Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Salon)   Pat Buchanan: Obama is the welfare president. Wink, wink. He likes to steal and mooch your money and give it to baby mamas. If you know what I mean. He's like a drug dealer of welfare. ...Was that too far?   ( divider line
    More: Dumbass, President Obama, Pat Buchanan, baby mamas, Greta Van Susteren, Mitt Romney  
•       •       •

1970 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Sep 2012 at 12:25 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2012-09-19 01:15:19 PM  
3 votes:

BeesNuts: skullkrusher: If you receive more than you pay for, you're freeloading. It is not meant to have any connotations. What would you prefer to call it?

I donno. Farkin... uh... Citizenship? I'm just throwing shiat out there, really :p

Yeah. I mean, come on. Calling it freeloading is simplistic nonsense. I don't have kids, but I pay an assload in property taxes that largely goes to fund schools. Does that mean people with kids are freeloading off of me? No, because those schools (at least in theory) are teaching math, literacy and other skills to the people in my community, and make my community a better place to live.

That's what living in a modern society is supposed to provide. A rising tide that lifts all boats, so to speak.
2012-09-19 01:08:16 PM  
3 votes:

LasersHurt: skullkrusher: pretending to be impartial with regards to what? If you receive more than you pay for, you're freeloading. It is not meant to have any connotations. What would you prefer to call it? Benefiting at another's expense? That sounds worse. It is what it is, man. Calling someone a "parasite". Now THAT had connotations. Note, I have not done that nor do I find such a thing appropriate.

I guess it's a matter of opinion, but I think "freeloader" has plenty of negative connotations that aren't appropriate for the situation.

He's also deliberately ignoring the fact that getting a net gain today does not mean you'll have, or have had a net gain over the course of your life.

Is your Grams freeloading? Or does the fact that she's been a productive, tax-paying, non-criminal citizen for 65 years or so *maybe* impact that assessment? What about an infant? They might be freeloading today, but the express purpose of those government outlays is to *facilitate the generation of a productive person*. College kids are "freeloading" with their guaranteed loans and federal grants! But only so they can get better jobs and subsequently they will be asked to contribute more to society and to our nations coffers as they get older.

No spot measurement like this 47% crap (for example) is meaningful. It ignores the concept that we are citizens, and not members. We aren't paying membership fees. We are paying taxes to keep society running the way it has run thus far, so that *as citizens* we can continue to reap the rewards of our forefathers and not watch our children grow up in a world that is worse than ours.
2012-09-19 04:23:07 PM  
2 votes:

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: if the government builds a road to my new factory (I've got 10 of them say, each earning $1,000,000 a year) and you drive on that road to my factory to earn $40k annually to feed your family, who has derived a greater utility from that road? Clearly the worker.

So how exactly do the raw materials get into your factory and the finished product out? Unicorns?

on the road. Which I do not rely upon for survival and keeping food on the table.

This may be the single dumbest thing you've ever posted.

What's happened to make you so much more seriously farked up lately?

you should be a bit slower on the draw, cochese. If I have a factory which adds $1,000,000 to the already $9,000,000 I earn a year - who derives more utility from that road? Me because my workers and supplies can get there earning me my 10th million or you, who relies on your wages at that factory to feed your kids?

Stop posting, brah

I know you'd like me to stop pointing out how stupid you are being today, but let's look at this particular stupidity.

First off, let's start be examining you initial error. That would be trying to recast this discussion as a matter of "utility" and attempting to define "utility" as "percentage of the amount you subsist on". That's a complete red herring on your part and a vast shift from the basis of discussion. The basis of discussion was the balance between money paid in and the monetary benefit received. No concept of "utility" existed in Romney's statement, nor in any of the discussion prior to your unfortunate and frankly moronic example.

Secondly you fail to analyze your example properly even on the basis of "utility" that you have attempted to introduce. To analyze it properly, we need to look at all 10 roads not simply the one road. You are dependent on those 10 roads for your total $10,000,000 in income. The employee is dependent on one road for $40,000 income, and receives no benefit at all from the other 9. You are dependent on the government to provide 10 roads to feed your children, your employee is dependent on one. Even on the one road, you have derived utility from your ability to use your employees labor because he could get to the factory You have derived far greater utility and at greater cost to the tax payer.

Basically your example fails and fails badly no matter how you look at it.
2012-09-19 01:43:17 PM  
2 votes:
First off, the "47%" that do not pay income taxes is a faulty number. Secondly, of those who do not pay income taxes, not all of them are on government assistance. Most are not. They simply are taking advantage of tax breaks that allow them to pay little or no income tax, like certain presidential candidates have. Thirdly, the reason why a lot of people ARE on unemployment etc is because there are not enough jobs. The reason for that is the farking "job creators," living high on the hog of the Bush tax cuts are NOT creating jobs, even though they are enjoying unprecedented increases in their wealth.

To recap: Government gives huge tax breaks to wealthy, spouting their failed trickle-down bullshiat, the rich hoard the money and make more by getting further tax breaks to send American jobs overseas. The newly unemployed look for jobs, find none, go on unemployment THAT THEY HAVE PAID INTO, and then get branded as lazy by Republicans like Romney and racists like Buchanan.
2012-09-19 12:43:54 PM  
2 votes:
He didn't even say "like" a drug dealer.

"Barack Obama is a drug dealer of welfare."

The GOP has no idea the rest of the country isn't 8 years old.

Terrorists hate us for our freedoms, the national debt is like when mom and dad help you buy that rocketcar even though you don't get allowance till Friday (but a LOT bigger), socialism is when the government takes some of your allowance and gives it to the poor kid down the street because he doesn't have any. No, not your friend Travis. Who? No. I mean the smelly kid whose house always smells like weird food. What? Okay, fine, like when the government takes your allowance and gives it to Rahul. Huh? Of course he's poor. It doesn't matter how many PS3 games he has. Vacation to Disney World? Well, see, that's exactly what I mean! His family didn't want to work hard, so instead, the government takes your allowance and gives it to him, so he can go to Disney World, just because they think they deserve it!

... I don't CARE if he's nice. You'll be in a lot of trouble if you want to give your money away to people just because it's "nice." Pretty soon you'll be poor too.

No, nobody's going to be nice to you and help you get to Disney World too. Why?

fark it. No more allowance.
2012-09-19 12:37:52 PM  
2 votes:
Pat Buchanan is a racist.

No exaggeration or name calling or 'playing the race card' or anything like that. He's a straight up racist.
2012-09-19 12:27:33 PM  
2 votes:
It's really only a news story when Buchanan says something that isn't remarkably bigoted and ignorant.
2012-09-19 05:10:00 PM  
1 vote:

skullkrusher: Is the utility derived from workers on all 10 roads not greater than my utility on any of them? Even if we go from the very starting point - my first factory - I had the extra cash beyond my sustenance to build the factory in the first place. The creation of the road to my factory, therefore, has a much larger marginal impact on each of my workers than it does for me.

No. that does not follow. If the road is serving only your factory you are getting greater utility. The factory is making a profit, so the benefit to you from each employee is greater than that to the employee themselves. The status of your bank account is immaterial to the utility you derive from the road. The utility of the road is also in no way limited bare subsistence of those who benefit from it. To make that your basis for analysis is quite frankly bizarre.

skullkrusher: No, I am not. The question is not whether wealthier people should pay more in taxes but whether they benefit more greatly from government services. Each of those 10 roads benefit my employees on a marginal utility basis more than I benefit from each of them. Say I found a pot of gold and used it to open a factory.

But not as bizarre as resorting to leprechauns to make your example work. I mean seriously, how farking high are you?

That strangeness aside you benefit much more highly from the roads. You benefit $9,960,000 more than the guy in your example.

Your theory only holds if no earning above subsistence is counted. That is not a rational,logical, or even sane basis for analysis.
2012-09-19 04:04:42 PM  
1 vote:

skullkrusher: if you're not bearing a per capita (or by use) share of that load - whatever that load may be spent on, you are free riding. It's simple and any attempt to reframe it is just an attempt to ignore the simple reality

I'm not attempting to reframe it. I'm attempting to point out that by this definition, there is literally NO ONE ON THE PLANET who isn't a freeloader.

What about your roads. Have you paid enough in gas taxes to afford to pave 100 miles of two lane roads and have lines painted? Have you paid enough property tax to have hired private tutors for your offspring? The whole idea here is that no man is an island. The entire point of taxes is that we are collectively more capable of taking care of one another than any one man is capable of taking care of himself.

You are the one trying to reframe the concept of taxation into this money in money out scheme. As far as I can tell, this is an *Extremely* new conceptualization of taxation. Like. Last 5 years new. It's society insurance. Is the guy who gets cancer freeloading off of my insurance premiums? I guess you could view it that way. If you wanted to completely ignore the purpose of premiums in the insurance model the same way you're ignoring the purpose of taxes in the government model.
2012-09-19 02:44:24 PM  
1 vote:

skullkrusher: mrshowrules: skullkrusher: LasersHurt: "Don't pay federal Income Tax" = "On Welfare"

Gotcha, hoss.

Not "welfare" per se but if you're not paying income taxes you're getting everything that income tax provides for free.

False x 2.

not the only type of tax, and if you don't pay income come at any given year doesn't mean you never paid them.

What percentage of Americans never pay income taxes in their life (you know like Anne Romney)?

if you don't pay income tax then you are not paying for the stuff that income tax pays for. That's pretty much tautological in America. Not sure how logic works in Canadia.

Yes, you might've paid for them in the past but shiat costs money every year. You could very well be overpaying for your share earlier and underpaying later, sure. Is that the norm? Dubious when you consider the % of income taxes paid per quintile skew.

You pay excise, State, sales and pay roll taxes. If you work, people are making money on your sweat. You might be paid shiat but your efforts are helping your boss make a tidy income, his boss even more and those people are paying income tax. Tax revenue is being generated by your work. It is at its heart a disingenuous argument. It is like saying that people who pay rent don't pay property tax. Of course they do, it is because their landlord rolls it up in the price of their rent.

Now if you don't work you may be a freeloader but their are many exceptions. You can't find work. If you are a student, you are not likely paying income taxes. Your studying so you can pay more income tax later on. If you are retired, you paid income taxes your whole life potentially.

Some people in society are freeloaders. I have no respect for freeloaders and they are not uncommon I'm sure. They take more from society and put little back in in but I couldn't imagine a less accurate measure of this then what they pay in income taxes. If you work or worked your whole life, you are not a freeloader. Period. End of story. If you want to work and can't find work, you are likely not a freeloader either.

Tell me the percentage of the labour force who doesn't work even though they could but they live off government benefits. I don't think that figure is as high as you think it is.

I suspect Canada has more freeloaders than the US because Americans IMHO have a stronger work ethic. This may be an issue but it is not and the centre of your current problems. If anything, your social nets should be stronger and Governments should be making more investments in its people during this economic crisis. Again my humble opinion.
2012-09-19 01:55:34 PM  
1 vote:

skullkrusher: Anyone who receives more services from government than they pay in taxes are free riding.


Pony-up, free rider :p

IMO, the problem wasn't the terminology. My problem with your analysis was that it's a fundamental mis-characterization of the nature and purpose of taxation. It's payin' it forward. You give me a "free" education, so I can grow up big 'n' strong 'n' productive and stop being a drain on you, and eventually, I'll be paying for the next generation to have a free education.

Frankly, though, by your definition, every American since roughly 1810 has been freeloading off of the previous generation of Americans for at least some portion of (if not the entirety of) their lives.
2012-09-19 01:23:02 PM  
1 vote:

skullkrusher: If you receive more than you pay for, you're freeloading.

Do you know how health insurance works? Do you think that the premium you pay covers the cost of the heart bypass surgery that saves your life? It doesn't. So by the same reasoning, anybody whose medical costs exceed what they've paid in premiums is freeloading?
2012-09-19 01:08:01 PM  
1 vote:
He's not even dog-whistling here. He's just screaming the N-word without actually saying the word.
2012-09-19 12:47:15 PM  
1 vote:

skullkrusher: LasersHurt: "Don't pay federal Income Tax" = "On Welfare"

Gotcha, hoss.

Not "welfare" per se but if you're not paying income taxes you're getting everything that income tax provides for free.

Let's take an example of a person who works a regular steady $20,000 job and doesn't take any assistance like food stamps. They're a frugal, thrifty person and can make it work. They take all the tax deductions they can legally take come April 15th, which I'm sure Mitt Romney would approve of. Turns out their federal income tax liability is $0. Is such a person "freeloading" or are they simply following the tax law that the People have voted on and nothing more?
2012-09-19 12:46:38 PM  
1 vote:

skullkrusher: LasersHurt: skullkrusher: LasersHurt: "Don't pay federal Income Tax" = "On Welfare"

Gotcha, hoss.

Not "welfare" per se but if you're not paying income taxes you're getting everything that income tax provides for free.

Minus the ones who are on payroll tax, yeah? That's less, but it's not free. And they're working, so they'd be paying Income Tax if they made enough. Fair to point out they benefit, but they're certainly not freeloading.

payroll tax and income tax are two different things and support different programs and budgets. The nature of taxation is that some portion of the population will be freeloading (paying less than they benefit). Otherwise we'd be sent a bill each year for per capita cost of services.

If you aren't paying income tax, the degree of that freeloading is even greater.

What a freeloader might look like.
2012-09-19 12:46:20 PM  
1 vote:
Buchanan continued by comparing government relief to a "narcotic," so "if it's a narcotic, Barack Obama is a drug dealer of welfare. He wants permanent dependency."

At this point, I would like to ask a practical question...What exactly is Barack Obama's motivation for making Americans dependent on the Federal government? In the bset case scenerio, Obama will be the leader of the country for four more years. How does he benefit from making you and I need services of a government that he will no longer be an active part of in 2017? Now, I understand how a man who was VP of Halliburton can profit by setting it up so that his company is in position to receive government funding for years to come, but I have yet to figure out how increasing the number of people on welfare can enrich Barack Obama. No one has bothered to explain it.
2012-09-19 12:37:05 PM  
1 vote:
It probably sounded better in its original German.
Displayed 17 of 17 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.