Freedom of speech and expression
Freedom of religion
Freedom from want
Freedom from fear
With No Jobs, Plenty of Time for Tea Party
- Thread starter FriendlyFire
- Start date
Freedom of speech and expression
Freedom of religion
Freedom from want
Freedom from fear
Merkinball
Deity
Telling people who don't ideologically support these programs that they must pay into the program but not receive benefits from it is what exactly? Oh yeah, incredibly selfish and authoritarian at the same time. That's being a selfish dick. Support my social program or I'll fine you or imprison you. And guess what, you don't even get any benefits from it either.
Also, when you are forced to give to a social program against your will because you're a citizen, how can you then deprive them of the benefits of the program?
Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are not forms of welfare?
When these were implemented they were certainly argued against as socialist welfare.
Quackers
The Frog
I'm not sure what your getting at. But they are socialist.
I am saying that if they are against social welfare, they should be against medicare, medicaid and the what not. Now they are and they do take them, and I actually think that's fine, yet the problem is that their rhetoric is adamantly against these programs. What are they going to do if they were to get in power? They are hypocrites if the leave them in place since they have complained about them so much, but they are purely selfish if they remove them considering they are not the only ones who have payed into them.
Quackers
The Frog
They are against social welfare. They "take them" because they have been forced to pay into them and therfore at the very least they should be entitled to them. I don't know what they will do in power - tea partiests have never been in power I would expect that they would destroy those programs. Purely selfish for abolishing such programs? I think keeping the money you earnt from a job is unselfish and right, rather then being taxed with the threat of prison which is immoral.
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
With no jobs, the reactianatories certainly have enough time on there hands to be rabble rousing dissenter against the messiah.
I agree that they have a right to take their benefits, but rhetorically they have essentially put themselves in a place where they are sort of "damned if they do and damned if they don't". They can't dissolve those programs after they have taken out of them when there are plenty of people still waiting in line for their own benefits, and they can't not dissolve them because their entire platform is to get rid of them.
Quackers
The Frog
yup
i think rheotically they have put themselves into an untenable postion. from a left-wing perspective. but if you agree with my points about "they payed in and should therfore recieve" it makes sense.
i think rheotically they have put themselves into an untenable postion. from a left-wing perspective. but if you agree with my points about "they payed in and should therfore recieve" it makes sense.
Integral
Can't you hear it?
I didn't know you were in favor of generating unemployment among low-income workers. Interesting.civ_king said:
Also:
woody60707
Deity
And call them unpatriotic, and they should move to Canada! Love it or leave it! USA #1
Merkinball
Deity
Yeah. Good luck with that.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
I would like to take this opportunity to distance the position you are arguing against from established socialist and communist positions, including my own. A governing principle of socialism is that all those who contribute should receive in kind, and those who do not (by their own faults, that is), may not. As I have said: those who work, eat. Or so the saying goes.
FriendlyFire
Codex WMDicanious
Ohh Can I not pay for Iraq War ?
Also I dont want to pay Government regulations on water quality (lols)
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
This has nothing to do with ideology, it's simply Ow Fings Werk. My point is simply that to decry such insurance as unjust while depending upon it to sustain oneself is hypocritical; if it was theft in the first place, then it is theft now, and the gentleman in question is a thief by his own reckoning. It is he who has chosen to condemn himself as such, we merely chose to point out that he has done so.
Quackers
The Frog
I don't think reclaiming your propertyu after it being forcibly expropriated is "theft" in fact thats insultung.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Again, it's a form of insurance. It's not a savings account. They work differently.
Besides, even if you were correct, this fellow holds the same position you do, that taxation is "forcible expropriation", yes? Yet he currently survives because the government is willing to levy such tyranny upon others for his sake. If it is the government that owes him this money, then what justice is there in allowing it to extort the funds from others? How can he make himself party to such injustice? Not without rendering himself a hypocrite and a thief by his own standards, he cannot. After all, do the police allow you to pay your bail by wandering out into the street and mugging a passer by, convenient as it may be for them?
dirtyparrot
Upholding Brannigan's Law
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2005
- Messages
- 1,841
I don't that much problem with him collecting the benefits that he's entitled. But his problem with the state of the economy and the lack of jobs is misdirected. Corporations have steadily shipped off jobs to countries where they can pay their workers much less thanks lack of government involvement and much weakened labour unions.
Quackers
The Frog
I'm unsure what you mean the differances are between insurance and savings. You mean insurance companies like the GOV have the right to take away your income?
To get into purely economical terms we don't know if the money he is recieving from teh government is purely the result of his labor or his and other peoples. The former is moral and justified and latter wrong. I don't know his ful situation howevere i assume the latter - it's only been a year. I still disagree he is a hypcrite he is merelyt withdrawing his money which was forcible taken from him from his income.
1. In an insurance scheme you don't pay in expecting to get the same amount back. You risk pool with lots of other people. It makes no sense to get upset that other people make a claim on the same insurance scheme that you pay into - if you said "I haven't had a car accident I shouldn't have to pay for the people who do" then that would be silly.
2. Why do you pool risk? You know statistically, some people have car accidents/get robbed/get cancer (depending on what the insurance is). But you don't know who. So you make a small payment for the guarantee that if you are the unlucky one, you are covered by everyone else's small payments.
3. Levels of payment in a private insurance system are often determined by the degree of risk you present - if you are more likely to get sick/robbed/injured then you pay more. Some laws exist to restrict some discriminatory practices - for example, men have more car accidents, women live longer, so they're more likely to make a claim on the money pool, but some places have laws prohibiting different premiums on gender grounds in car or health insurance.
4. Public goods like a welfare system or a health system are an insurance scheme, they operate on the same principles as private insurance. Unemployment benefits are unemployment insurance. Old-age pensions are "living too long and running out of savings" insurance. Disability payments are "getting disabled" insurance. And a public healthcare system is health insurance. (Actually, nearly everying government does is a form of insurance - even defence, law and order, etc, are social goods we fund collectively. We pay in, not expecting to get a direct financial return equivalent to what we pay in)
4.a. (private v public debates are actually just a debate about which insurance goods are important enough to be universally and mandatorily supported by taxes instead of optionally available through private arrangements. The extent of such public arrangements is, crudely, determined on a case-by-case basis by the political process. eg: we all agree on defence and law and order, most of us agree on public education and public health insurance and government-guaranteed bank deposits, fewer agree on social housing, etc)
5. Just like a private insurance operator, these mandatory public insurance schemes pool risk. Everyone pays in, via taxes. The mandatoryness is usually necessary for them to be effective, particularly with pensions, unemployment benefits and health insurance. Because these things are insurance, you do not get the same value back in payouts that you put in. This is because the benefit from membership isn't the payout, but the guarantee that a payout exists, should you need it. The benefit from membership is reduced exposure to risk through risk-pooling.
6. Therefore, abolishing these things is depriving everyone who paid taxes the continued benefit of ameleorated risks, depriving them of the benefit itself. They no longer get the benefit of those risks being covered.
7. The Tea Partiers have therefore been benefiting from these arrangements all their life, just like you benefit from having car insurance even if you never make a claim. Even when they had a job, the guarantee of the availability of social security payouts was there. The fact that they got the payout doesn't change the situation at all.
2. Why do you pool risk? You know statistically, some people have car accidents/get robbed/get cancer (depending on what the insurance is). But you don't know who. So you make a small payment for the guarantee that if you are the unlucky one, you are covered by everyone else's small payments.
3. Levels of payment in a private insurance system are often determined by the degree of risk you present - if you are more likely to get sick/robbed/injured then you pay more. Some laws exist to restrict some discriminatory practices - for example, men have more car accidents, women live longer, so they're more likely to make a claim on the money pool, but some places have laws prohibiting different premiums on gender grounds in car or health insurance.
4. Public goods like a welfare system or a health system are an insurance scheme, they operate on the same principles as private insurance. Unemployment benefits are unemployment insurance. Old-age pensions are "living too long and running out of savings" insurance. Disability payments are "getting disabled" insurance. And a public healthcare system is health insurance. (Actually, nearly everying government does is a form of insurance - even defence, law and order, etc, are social goods we fund collectively. We pay in, not expecting to get a direct financial return equivalent to what we pay in)
4.a. (private v public debates are actually just a debate about which insurance goods are important enough to be universally and mandatorily supported by taxes instead of optionally available through private arrangements. The extent of such public arrangements is, crudely, determined on a case-by-case basis by the political process. eg: we all agree on defence and law and order, most of us agree on public education and public health insurance and government-guaranteed bank deposits, fewer agree on social housing, etc)
5. Just like a private insurance operator, these mandatory public insurance schemes pool risk. Everyone pays in, via taxes. The mandatoryness is usually necessary for them to be effective, particularly with pensions, unemployment benefits and health insurance. Because these things are insurance, you do not get the same value back in payouts that you put in. This is because the benefit from membership isn't the payout, but the guarantee that a payout exists, should you need it. The benefit from membership is reduced exposure to risk through risk-pooling.
6. Therefore, abolishing these things is depriving everyone who paid taxes the continued benefit of ameleorated risks, depriving them of the benefit itself. They no longer get the benefit of those risks being covered.
7. The Tea Partiers have therefore been benefiting from these arrangements all their life, just like you benefit from having car insurance even if you never make a claim. Even when they had a job, the guarantee of the availability of social security payouts was there. The fact that they got the payout doesn't change the situation at all.
