befalls you since you'll be able to handle anything without the slightest bit of help. You are just that special.

max_pooper: CPennypacker: sonnymaou: A Dark Evil Omen: sonnymaou: My contributing to road upkeep is different from my contributing to Sally's upkeep (or Juan's or Shaniqua's). Right?

Not really, no. The well-being of every person in the country affects yours, if indirectly. That is what society means.

And if you follow your logic to its end result, you end up with... North Korea?

Society means "people respecting other people's rights while freely associating and freely transacting." That's it. It doesn't mean "some people leeching off the rest."

Anyway...

When I contribute to road upkeep, I (and others) can use that road.
When I contribute to Sally's upkeep, she's the sole beneficiary.

Do you see the difference?

Let me explain something to you. Everyone has a cost to society. You can pay for sally's food and medical care. Or you can pay for her medical care with higher costs for medical care to subsidize her free emergency room visits. You can pay for her subsidized housing. Or you can pay for the law enforcement that deals with her when she resorts to crime. The goal is to handle these issues in the most beneficial way. If you just pay for the law enforcement and jailing, Sally is really a sponge. If you pay for social safety nets, that money finds its way back into the economy and benefits you.

Well actually, the costs of police and jails would also trickle back into the economy since police and correction officers are participants in the economy who purchase good and services as well. With that little detail out of the way, you are correct in that providing social safety nets is much more productive than fighting against the problems associated with not having them.

I was going for the image of sally sitting in jail sucking up our money to contrast with the image of her spending it at the market

sonnymaou: When I pay for social security, I benefit LESS than if I had not had to do that. (I manage my retirement funds far better than the government does.)

What happens if you don't have a fire in your house or anywhere near your house? Now you've paid for the Fire Department without any benefit.

The government does not exist to cater to you; it has a few other citizens to worry about at the same time, who may NOT be able to manage their finances with such acumen, or more likely, think they can but actually can't.

Jack Black 62: max_pooper: CPennypacker: sonnymaou: A Dark Evil Omen: sonnymaou: My contributing to road upkeep is different from my contributing to Sally's upkeep (or Juan's or Shaniqua's). Right?

Not really, no. The well-being of every person in the country affects yours, if indirectly. That is what society means.

And if you follow your logic to its end result, you end up with... North Korea?

Society means "people respecting other people's rights while freely associating and freely transacting." That's it. It doesn't mean "some people leeching off the rest."

Anyway...

When I contribute to road upkeep, I (and others) can use that road.
When I contribute to Sally's upkeep, she's the sole beneficiary.

Do you see the difference?

Let me explain something to you. Everyone has a cost to society. You can pay for sally's food and medical care. Or you can pay for her medical care with higher costs for medical care to subsidize her free emergency room visits. You can pay for her subsidized housing. Or you can pay for the law enforcement that deals with her when she resorts to crime. The goal is to handle these issues in the most beneficial way. If you just pay for the law enforcement and jailing, Sally is really a sponge. If you pay for social safety nets, that money finds its way back into the economy and benefits you.

Well actually, the costs of police and jails would also trickle back into the economy since police and correction officers are participants in the economy who purchase good and services as well. With that little detail out of the way, you are correct in that providing social safety nets is much more productive than fighting against the problems associated with not having them.

They purchase goods and services with wealth stolen from others. Reality proves that they do not contribute, but take away.

If by reality you mean libertarian derp

Jack Black 62: CPennypacker: sonnymaou: A Dark Evil Omen: sonnymaou: My contributing to road upkeep is different from my contributing to Sally's upkeep (or Juan's or Shaniqua's). Right?

Not really, no. The well-being of every person in the country affects yours, if indirectly. That is what society means.

And if you follow your logic to its end result, you end up with... North Korea?

Society means "people respecting other people's rights while freely associating and freely transacting." That's it. It doesn't mean "some people leeching off the rest."

Anyway...

When I contribute to road upkeep, I (and others) can use that road.
When I contribute to Sally's upkeep, she's the sole beneficiary.

Do you see the difference?

Let me explain something to you. Everyone has a cost to society. You can pay for sally's food and medical care. Or you can pay for her medical care with higher costs for medical care to subsidize her free emergency room visits. You can pay for her subsidized housing. Or you can pay for the law enforcement that deals with her when she resorts to crime. The goal is to handle these issues in the most beneficial way. If you just pay for the law enforcement and jailing, Sally is really a sponge. If you pay for social safety nets, that money finds its way back into the economy and benefits you.

Or, you can kill Sally as she tries to steal from you.

What happens when somebody breaks into your house when you are not home?

Oh yeah, the threat of getting caught by the evil socialist police department that is funded with all money the government steals from you helps keep property safe from thievery when you cowboys can't be at home to shoot 'em all up.

Just came here to say please please please let this happen. EVERY law should be applied to the lawmakers and law enforcers with zero tolerance and harshest penalty possible. Weekly checks for every person who works in any government position...

sonnymaou: qorkfiend:
That retirement account will DEFINITELY be there in the future. There's absolutely ZERO chance that anything bad could happen to it.

I appreciate your concern, qorkfiend, but that's not your responsibility. It's mine. And if something bad does happen, I have friends and family who are charitable enough to lend a helping hand until such time as I can stand on my own again.

I don't need nor want government welfare. That's blood money.

That's great! For you. Not everyone is as lucky.

sonnymaou: qorkfiend:
That retirement account will DEFINITELY be there in the future. There's absolutely ZERO chance that anything bad could happen to it.

I appreciate your concern, qorkfiend, but that's not your responsibility. It's mine. And if something bad does happen, I have friends and family who are charitable enough to lend a helping hand until such time as I can stand on my own again.

I don't need nor want government welfare. That's blood money.

its your money. you paid it in.

I have no problem with testing people who receive welfare. Before you turn this into a race issue, lets remember that there are more white people drawing welfare than blacks.

altinos: TFerWannaBe: 1. "I would benefit instead if the money weren't taken from me." But you wouldn't go out and buy a couple extra packets of Ramen or a new sweater with the money. It will sit in your bank account. Sally will go out and spend it; she must to support her family.

Money in my bank account is a benefit to me. Is money in your bank account not a benefit for you?

Sally needs the money - she is 100% likely to use it and then spread around the benefit. You and I are less likely to use it and the money is only beneficial when it's used (otherwise it does nothing for anyone).

Even if you and I use it is less beneficial to us than to Sally and her family - $20 to us doesn't mean very much because we have a good, solid income and balance. For Sally that's a good chunk of her grocery budget and she can't easily replace it. Sally gets more benefit from the same amount of money because she is less able to get more.

max_pooper: evil socialist police

Set derp to Ultraderp

I do not think the word socialist means what you think it means

9beers: I have no problem with testing people who receive welfare. Before you turn this into a race issue, lets remember that there are more white people drawing welfare than blacks.

Why welfare specifically, and not other people who get paid from public coffers?

max_pooper:

What happens when somebody breaks into your house when you are not home?



In a free country, I could place traps to kill people that try to break in.

dready zim: max_pooper: evil socialist police

Set derp to Ultraderp

I do not think the word socialist means what you think it means

sorry my sarcasm detector was broken...

dready zim: max_pooper: evil socialist police

Set derp to Ultraderp

I do not think the word socialist means what you think it means

I know exactly what the word means. Did just use "ctrl-F" that word to find something to harp on? You clearly haven't read this thread or even the entirety of my post you quoted.

Jack Black 62: max_pooper:

What happens when somebody breaks into your house when you are not home?



In a free country, I could place traps to kill people that try to break in.

In this free country, who defines what property is yours?

9beers: I have no problem with testing people who receive welfare. Before you turn this into a race issue, lets remember that there are more white people drawing welfare than blacks.

Correct. Per capita, more blacks are on welfare.

9beers: I have no problem with testing people who receive welfare. Before you turn this into a race issue, lets remember that there are more white people drawing welfare than blacks.

It's a nice idea but when put into practice we discover it's more expensive to test than it is to give welfare to the everyone - even the cheaters and druggies. Frankly the solution is worse than the problem.

Philip Francis Queeg: Jack Black 62: max_pooper:

What happens when somebody breaks into your house when you are not home?



In a free country, I could place traps to kill people that try to break in.

In this free country, who defines what property is yours?

The traps, of course. He's been slowly putting them further and further out, too.

TFerWannaBe: 9beers: I have no problem with testing people who receive welfare. Before you turn this into a race issue, lets remember that there are more white people drawing welfare than blacks.

It's a nice idea but when put into practice we discover it's more expensive to test than it is to give welfare to the everyone - even the cheaters and druggies. Frankly the solution is worse than the problem.

Cutting your nose off to spite your face, ain't it grand!?

Jack Black 62: 9beers: I have no problem with testing people who receive welfare. Before you turn this into a race issue, lets remember that there are more white people drawing welfare than blacks.

Correct. Per capita, more blacks are on welfare.

Gee I wonder which one costs us more money though.

dready zim: dready zim: max_pooper: evil socialist police

Set derp to Ultraderp

I do not think the word socialist means what you think it means

sorry my sarcasm detector was broken...

Word

that bosnian sniper: fracto73: Bringing Sally into it in the first place is a bit of a straw man. He is paying for his own social safety net, that sally is using the net she paid for/will pay for is not relevant to him. It would be just as aplicable for me to say when I pay for a social safety net I protect my future, but when I pay for upkeep on Elm Street the only beneficiaries are the people of Elm Street.

Okay, let's bring something that is relevant to government "welfare" or "theft" if you will, and doesn't get remotely enough face-time for what it truly warrants, into the thread.

The financial sector spent over a decade building a multi-trillion-dollar house of cards designed to fail, and turn a massive profit when it did fail by putting 401K holders, GSE's and small, vulnerable lending institutions instead of themselves on the hook, on the knowledge government not only spent decades constructing for them a safety net but would also cut them a hell> of a check on the back of the taxpayers for it. How does that get the pass when a black woman feeding her kids cheap, chemical-laden and unhealthy, mass produced crap food on an infinitesimal check does not?

/I already know the answer to that question.

Well how is giving money to companies to bail them out different from giving companies money to buy food?

thats all food stamps are. money to companies so that they throw away less food and can produce even more food which we ALREADY overproduce.

see?

YoungSwedishBlonde: Teabaggers consider all taxation "theft". More at 11.

As long as the money goes toward thing they want, like wars and other white people (not just any kind of white people... just white people like "them"), I don't think they have a problem with taxes as a concept. The issue is that 'baggers think all their money is going to high school dropout LaQueefa Bonifa Chicana Moreno Jackson to support her eleventy kids by twelvety fathers, while she drives around in her brand new Mercedes with twenty inch RRIIIIIIIIIMMMMMZZZZZZZZ to the grocery store, buying STEAKZ and SKRIMPS with her EBT card. She's got a refrigerator and a tv too, and heat, and actually lives INDOORS... how dare she get any of MY money (huff huff huff aneurysm)!!!!

Yes, it's stupid. That why they are 'baggers.

sonnymaou: I appreciate your concern, qorkfiend, but that's not your responsibility. It's mine. And if something bad does happen, I have friends and family who are charitable enough to lend a helping hand until such time as I can stand on my own again.

I don't need nor want government welfare. That's blood money.



"You are a very silly man, and I'm not going to interview converse with you."

Philip Francis Queeg: The problem is that most of the people who hold that philosophy can't even imagine something bad happening to them, as Mr. Retirement Account exemplifies. They are so arrogant, so convinced of their specialness in the universe, that they believe they are exempt from tragedy.

No, I'm consistent in my world view that you aren't responsible for my tragedies. I'm not exempt from them. I just don't hold you responsible for them. Get it?

If I ask for help and you provide, then my thanks will be upon you and restitution forthcoming.

If you don't provide, maybe I shoot you and your entire family and take what I want anyway. (Just kidding.)

Gergesa: Jack Black 62: Gergesa: Jack Black 62: Just end all forms of welfare and we won't have these problems.

If we just shoot all the poor people there won't be any poor!!

Or, you could be nice and support them through charity.

That's a great idea. The poor should be subject to the whimsical generosity of others. Everday should be a harrowing adventure in wondering if people were willing to give enough to feed those who need assistance.

"On a lonely planet spinning its way toward damnation amid the fear and despair of a broken human race, who is left to fight for all that is good and pure and gets you smashed for under a fiver? Yes, it's the surprising adventures of me, Sir Digby Chicken-Caesar!" (new window)
Dundadundadundadadadadadadadadadadada!

rewind2846: YoungSwedishBlonde: Teabaggers consider all taxation "theft". More at 11.

As long as the money goes toward thing they want, like wars and other white people (not just any kind of white people... just white people like "them"), I don't think they have a problem with taxes as a concept. The issue is that 'baggers think all their money is going to high school dropout LaQueefa Bonifa Chicana Moreno Jackson to support her eleventy kids by twelvety fathers, while she drives around in her brand new Mercedes with twenty inch RRIIIIIIIIIMMMMMZZZZZZZZ to the grocery store, buying STEAKZ and SKRIMPS with her EBT card. She's got a refrigerator and a tv too, and heat, and actually lives INDOORS... how dare she get any of MY money (huff huff huff aneurysm)!!!!

Yes, it's stupid. That why they are 'baggers.


The money goes to the companies. The extra food production gained for food producers increases their profits.

the food does go to the poor people but the exchange of money for it would be far less without food stamps. these people would basically either steal for food or buy less food with less money.

etc...

sonnymaou: Philip Francis Queeg: The problem is that most of the people who hold that philosophy can't even imagine something bad happening to them, as Mr. Retirement Account exemplifies. They are so arrogant, so convinced of their specialness in the universe, that they believe they are exempt from tragedy.

No, I'm consistent in my world view that you aren't responsible for my tragedies. I'm not exempt from them. I just don't hold you responsible for them. Get it?

If I ask for help and you provide, then my thanks will be upon you and restitution forthcoming.

If you don't provide, maybe I shoot you and your entire family and take what I want anyway. (Just kidding.)

But we all have to pay blood money at gun point for the Fire Department to protect you, right? I really don't want to pay for that? How do I benefit from preventing you and your whole family from burning to death?

A Dark Evil Omen: And follow yours to its end result, you end with Somalia.

No, you end with the Constitution and Bill of Rights and no welfare state.

John Donne hates you from beyond the grave.

That son of a biatch owes me $10!!!

sonnymaou: Philip Francis Queeg: The problem is that most of the people who hold that philosophy can't even imagine something bad happening to them, as Mr. Retirement Account exemplifies. They are so arrogant, so convinced of their specialness in the universe, that they believe they are exempt from tragedy.

No, I'm consistent in my world view that you aren't responsible for my tragedies. I'm not exempt from them. I just don't hold you responsible for them. Get it?

If I ask for help and you provide, then my thanks will be upon you and restitution forthcoming.

If you don't provide, maybe I shoot you and your entire family and take what I want anyway. (Just kidding.)

Even the Queen of the Philosophy of Derp Ann Rand ended up needing and using the very societal safety nets she and the rest of your kind rant against.

You are not special. You are not exempt from the tragedies of the world. If and when they do strike you, the safety nets paid for by all of us will carry you through.

sonnymaou: If you don't provide, maybe I shoot you and your entire family and take what I want anyway. (Just kidding.)

You might be kidding, but if people lose enough, history shows that's exactly what they will do.

advex101: I have been told that one of the problems with legalizing the use of marijuana is that at the moment they only have to prove use. If it becomes legal they would have to prove intoxication. Remember, there is a legal limit for alcohol. They would have to come up with some arbitrary (and demonstrable) value to say that you were impaired. Pot may be detectable in your system for quite a while even though you are by no means intoxicted or impaired. What fun we will have.

Eh, the only real reason pot is illegal is because of the tobacco lobby, and you can smoke all you want without fear of being DUI, so...

Philip Francis Queeg: sonnymaou: Philip Francis Queeg: The problem is that most of the people who hold that philosophy can't even imagine something bad happening to them, as Mr. Retirement Account exemplifies. They are so arrogant, so convinced of their specialness in the universe, that they believe they are exempt from tragedy.

No, I'm consistent in my world view that you aren't responsible for my tragedies. I'm not exempt from them. I just don't hold you responsible for them. Get it?

If I ask for help and you provide, then my thanks will be upon you and restitution forthcoming.

If you don't provide, maybe I shoot you and your entire family and take what I want anyway. (Just kidding.)

But we all have to pay blood money at gun point for the Fire Department to protect you, right? I really don't want to pay for that? How do I benefit from preventing you and your whole family from burning to death?

You benefit from the fire department protecting your neighbor's house because left to burn itself out, the fire could easily spread burning down your neighborhood.

The history of the world is littered with fires that mowed down entire swaths of cities.