are we to be free?

[Ramulux]

there's nothing crazy or particularly radical about the idea of charity. charity is one of the few ways for the ordinary man to become truly great, but we must realize that it is charity and not some debt whose payment should be forced from us at gunpoint. the usurious taxation of those who do succeed for the sake of those who do not is just that, forced charity under the threat of violence and incarceration. it is theft under color of authority.

I am not trying to imply that the funding of socialist programs be considered charity. I believe that aspects of our society such as the post office, jail system, unemployment program, schools, health care, and domestic infrastructure maintenance should be considered a basic part of the funding our tax dollars provide. We pay taxes for a number of reasons, and in my opinion one of the most important of those reasons is the protection of the populace. Law enforcement keeps us safe from crime and violence domestically while the military is "supposed" to protect us from foreign threats. In the same way these agencies protect us from physical harm, agencies like the welfare and unemployment department protect us from economic harm. These departments provide assistance to people who have suffered financial loss and would be unable to afford housing and nourishment without some form of federal aid. So I repeat, socialistic programs do not exist as a charity, they exist as a safeguard for the American people during times when they have experienced much hardship. But then again I guess its cool to just have a large percentage of our population be homeless and malnourished.

guess what, i've been there and i know it ain't no bed of roses. i've been dirt poor and homeless in an uncaring world and, sure, i bitched about it, but i didn't blame the rich or begrudge them their pleasures and i didn't go crying to big brother for handout after handout so i could afford even the most meager of luxuries. i worked those 80 hour weeks and 90 hour weeks and even 100 hour weeks and i continue to do so when i can because i want a few of those luxuries i would like to become accustomed to. i keep a tenuous grasp on being middle class by working that much because i know it can all disappear so quickly.

as a matter of fact, it is disappearing. thanks to the threat posed to the upper middle class and upper class by fools like obama and pelosi, work has started to get a bit scarcer and i find myself dipping into my meager savings as my once thriving little business begins to slightly flounder. the socialist bent of the present regime and this country's seeming willingness to share the wealth through legislation instead of a free marketplace have tightened everyone's purse strings and can do nothing more than force the small businessman to close up shop and either go back to being a wage slave or become the indentured servant of the government's self serving welfare state.

as long as we retain the freedom of choice, even poverty may be bearable. without it, no amount of wealth will satisfy.

You know what, its great that you can work 80 hour weeks and be totally cool with the amount of money you make and the way it effects your body, but the thing is there used to be this concept called the 40 hour work week and America's goal used to be to make it so that everyone in this country could work 40 hours a week and make minimum wage and survive. Survival meaning being able to fulfill the three basic necessities of shelter, nourishment, and health care. But as you probably know considering you have lived in poverty it is extremely difficult to afford these things when you are barely making any money. You should also be grateful that you had a job at which you were able to work 80 hours a week because a lot of people's financial woes stem not only from a minuscule wage but from an overall lack of available working time. It is not always possible to gain more hours at your current job or go find an additional job. In case you had not noticed, we are in a recession right now and jobs are scarce, even simple menial jobs are rare. My point is that without these "socialist" programs there are millions of Americans who would be completely screwed, yet I realize that you do not care about that and you seem to believe that our government should not provide any sort of assistance to people who have experienced great financial loss regardless of their particular situation.

Also, while I hate Obama just as much as the next guy, if you think he is the reason for our current economic climate you have no idea what you are talking about. All hes done so far is continue down the same pro-business and militaristic path laid down for him by every president of the last 60 years.

Could you also please explain to me how using tax dollars to fund programs which allow American citizens to be sheltered and fed is destroying this country?

[Trip06]

Another politics thread.......

[delusionsofNORMALity]

I am not trying to imply that the funding of socialist programs be considered charity.

not every government program leads us down the road to socialism or hides its true agenda behind the mask of compassion, though most fall into one category or the other. as members of this society, we agree to fund certain programs for the good of the society as a whole. the question is not whether these programs are needed, but to what degree we should allow government to intrude into our lives. government has shown us time and again that it is a wasteful monster, incapable of running even the simplest enterprise without drowning in waste. the examples you cited of education and the postal system are perfect specimens of governmental ineptitude, showing that the private sector will almost always be more efficient than the red tape laden bureaucracy of even the most streamlined government.

the enforced charity i was speaking of is the outrageous concept that it is perfectly fine to legislate usurious taxes on the most successful and productive members of society so that we can raise the standard of living for those incapable of supporting themselves. the growing welfare state seems to not just want to give a hand up to those who are down on their luck, but to support a large portion of the population in a style that many around the world would consider luxurious. instead of giving incentives for people to support themselves, we have created an industry that coddles the unproductive and supports a massive bureaucracy that is dependent on enlarging that pool.

But then again I guess its cool to just have a large percentage of our population be homeless and malnourished.

of course i'm not cool with such poverty. that is one of the reasons i'm so willing to donate a large share of my time and income to programs that actually do something about such problems. i am not, however, cool with supporting the bureaucracy that rewards idleness as a means of enlarging the fiefdoms of thousands of petty bureaucrats nor do i believe it is ethical for anyone else to be forced to do so under penalty of law.

.....there used to be this concept called the 40 hour work week and America's goal used to be to make it so that everyone in this country could work 40 hours a week and make minimum wage and survive.

it is quite possible to survive on the earnings of that 40 hour week. if you don't wish to enjoy the luxuries of family and your own home, you can do quite nicely even on minimum wage. we have to start realizing that we are not necessarily entitled to such things, but that they come with a price. demanding that others pay for your lack of foresight in starting a family is no more ethical than hording your riches while others starve. much of what we consider basic expenses are really luxuries that we are entitled to only through extra effort.

You should also be grateful that you had a job at which you were able to work 80 hours a week because a lot of people's financial woes stem not only from a minuscule wage but from an overall lack of available working time.

who said i had a job that allowed me to work such overtime? i struck out on my own and did without such things as free time so that i could achieve what others seem to believe is their natural right. i failed many times before i found a path that allowed me to earn such luxuries for myself.

I realize that you do not care about that and you seem to believe that our government should not provide any sort of assistance to people who have experienced great financial loss regardless of their particular situation.

this is less a matter of my empathy than of who is best suited to aid those in need. with little or no oversight, government creates programs that do nothing more than sustain the status quo and expand its own power. hidden behind the lie of the ballot box and a mask of false compassion, these political animals are allowed to do what they please with the fruits of our labors in the name of the public welfare. there is little or no accounting for the billions we pour into such services and there is no stated goal but the nebulous concept of fairness.

Also, while I hate Obama just as much as the next guy, if you think he is the reason for our current economic climate you have no idea what you are talking about. All hes done so far is continue down the same pro-business and militaristic path laid down for him by every president of the last 60 years.

i don't actually blame brak, but the entire political system that has created the welfare state and the mindset of a population that is steeped in a cult of entitlement. while government may lead its citizens in one direction or another, it is the almost total lack of ethical grounding that has pushed us so far down this path toward our own destruction.

Could you also please explain to me how using tax dollars to fund programs which allow American citizens to be sheltered and fed is destroying this country?

i wouldn't say it is actually destroying the country, rather ridding us of that pesky concept of the rights of the individual in favor of servitude to the state. while supporting citizens in times of emergency might be a rational extension of the duties of government, creating an entire class that is dependent on governmental assistance is the path toward an orwellian nightmare. the wealthy can only support such a top heavy bureaucracy for so long before the entire house of cards comes crashing down and leaves us with a population cowed into a state of comfortable poverty by the power of a totalitarian regime.

[Ramulux]

The first thing I want to make clear is that I am aware of how radical my ideas are and I am aware that the concept of socialism in general is not in line with the vision our founding fathers had for this country. Just as you have put it, this country was never meant to provide for the poor or extend aid to those in need. This country was meant to be a capitalistic, freedom-loving utopia focused on individual rights where anyone could come and have a chance at making a living. On a fundamental level, the conservative system of government is almost a form of anarchy. You let the people and the businesses do what they want without fear of punishment or regulation and supposedly everything will work itself out. What this creates is a greedy, corporate-controlled political atmosphere in which business owners are able to rule their companies like tyrants and grant themselves outrageous salaries while cutting employees wages and benefits.

There is also no denying that when creating social programs you obviously run the risk of corruption from those who supervise those programs. In order for any government program to function correctly it requires competent and law-abiding citizens who will perform their jobs and not break the law. While there are many members of our government whom I do not believe perform their jobs competently, I do not believe the answer is to just not have a functioning government.

government has shown us time and again that it is a wasteful monster, incapable of running even the simplest enterprise without drowning in waste. the examples you cited of education and the postal system are perfect specimens of governmental ineptitude, showing that the private sector will almost always be more efficient than the red tape laden bureaucracy of even the most streamlined government.

I wont deny that the government has fucked up a lot of shit over the years and that a lot of the social programs designed to help the American people have turned out very badly. However that does not mean we should just not have them. Just because there have been mistakes made in how the programs are carried out, that does not mean we will never be able to solve them. It is the 21st century and I believe the human race can solve the simple problem of how to establish and fund multiple social programs without risk of corruption. You are also totally ignoring all of the social programs(run by the government) which function perfectly fine.

I have attended public schools along with the majority of this country and there is no denying that many of them have their problems, most of which stem from a lack of funding. Yet you do not seem to understand that the alternative of having to pay to attend a privately owned school is not a possibility for many Americans. If school was not free and there were no laws regarding attendance hundreds of thousands of children would be unable to obtain a decent education. I find it amazing that I am seriously attempting to explain to someone why school needs to be free. So I was hoping you could explain exactly how the education system should work in this country according to you, and if you can do this while understanding the simple fact that if school is not free, poor kids are not going to go, then all the better.

Until you said something about it I was unaware that there was any problem with the postal service, considering I can buy a stamp for 42 cents and send a letter anywhere in this country and have it get there in a day or two. The United States Postal Service is a model of efficiency no matter how you look at it and if you are trying to make me belive that there is something wrong with a system I interact with on a daily basis then you are going to have to come up with some evidence.

I also never claimed that the public sector is more efficient than the private sector. I didn't because we are not talking about efficiency and I am not saying that there is anything wrong with the private sector. Last time I checked we were discussing the merits of socialist programs and my opinion that they should exist. People do not go on medicare expecting the greatest health care in the world. People do not use the post office expecting their letters to reach their destination in hours. People do not go to the library and expect to see every book ever written. People use these services because they do not have any other choice, they may not have the money to afford health care, fed ex or books from Barnes and Nobles. I never meant to imply that social programs were better than their private sector equivalent simply that they need exist for those who need them.

of course i'm not cool with such poverty. that is one of the reasons i'm so willing to donate a large share of my time and income to programs that actually do something about such problems. i am not, however, cool with supporting the bureaucracy that rewards idleness as a means of enlarging the fiefdom of thousands of petty bureaucrats nor do i believe it is ethical for anyone else to be forced to do so under penalty of law.

So you are willing to donate your time and money to help those less fortunate than yourself? I thought those people were lazy and deserve whatever problems they have. Everything you have said prior to this goes against this statement. You seem to be implying that the reason you do not want to pay for social programs is because you think you can spend your money in other places to do more good. That means your argument against social programs has nothing to do with your conservative beliefs but has to do with the fact that they are not run properly. So lets say hypothetically that your tax dollars were going to fund a bunch of programs, foundations, and institutes that were actually going to do some genuine good. Based on what you just said you would have no problem paying taxes to the federal government as long as the money was used in the right way. I would also like to know what programs you think do more good than the programs currently being funded.

it is quite possible to survive on the earnings of that 40 hour week. if you don't wish to enjoy the luxuries of family and your own home, you can do quite nicely even on minimum wage. we have to start realizing that we are not necessarily entitled to such things, but that they come with a price. demanding that others pay for your lack of foresight in starting a family is no more ethical than hording your riches while others starve. much of what we consider basic expenses are really luxuries that we are entitled to only through extra effort.

I am really having trouble understanding your outlook on America, because you do not seem to be a traditional conservative. You seem to think that this is a third world country where everybody needs to work long hours at shitty jobs just to afford the most basic of accommodations. News flash dude, this is the USA, one of the most wealthy and prosperous nations in existence and in case you did not notice there is an absolutely fucking ridiculous monetary gap between the top 20% earners and the rest of this country. Depending on what statistics you look at the top 20% earn anywhere from 85-93% of the nations net worth. I understand that you do not have a problem with this and you believe that all those CEOs and executives deserve to make those godly amounts of money while the rest of us do what we can with the modest incomes we make. This is not an issue of taking things for granted (which obviously many people do) but an issue of creating a fair and balanced economic system which does not have an executive making 500 times as much money as the janitor he employs. You also don't understand that if things like a minimum wage were not enforced by the federal government, businesses would not pay their employees shit. Capitalism breeds greed and worship of the profit margin. All of the economic problems we are experiencing right now can be traced back to Ronald Reagan and his sick and twisted desire to destroy economic regulatory statutes put in place by various democratic presidents. To be honest I really do not know how to explain to someone why de-regulation is a bad thing, considering how obvious it is. Look at any major corporation which has been involved in scandal over the past 20 years. The vast majority of these companies get away with obviously illegal practices because they pretty much run themselves. Companies like Boeing, Halliburton, Moncanto, Lockheed Martin, and pretty much any investment banking firm can only commit the crimes they have committed under a government which subsidizes their profits and allows them to regulate themselves. The invisible hand of capitalism is a fucking joke and if you can live in the world we live in today and honestly believe that economic problems will just work themselves out magically, then you are ignorant.

My point is that there is a real problem with how the wealth is distributed in this country. All I am saying is what unions have been saying for a hundred years and that is that workers need to be paid decent wages and not be treated like slaves who are lucky to have the crappy jobs they have. I really do not understand why you are so hostile towards the idea of a better national work environment. Why not raise the minimum wage, why not lower the work week? I thought these were the things we were all striving towards as human beings. I personally want things to get better, I want this country to become something the people can be proud of. We should all be working in the hopes that conditions will change and life will become less stressful.

who said i had a job that allowed me to work such overtime? i struck out on my own and did without such things as free time so that i could achieve what others seem to believe is their natural right. i failed many times before i found a path that allowed me to earn such luxuries for myself.

i worked those 80 hour weeks and 90 hour weeks and even 100 hour weeks and i continue to do so when i can because i want a few of those luxuries i would like to become accustomed to.

Dude you answered your own question. Anyways, once again you seem to be living in this sort of third world version of America where everybody is working 80 hour weeks and has no problem with it. Maybe that is the kind of country you want to live in and thats fine, but I believe that one of the primary goals of not only this government but of humanity in general, is to increase the standard of living not just for oneself but for the entire population. You need to understand that we fail and succeed as a country, not as an individual.

this is less a matter of my empathy than of who is best suited to aid those in need. with little or no oversight, government creates programs that do nothing more than sustain the status quo and expand its own power. hidden behind the lie of the ballot box and a mask of false compassion, these political animals are allowed to do what they please with the fruits of our labors in the name of the public welfare. there is little or no accounting for the billions we pour into such services and there is no stated goal but the nebulous concept of fairness.

Where exactly do you get this crap? Do you have any idea how much fucking oversight there is for most social programs? You are literally just making this shit up. You could almost make an argument for there being too much oversight for many of these programs in terms of wasted man hours and paperwork. Once again you are also attacking the politicians not the programs. I have already agreed with you a million times that there are a lot of morally ambiguous douche-bags within our government, but their corruption has nothing to do with the programs they have manipulated for personal gain. If you are going to claim that these programs should not exist simply because there is a chance a corrupt politician could abuse them, you do not understand the first thing about logic. You could make that argument against any group of people with any sort of political or economic power. Why should we even have law enforcement if there is a chance one of the officers could be corrupt? Why should we even have any form of government at all if there's a chance someone ethically challenged could become a part of it? Also, all social programs have extremely simple and easily understandable goals and I do not understand how you can even say something like that. The unemployment systems goal is to prevent people who have lost their jobs from homelessness and starvation while providing assistance in the search for a new job. Medicare's goal is to prevent senior citizens who cannot afford health care from dying from treatable illnesses. The post office's goal is to provide easily affordable transportation of letters and packages throughout the entire country. VA hospitals aim to provide health care for armed servicemen. Schools aim to educate our youth. The US military attempts to provide protection from foreign danger. All socialist programs are in place for a reason. If they weren't, they would not exist.

while supporting citizens in times of emergency might be a rational extension of the duties of government, creating an entire class that is dependent on governmental assistance is the path toward an orwellian nightmare.

First of all, there are insane amounts of regulation regarding who receives welfare and how long they will receive it for. So lets stop pretending like anyone who wants welfare can just go and get it, because that is obviously not true and you know that. Now of course there are going to be "criminals" who attempt to cheat the system and I am sure quite a few of them have gotten away with it. However I do not have the faintest idea of how one would go about doing this because I have been to a welfare office and spoken with a representative while my mother attempted to receive some benefits and they are so unbelievably fucking strict and anal about it. My mother makes about $1400 a month and has to pay $1200 for rent. That leaves her with $100 to feed my brother and her for a month. Yet she was not able to receive any benefits of any kind. So don't tell me that there is an entire "class" of people on welfare simply because they are lazy. I repeat I will not try to defend "criminals" who attempt to break the law by abusing this system, but they make up an infinitesimally small percentage of all the people who use welfare. The rest are American citizens just like you and me who have used every opportunity available to them to make money and were unable to do so. So in the name of domestic security our government created a program which would allow citizens(who are doing everything they can to get a job)to keep their shelter and provide themselves with food. Seeing as the alternative would be to let these people become homeless and eventually criminals I think our government made the right decision. Something that I have been hearing from a lot of conservative pundits recently is the idea that if you just took away the welfare and unemployment from everyone currently on those programs, they would somehow just find a way to make it. This seems to be what you want to happen and I am curious to see if you actually think that is a rational decision. What that would mean is that everyone on welfare and unemployment has other means of providing for themselves and they just like living off $800 a month. Listen, when you take away the money that someone is using to pay their rent, then they cant pay their rent and they lose their home. Not everyone has an infinite number of friends willing to let them sleep on the couch, in fact there are people in this country with no friends or family, so living off of someone else isn't an option. When you cannot find work, you do not have a home, and you are starving I think the chances are pretty likely that most people would end up stealing in that situation. Which bring me to my point, which is that social programs are not just useless feel-goodery but an integral part of our domestic security.

[JaggedEdge]

Yeah man, this JaggedEdge character is absolutely ridiculous. I called him out on his crap on the last page but he just ignored me. I wish I was capable of emotionally distancing myself from my fellow man in the way he seems to have, then I would not have to deal with the pain I feel when I talk to all the people I know who are working 60 hour weeks and can barely afford rent and have no time to spend with their families. It would be nice to feel like their problems have absolutely no bearing on my life and the fact that they are struggling means they are doing something wrong, but I cant do that because I have this crazy, radical, idea that maybe human beings should help other human beings who are in need of help. I think a lot of the people who have posted on this thread would benefit greatly by simply having conversations with people who are on the bottom rung of the economic ladder. It might give you some perspective on what it is like to be poor in this country.

I know this post is very old, but I feel the need to defend myself here. I have not been very active in this forum for a long time, hence my not responding. I have no problem with charity and helping your fellow man. I do however have a problem with the state forcing tax payers to provide a better life for others. I place the individual above the collective, and anything coercive is appalling.

He may not be 100% to blame for his situation, however more government intervention clearly is not the answer. Seeing as government is the cause of many of the problems, more government is not the answer. Someone else's liberties should not be forcefully infringed upon in order to provide a better life for someone else.

Ultimately it comes down to positive vs. negative freedoms. I support negative freedoms, meaning: You have the right not to be murdered, raped, stolen from, etc. As opposed to: You have the right to education, You have the right to healthcare, etc.