fredklein: How does paying 'moochers' "maintain society"??

Hungry people, who realize they can't eat their pride, and in great numbers, are generally detrimental to a society. They tend not to starve quietly, or with dignity.
And they're only moochers in so far as they've refused to provide their labor to employers who give nothing back. Those employers can either employ them, placate them, or ultimately be torn down by them.

Sergeant Grumbles: And what if you couldn't? What if, absent all those things, you were still deeper in the hole at the end of a month of work?

Then I'd get a better job. Haven't we been here before?

Two people can room together, have min wage jobs, and pay rent and the grocery bill. It can happen, it has happened. It's a fact. It is possible. if people choose not to do it, that's not MY fault.

fredklein: The point is, a 45" TV is not "basic subsistence". Neither is a cell phone. Neither is Internet access.

Cell phones can be cheaper than land lines, and good luck getting a job without some kind of phone. Not having internet access is also a huge blow to a job search - you don't have access to your best job hunting tools. Items like televisions are rare purchases - if you spread the cost of a TV over the years you'll use it, it comes down to $5/month or so.

Having until recently lived on minimum wage, the vast majority of all spending goes to rent, food, utilities, and transportation. That's assuming you don't need day care and go without health insurance, hoping you never need medical care - with health insurance, your essentials already exceed 100% of your income.

Everything else combined is really a drop in the bucket, a few percent of your income max. No matter how much you slash from this "not subsistence" budget, you're not really going to make any overall dent in spending when combined it makes up 3-5% of your income.

Sergeant Grumbles: fredklein: How does paying 'moochers' "maintain society"??

Hungry people, who realize they can't eat their pride, and in great numbers, are generally detrimental to a society. They tend not to starve quietly, or with dignity.

But they do starve. Or step up and get jobs. Either way, no more moochers! What's the downside?

And they're only moochers in so far as they've refused to provide their labor to employers who give nothing back.

It's called a paycheck. And every worker gets one. Perhaps it's not as much as some believe they should get, but, hey- I want a salary of $10000000000 an hour....

octopied: 40 cigarettes a day? I somehow doubt that. That's way more expensive than those benefits will allow.

At any rate, if they are at one fourth that with the cigarettes, that poor baby.

Someone may have pointed this out already (I haven't read all the way through the thread yet), but this is the UK, not America - cigarettes over there can be had for under $1 a pack.

fredklein: Then I'd get a better job. Haven't we been here before?

Two people can room together, have min wage jobs, and pay rent and the grocery bill. It can happen, it has happened. It's a fact. It is possible. if people choose not to do it, that's not MY fault.

Better jobs aren't forthcoming. And there's only so much you can cut and sacrifice. Eventually you get to the point where there's no point in working because you'll never receive the benefits of a first-world nation.
Why work when all it will get you is a bedroom shared with two other people, a mishmash of cheap processed food, and just enough money to make it to work the next day, without even two pennies to rub together to keep yourself entertained? Better just to rob the trash of the wealthy by that point, as they're wasting egregiously, while telling us we deserve nothing.

farkeruk: Sergeant Grumbles: They're needed to maintain your society's standard of living.

You can keep saying that, but you're not explaining the math. I'm giving money to moochers, who produce nothing. How does that make me richer?

Widespread poverty has social costs that are paid by everyone: increased crime, lower property values, weaker currency, political instability, etc. You could spend money on walled communities and armed guards, but history has shown us that it's almost always cheaper and more desirable to attack that problem at the roots.

Even if you're wealthy, your money has an extremely limited ability to protect itself. Outside of that ability, in the midst of social unrest, the only thing that's reinforcing your property rights--your ownership of your own wealth-- is the rule of law. And at the end of the day, the social contract within the rule of law applies ONLY to people that feel they have something to lose within the status quo. This simple principle is behind 99% of the political turnover in human history.

Sum Dum Gai: Cell phones can be cheaper than land lines,

Land lines can be shared- among roommates for example.

Not having internet access is also a huge blow to a job search - you don't have access to your best job hunting tools

People managed to find and land jobs before the Internet even existed, much less without a 30Mb connection to it.

.with health insurance, your essentials already exceed 100% of your income.

Then you're not buying call phones and tvs and internet access, are you?

fredklein: But they do starve. Or step up and get jobs. Either way, no more moochers! What's the downside?

You can't punish and shame the poor into not being poor. The downside is that it has never worked that way, ever.
Stop posting nonsense and read up on your history.

jtown: Wolf892: Seems a solution might be to not grant the dole to individuals who are not physically disabled, or are not mentally incapacitated...If you are physically and mentally able to work, even shat jobs like McDonald's, then get out there and work. Life is suffering, get busy.
This would reduce stories like this and perhaps reduce the burden on the dole system...
Or perhaps government sponsered homes should be dorm style...just one apartment building with two families per suite, this would ensure that either you are desperate for a home or encourage you to better yourself as soon as possible.

Except shiat jobs like McD's don't pay enough for a 2 bedroom apartment and all the expenses that come along with kids. A better solution would be to require work but don't cut off benefits entirely when they get a job. Reduce the benefits by the amount of money they get paid.

The trouble is that we've created a system that is incapable of making that sort of adjustment to benefits. It's not possible to say, "You made $1234.56 at your McJob this month so your benefit check will be reduced by that amount." There are half a dozen agencies (if not more), each with their own regulations and bureaucracy. Many of them are either/or scenarios where they either qualify for benefits or they don't qualify. There's no "you qualify for 30%". The whole damn system is out of order!

A 1:1 reduction isn't worth it - if you're still only going to make the same amount of money working instead of not working, then why work at all?

IE., if someone makes $2000 on government assistance, and then gets a job at McDonalds for $1,000 a month and they still get the other $1,000 a month from government assistance, that's still the same $2000 a month. They can sit on their ass at home and get the $2000 a month for doing nothing.

Sergeant Grumbles: Why work when all it will get you is a bedroom shared with two other people, a mishmash of cheap processed food, and just enough money to make it to work the next day, without even two pennies to rub together to keep yourself entertained?

Because that's life. Why should a lion chase an antelope when all it will get him is a meal or two, and he'll have to chase another one tomorrow?

fredklein: udhq: Your assumption that them being on welfare entitles you to veto power over other peoples' life or spending decisions is not how the real world works.

So, if you were giving me money because "I need something to eat", you'd not be upset if I wasted that money on, say, lotto tickets instead of food? You happily continue to hand me money (because I still need to eat), and watch me waste it, and not care??

Where do you live? I'm hungry and need to eat....

See, your second major failure here is your assumption that the social safety net is some personal favor you're doing for the poor, just because you're such a great guy.

udhq: Widespread poverty has social costs that are paid by everyone: increased crime, lower property values, weaker currency, political instability, etc. You could spend money on walled communities and armed guards, but history has shown us that it's almost always cheaper and more desirable to attack that problem at the roots.

So, bribe the poor and lazy for now so they don't revolt? Never mind that that just encourages the poor and lazy to remain poor and lazy, thus increasing the burden on everyone else. It simply delays the problem- eventually the ones working will no longer be able to support the one who don't- and when that happens, the poor and lazy will outnumber the working.

It's better to force the issue now, while the workers are still in the majority, and have a chance at winning.

Sergeant Grumbles: You can't punish and shame the poor into not being poor.

And you can't solve poverty by throwing money at it.

fredklein: udhq: Widespread poverty has social costs that are paid by everyone: increased crime, lower property values, weaker currency, political instability, etc. You could spend money on walled communities and armed guards, but history has shown us that it's almost always cheaper and more desirable to attack that problem at the roots.

So, bribe the poor and lazy for now so they don't revolt? Never mind that that just encourages the poor and lazy to remain poor and lazy, thus increasing the burden on everyone else. It simply delays the problem- eventually the ones working will no longer be able to support the one who don't- and when that happens, the poor and lazy will outnumber the working.

It's better to force the issue now, while the workers are still in the majority, and have a chance at winning.

There are two types of people in this world: those whose struggles have given them a sense of gratitude, and those whose lack of struggle have given them a sense of entitlement.

You can usually spot the second type when they do things like conflate the words "poor" and "lazy".

fredklein: udhq: Widespread poverty has social costs that are paid by everyone: increased crime, lower property values, weaker currency, political instability, etc. You could spend money on walled communities and armed guards, but history has shown us that it's almost always cheaper and more desirable to attack that problem at the roots.

So, bribe the poor and lazy for now so they don't revolt? Never mind that that just encourages the poor and lazy to remain poor and lazy, thus increasing the burden on everyone else. It simply delays the problem- eventually the ones working will no longer be able to support the one who don't- and when that happens, the poor and lazy will outnumber the working.

It's better to force the issue now, while the workers are still in the majority, and have a chance at winning.

Do yourself a favor and move to Somalia then. Barely any government, no safety net, no dole. It's a paradise for hard workers like you.

udhq: farkeruk: b>Sergeant Grumbles: Don't start in with this crap about minor modern luxuries being too extravagant, or soon you'll be biatching about refrigerators. TVs, cellphones, and Xboxes are cheap and effective means of entertainment and communication and are cheap compared to all other life necessities.
Nor are some smokes and beers too extravagant. It's simple disposable entertainment, also cheap and effective.

What's the moral argument for me paying for other people's luxuries or entertainment?

The moral argument is that a "social safety net" that ensures a bare minimum floor of how poor we allow people to be in this country is a collective investment in the safety and stability of our society, and accepting the help of that safety net doesn't change the fact that how the people in TFA choose to live their lives is still none of your goddam business.

If we can't create wealth without having is t confiscated by force, then we do not have security. We are not getting what you say we are paying for.

And even if it were, you do not have a good moral argument when you say I am being provided with something I may not need or want.

And "You're" not paying for it, anymore than "I'm" paying for the roads and power lines that run to your house.

Just because you are OK with paying this money, does not make it morally acceptable to force me to pay.

The Sun ran a story last week about this immigrant who was claiming £14,508 in benefits a year:



Turns out that she was an actress. Oops.

IlGreven: LiberalConservative: Er... in my unemployed experiences (including right now), 20 hours a week of min wage work will net you more than unemployment payments (Australia).

In America, I believe that unemployment benefits are scaled to what you paid in, so here even full time min. wage work won't generally cover the bennies of a guy who was "too expensive" for a corporation to keep.

You don't pay into the UI fund; that's employer-funded by a tax on the employer's payroll. (This should not be confused with a payroll tax such as FICA, which a deduction against an employee's earnings.)


LiberalConservative: Er... in my unemployed experiences (including right now), 20 hours a week of min wage work will net you more than unemployment payments (Australia). This may vary elsewhere due to minimum wage rates and size of welfare payments. Is a balance i guess. If corporations are not paying enough to provide incentive to work I would expect government to impose increases to minimum wage; its in their best interest to do so since reducing welfare claims helps government budgets.

Here in the People's Republic of San Francisco, minimum wage is $10.55; California UI benefits max out at $450/wk. Do the math.

We also found over the last five years of generational-high unemployment that employers aren't eager to hire former cubicle rats to sling fries for minimum wage. "Suitable work" cuts both ways.

We're almost at a point in the First World where work as we know it simply isn't a reasonable expectation for most of the adult population. If I don't live to see it, most of you reading this will.

fredklein:

Land lines can be shared- among roommates for example.

So can cell phones, if you leave them in the apartment (like you would have to with a land line).

People managed to find and land jobs before the Internet even existed, much less without a 30Mb connection to it.

Because both employers and employees used different methods to announce and seek jobs. As a job searcher, you're forced to use the tools that the companies are using to announce their job openings. Companies have primarily moved job listings to the internet, so there's little choice for job seekers but to do the same.

udhq: If the government offered a corporation more money to not make widgets than they would take in by making widgets, and the CEO decided to forgo that money and make the widgets because "hey, we have to maintain our self-respect", that company's shareholders would sue that CEO into the next time zone.

Why people expect businesses to act in their own best-interests, but call it "greed" when people do so is one of the weirdest economic phenomenons out there.

Agreed. I found myself unemployed for the first time in my adult life around the same time that the banks were shamelessly lining up to be financially rewarded for tanking the global economy by route of their misadventures in mortgage lending.

I guess the timing helped relieve me of any misty-eyed sentimentalism about the nature and pursuit of livelihood...

fredklein: But they do starve. Or step up and get jobs. Either way, no more moochers! What's the downside?

10/10 -- I'm completely convinced that you really do believe this. Here's some classic economic theory to help you support your arguments: Jonathon Swift - A Modest Proposal

udhq: No, it really isn't your money. It's the fee you pay for the service of living in a strong, stable society. The second you turn in over, it ceases to be "your money", and becomes the country's money, the same way if you bought a sandwich with it, it would stop being your money and become Subway's money.

I have an absolute right to live in the country where I was born, and to be treated as an equal within it. I do not have to buy that right.

Even if that were the case, I would have an interest in getting a fair price. And either way, my money really is mine until I hand it over voluntarily. That's how property works. If you steal my money, it remains mine.

The redistributional element of taxation is neither a service nor an insurance premium. If it were, then the amount would be the same for everybody, or even cheaper for people with good earning histories. No, it is simply centralised altruism, and we do it because most of us feel good about doing so. No other reason.

So, yes, in a roundabout way, you're right, you do get a vote on whether you think people like those in TFA deserve access to the social safety net. But only 1 vote out of 300million. And if the country should decide otherwise, you are perfectly free to give up the benefits of being an American, if you feel they no longer outweigh the costs. But no, it's still absolutely none of your business how these people, or anyone else chooses to live their lives.

Democracy requires the votes to have access to information, so they absolutely do have an interest in the lifestyles and choices of the recipients of altruistic redistribution. How else could they choose how to vote? You suggest that the vote is a reward for paying taxes, but to force them do so blindly (or even worse, only allowed to learn things from people like you) is a false gift.

THE GREAT NAME: udhq: farkeruk: b>Sergeant Grumbles: Don't start in with this crap about minor modern luxuries being too extravagant, or soon you'll be biatching about refrigerators. TVs, cellphones, and Xboxes are cheap and effective means of entertainment and communication and are cheap compared to all other life necessities.
Nor are some smokes and beers too extravagant. It's simple disposable entertainment, also cheap and effective.

What's the moral argument for me paying for other people's luxuries or entertainment?

The moral argument is that a "social safety net" that ensures a bare minimum floor of how poor we allow people to be in this country is a collective investment in the safety and stability of our society, and accepting the help of that safety net doesn't change the fact that how the people in TFA choose to live their lives is still none of your goddam business.

If we can't create wealth without having is t confiscated by force, then we do not have security. We are not getting what you say we are paying for.

And even if it were, you do not have a good moral argument when you say I am being provided with something I may not need or want.

And "You're" not paying for it, anymore than "I'm" paying for the roads and power lines that run to your house.

Just because you are OK with paying this money, does not make it morally acceptable to force me to pay.

Yes, it is absolutely morally acceptable for you to be forced to pay your fair share for the costs of maintaining society if you choose to accept the benefits.

If you feel that people like those in TFA should not deserve access to the social safety net, you're free to cast your 1/300million vote as such, but should America decide otherwise (as they have, time and time again), you are simply not entitled to a vote as to how they choose to live their lives.

udhq: There are two types of people in this world: those whose struggles have given them a sense of gratitude, and those whose lack of struggle have given them a sense of entitlement.

You can usually spot the second type when they do things like conflate the words "poor" and "lazy".


Hmm. Interesting. You think that *I* have a sense of entitlement? Not the ones who stay on welfare forever, not the one who raise generation after generation sucking the public teat, but- Me?

stiletto_the_wise: Do yourself a favor and move to Somalia then. Barely any government, no safety net, no dole. It's a paradise for hard workers like you.

Oh, I have no problem with Government. Government does useful things. And, sometimes, un-useful things. So, save that strawman for another argument.

Tunney: The Sun ran a story last week about this immigrant who was claiming £14,508 in benefits a year:

img.thesun.co.uk

Turns out that she was an actress. Oops.


Um, I think you mean "Turns out she has ONE acting role like 8 years ago".

udhq: farkeruk: Sergeant Grumbles: They're needed to maintain your society's standard of living.

You can keep saying that, but you're not explaining the math. I'm giving money to moochers, who produce nothing. How does that make me richer?

Widespread poverty has social costs that are paid by everyone: increased crime, lower property values, weaker currency, political instability, etc. You could spend money on walled communities and armed guards, but history has shown us that it's almost always cheaper and more desirable to attack that problem at the roots.

But the "root" of poverty is not a lack of redistribution, it's a lack of productive work. So would you then advocate workhouses for the poor? I hope not, because the real lessons of history show that this leads to totalitarianism.

So it must be more subtle than you think. Maybe there's something to do with preserving the freedom of the poor that is helping to keep society safe and stable. Something you don't get, and never will since your comments reveal an underlying stateism in your outlook.

Even if you're wealthy, your money has an extremely limited ability to protect itself. Outside of that ability, in the midst of social unrest, the only thing that's reinforcing your property rights--your ownership of your own wealth-- is the rule of law. And at the end of the day, the social contract within the rule of law applies ONLY to people that feel they have something to lose within the status quo. This simple principle is behind 99% of the political turnover in human history.

The only things anyone else wants from me are (1) my money and (2) my freedom. The poor want my money and the government want power over me. Under your system, I must hand my money to the government, who take a cut before passing some of it to the poor, and I must hand my freedoms over to the government also. The government taks a large slice of my money and freedom. Who will protect me from them?

Again, the real lesson of history is: when governments take control over everything, instead of society becoming "optimal" in every way, a country collapses. So the hands of government might not be the best place for my money and freedom.

Sum Dum Gai: fredklein:

Land lines can be shared- among roommates for example.

So can cell phones, if you leave them in the apartment (like you would have to with a land line).


That's poor people logic- buy a portable method of communication... then leave it in one place.

Do you also leave the remote on top the TV?

Zasteva: fredklein: But they do starve. Or step up and get jobs. Either way, no more moochers! What's the downside?

10/10 -- I'm completely convinced that you really do believe this. Here's some classic economic theory to help you support your arguments: Jonathon Swift - A Modest Proposal

No one is suggesting EATING the poor. Or eating that strawman of yours.

Oh, and don't think I didn't notice you didn't answer the question.

udhq: fredklein: udhq: Your assumption that them being on welfare entitles you to veto power over other peoples' life or spending decisions is not how the real world works.

So, if you were giving me money because "I need something to eat", you'd not be upset if I wasted that money on, say, lotto tickets instead of food? You happily continue to hand me money (because I still need to eat), and watch me waste it, and not care??

Where do you live? I'm hungry and need to eat....

See, your second major failure here is your assumption that the social safety net is some personal favor you're doing for the poor, just because you're such a great guy.

He's closer to the truth than you are. It is centralised altruism, the society-level equivalent of a favour.

You say it is something like a service, even though it is not charged according to cost, benefit or market forces and
is not optional, coming at the expense of our basic rights. If we did not *want* to help the poor, we would have no problems protecting ourselves from them.

THE GREAT NAME: But the "root" of poverty is not a lack of redistribution, it's a lack of productive work. So would you then advocate workhouses for the poor? I hope not, because the real lessons of history show that this leads to totalitarianism.

So, what happens when we reach a point (and we will, due to increasing technological sophistication and falling costs of automation) where there is simply nothing productive left to do for a large portion of the world's population? When the entire world's productivity relies on robotics and automation, with a few people who can fix the robots, how do we come up with a fair way to divvy up the world's resources? Just let people starve because there's no work to do?

The idea that "amount of work done" is a reasonable way to distribute wealth is either dead or dying.

udhq: Yes, it is absolutely morally acceptable for you to be forced to pay your fair share for the costs of maintaining society if you choose to accept the benefits.

we are not given that choice. Ergo, unacceptable.

If you feel that people like those in TFA should not deserve access to the social safety net, you're free to cast your 1/300million vote as such, but should America decide otherwise (as they have, time and time again), you are simply not entitled to a vote as to how they choose to live their lives.

TFA is set in UK, where NAME hails from.

In UK, we have in fact just elected a right-of-centre government, with the intention of them undoing some of the more severe excesses of benefits exploitation. We could not have done this without newspapers such as the Sun telling us what sorts of things are happening.

Leftists embedded in the UK's bloated public institutions are presently using their positions to try and undermine the government's ability to pass laws and to revoke the freedom of the press.

Freedom of information and the vote are fundamental rights and you should not even be suggesting that they come in exchange for anything if you want to even talk about "civilised society".

THE GREAT NAME: udhq: No, it really isn't your money. It's the fee you pay for the service of living in a strong, stable society. The second you turn in over, it ceases to be "your money", and becomes the country's money, the same way if you bought a sandwich with it, it would stop being your money and become Subway's money.

I have an absolute right to live in the country where I was born, and to be treated as an equal within it. I do not have to buy that right.

Even if that were the case, I would have an interest in getting a fair price. And either way, my money really is mine until I hand it over voluntarily. That's how property works. If you steal my money, it remains mine.

The redistributional element of taxation is neither a service nor an insurance premium. If it were, then the amount would be the same for everybody, or even cheaper for people with good earning histories. No, it is simply centralised altruism, and we do it because most of us feel good about doing so. No other reason.

So, yes, in a roundabout way, you're right, you do get a vote on whether you think people like those in TFA deserve access to the social safety net. But only 1 vote out of 300million. And if the country should decide otherwise, you are perfectly free to give up the benefits of being an American, if you feel they no longer outweigh the costs. But no, it's still absolutely none of your business how these people, or anyone else chooses to live their lives.

Democracy requires the votes to have access to information, so they absolutely do have an interest in the lifestyles and choices of the recipients of altruistic redistribution. How else could they choose how to vote? You suggest that the vote is a reward for paying taxes, but to force them do so blindly (or even worse, only allowed to learn things from people like you) is a false gift.

Except the social safety net is not "altruistic redistribution."

It is exactly what it is called: "Social Security". It's there to protect the fabric of society from the ill effects of widespread poverty, not to feed the hungry and house the homeless because it's the right thing to do.

And nowhere in the law does it state that utilizing that safety net means sacrificing ones' civil liberties.

fredklein: Um, I think you mean "Turns out she has ONE acting role like 8 years ago".

And then, after The Sun article was published, her acting profile mysteriously vanished. Odd that, isn't it?

stiletto_the_wise: THE GREAT NAME: But the "root" of poverty is not a lack of redistribution, it's a lack of productive work. So would you then advocate workhouses for the poor? I hope not, because the real lessons of history show that this leads to totalitarianism.

So, what happens when we reach a point (and we will, due to increasing technological sophistication and falling costs of automation) where there is simply nothing productive left to do for a large portion of the world's population?

Shorter working week.

When the entire world's productivity relies on robotics and automation, with a few people who can fix the robots, how do we come up with a fair way to divvy up the world's resources?

You watch too many Japanese cartoons.

Just let people starve because there's no work to do?

Ridiculous hyperbole.

The idea that "amount of work done" is a reasonable way to distribute wealth is either dead or dying.

It's not a way of redistributing wealth. Working creates wealth.

fredklein: Zasteva: fredklein: But they do starve. Or step up and get jobs. Either way, no more moochers! What's the downside?

10/10 -- I'm completely convinced that you really do believe this. Here's some classic economic theory to help you support your arguments: Jonathon Swift - A Modest Proposal

No one is suggesting EATING the poor. Or eating that strawman of yours.

Oh, and don't think I didn't notice you didn't answer the question.

There is a difference between sarcasm and constructing a strawman argument. I was employing sarcasm.

The biggest is that undernourished children perform below their level of capability in school, which means that rather than training them to contribute to a vibrate modern economy, we are training them to fail.

Do you think that it's okay to set children up to fail because of the circumstances of their birth?

udhq: Except the social safety net is not "altruistic redistribution."

Except... yes it is.

It is exactly what it is called: "Social Security".

You idiot. When they call it that, they're trying to make it sound like an insurance policy, that's all.

It's there to protect the fabric of society from the ill effects of widespread poverty, not to feed the hungry and house the homeless because it's the right thing to do.

And nowhere in the law does it state that utilizing that safety net means sacrificing ones' civil liberties.

But paying for it may. By the way, you seem to be saying you would not help the poor if it were not for your fear of civil unrest. You're obvious a cold empty shell of a man, dead inside.

THE GREAT NAME: It's not a way of redistributing wealth. Working creates wealth.

That explains why bricklayers are the wealthiest people on Earth and Kim Kardashian and other idle socialites are starving in the gutter.

fredklein: udhq: There are two types of people in this world: those whose struggles have given them a sense of gratitude, and those whose lack of struggle have given them a sense of entitlement.

You can usually spot the second type when they do things like conflate the words "poor" and "lazy".


Hmm. Interesting. You think that *I* have a sense of entitlement? Not the ones who stay on welfare forever, not the one who raise generation after generation sucking the public teat, but- Me?

Absolutely.

You obviously feel that you have some sort of intrinsic entitlement to unilaterally divide poor people into those who are deserving, and those who are not deserving by virtue of having the character flaws that you clearly posses yourself.

THE GREAT NAME: But paying for it may. By the way, you seem to be saying you would not help the poor if it were not for your fear of civil unrest. You're obvious a cold empty shell of a man, dead inside.

Says the person whose position is that his tax dollars helping the poor sacrifices his civil liberties.

fredklein: That's poor people logic- buy a portable method of communication... then leave it in one place.

A portable method of communication left in one place that is still cheaper than a non-portable method of communication that has to be left in one place.

udhq: Absolutely.

You obviously feel that you have some sort of intrinsic entitlement to unilaterally divide poor people into those who are deserving, and those who are not deserving by virtue of having the character flaws that you clearly posses yourself.

FWIW, I've favorited you for that comment. Brilliant

stiletto_the_wise: THE GREAT NAME: It's not a way of redistributing wealth. Working creates wealth.

That explains why bricklayers are the wealthiest people on Earth and Kim Kardashian and other idle socialites are starving in the gutter.

KK is rich because lots of bricklayers choose to give her some of their wealth. You can't stop them doing that and still call it a free country. This is just a case of you being butthurt that others with freedom don't make the choices you think they should.

THE GREAT NAME: udhq: Except the social safety net is not "altruistic redistribution."

Except... yes it is.

It is exactly what it is called: "Social Security".

You idiot. When they call it that, they're trying to make it sound like an insurance policy, that's all.

It's there to protect the fabric of society from the ill effects of widespread poverty, not to feed the hungry and house the homeless because it's the right thing to do.

And nowhere in the law does it state that utilizing that safety net means sacrificing ones' civil liberties.

But paying for it may. By the way, you seem to be saying you would not help the poor if it were not for your fear of civil unrest. You're obvious a cold empty shell of a man, dead inside.

Ok, I'll bite: please site where in the law it states that one must sacrifice one's civil liberties in order to utilize government services.

To address your second...ummm..."point"...do I think the poor deserve our charity? Sure. I give money to charity when I can and spend a few days a month at the soup kitchen. But that's a personal decision. Our government is not a charity and should not be treated as such. It is there to enforce the rule of law, and to enact our values as a society.

In that spirit, so-called "welfare" from the government exists for 2 reasons. 1, it's smart, effective, and and efficient public safety policy. And 2, we, as a society have decided that it's morally wrong to force ANYONE in need to rely on the mere charity of the well-off for their survival. In a word, we have decided that charity is a personal virtue, but as social policy, it is the exact opposite of justice.

stiletto_the_wise: THE GREAT NAME: But paying for it may. By the way, you seem to be saying you would not help the poor if it were not for your fear of civil unrest. You're obvious a cold empty shell of a man, dead inside.

Says the person whose position is that his tax dollars helping the poor sacrifices his civil liberties.

It does. I want the poor to be helped, and am willing to accept the sacrifice to a reasonable degree. But I won't accept the BS leftists spread about it.

udhq: In that spirit, so-called "welfare" from the government exists for 2 reasons. 1, it's smart, effective, and and efficient public safety policy. And 2, we, as a society have decided that it's morally wrong to force ANYONE in need to rely on the mere charity of the well-off for their survival. In a word, we have decided that charity is a personal virtue, but as social policy, it is the exact opposite of justice.

"We" decided no such thing. Who do you think you are speaking for? You and other people who think the government is smart, effective and efficient?

Stick around, Amerika, it is coming your way soon.

In Amerika, we spend enough on poverty assistance to hire every poor person at good wages, but the money all goes to bureaucrats. English parasites suck on the system---Amerikan parasites are the system.

Just for good measure, we also paid enough to a handful of billionaires to "--fight the recession---" to hire every unemployed person in the USSA with $650 billion left over.

All I can say is, enjoy it while it lasts. Half the country figures there is no need to work everything will be provided---the other half figures, why work, the parasites will just take it anyway.

Good luck when the sh*t hits the fan, which it surely will do in time,

THE GREAT NAME: udhq: In that spirit, so-called "welfare" from the government exists for 2 reasons. 1, it's smart, effective, and and efficient public safety policy. And 2, we, as a society have decided that it's morally wrong to force ANYONE in need to rely on the mere charity of the well-off for their survival. In a word, we have decided that charity is a personal virtue, but as social policy, it is the exact opposite of justice.

"We" decided no such thing. Who do you think you are speaking for? You and other people who think the government is smart, effective and efficient?

I'm speaking for the people who understand that in a democracy, the government is a reflection of the society that elected it.

Show me someone complaining about the competence of his government, and I'll you and incompetent voter.

THE GREAT NAME: KK is rich because lots of bricklayers choose to give her some of their wealth. You can't stop them doing that and still call it a free country. This is just a case of you being butthurt that others with freedom don't make the choices you think they should.

What in the world are you talking about? Now you're simply not making any sense. Socialites and the idle rich are wealthy because they live on the dole--the only difference is it comes from their (also idle) family and not the government.

In a sense, it doesn't matter if welfare comes from the government or "nepotistically" from rich parents--it all inevitably comes from the rest of us suckers. Just as a dollar gets funneled from your tax bill to the poor, dollars are getting funneled from your labor to the rich and other idle aristocrats on the "wealth dole". This may have been your point about all wealth coming from work, and if it was, I take back my previous retort. But your comment failed to recognize that there are two money funnels at play, with both of them redistributing wealth to people not working. One small one going to folks on benefits, and one giant one going to the already wealthy business owners, who then choose who the beneficiaries are. I really don't see much of a difference is besides the fact that when it gets redistributed up to the rich it tends to stay concentrated there.