8/28/2011 1:08:27 PM

Quote :

"if "liberty" is empowering people through money"

Sorry, where was this said?

8/28/2011 1:35:35 PM

^

Quote :

"In a libertarian world, as much liberty as their circumstances allow."

If "circumstances" regulate how much liberty one is entitled to, then fuck liberty - it ain't all that it's made out to be.

If being poor means that you don't have any liberty and need to have your bank accounts monitored, then liberty is a pretty shallow value.

i also find it funny that this entire conversation spun off on the assumption that all people on welfare spend their money on cigarettes. those people shouldn't be afforded the liberty to buy cigarettes? alright, fine, let's go down that road. should tobacco companies then be afforded the liberty to sell cigarettes to people on welfare? should the government also monitor those that are profiting from welfare abuse? and who decides what someone can buy/sell if they are receiving some form of government assistance?

the entire notion that people on welfare should be monitored automatically assures the growth of government, which is supposedly what you libertarians are against. hmmmm...

8/28/2011 2:36:10 PM

Quote :

"If "circumstances" regulate how much liberty one is entitled to, then fuck liberty - it ain't all that it's made out to be. "

Ok, so nowhere then. As long as we're clear on that point.

Quote :

"If being poor means that you don't have any liberty and need to have your bank accounts monitored,"

Being poor does not mean this. Taking money from others by force of government to spend on your bad habits on the other hand...

Of course, I should expect the distinction is lost on someone who can't tell the difference between liberty and empowerment.

8/28/2011 4:55:47 PM

Quote :

""If being poor means that you don't have any liberty and need to have your bank accounts monitored,""

hahah, seriously?

^exactly.

JesusH, I think you are confusing Liberty with money. No one has the right to come into a place you own and take stuff from you(other than the govt), regardless of how much money you have. Now if you are living in SOMEONE ELSES HOUSE, then THEY have the right to throw you out if you are breaking THEIR rules. You have NO RIGHT to someone else's property/labor without their consent.

Being poor has nothing to do with having your transactions monitored, it is taking federal money that puts rules onto the individual. Just like taking SS early. You are only allowed to earn, I believe, 14k while on SS or you start getting penalized. The same rules apply if you have 200 bucks in the bank or 200M in the bank.

8/28/2011 5:10:53 PM

will someone please humor me and answer str8foolish's post from the previous page. i doubt anyone will do it, because it'll force you to acknowledge how crazy your position is.

eyeydr, take your position about "being in someone else's house" to its logical conclusion. does anyone who receives govt assistance deserve to have their bank accounts monitored for frivolous spending?

8/28/2011 7:03:28 PM

I guess it depends on WHY you are getting the money Jesus. (btw, what question are you wanting answered?)

If you are getting money FOR A PURPOSE and you are using it for something else, then you should probably be punished. In reality im sure it is even remotely practical to monitor EVERYONES spending period. I do think that you could have rules in place and if they break those rules then there is a punishment or loss of benefits. ala false disablity claims, false medicare claims, etc. I think some people feel that people who claim they are so poor they cant feed themselves yet take a weeks vacation to Hawaii would be comparable to people who say they cant work but are caught working out or putting on a roof, etc.

The jist of it gets back to liberty. If you wanted to give someone money so they could eat, and you find out they are taking a trip to hawaii...then YOU have a choice of continuing to give them money or stop. We arent given that ability and that creates resentment. (between BOTH parties actually)

A great example is Medicare. As a Medicare provider Medicare can audit our charts whenever they feel like it. They monitor what we bill and issue *warnings and adjust what they pay per code for a region according to what everyone charges and how much it is costing them. Now YOU could not come in and start looking through any chart, you would get arrested. It has nothing to do with your net worth, but who is paying for the service and what their rules are.

[Edited on August 28, 2011 at 7:14 PM. Reason : .]

8/28/2011 7:11:46 PM

until i see some numbers of people taking trips to hawaii with their welfare monies, i'm gonna keep assuming that it is not the epidemic some people seem to think it is.


on a side note, i once bought ice cream with my federally subsidized student loans. guess you should go ahead and lock me up.

8/28/2011 7:18:14 PM

So I think you are seeing my point, but just dont want to admit it.

Quote :

"ice cream with my federally subsidized student loans"

Paying interest on ice cream huh.

Again you are comparing two different things.

8/28/2011 7:22:57 PM

actually, John Q. Taxpayer paid the interest on my ice cream. And he had no say in the matter. He had to do it.


It was a banana split, too. Thanks America

[Edited on August 28, 2011 at 7:37 PM. Reason : ]

8/28/2011 7:36:57 PM

Quote :

"actually, John Q. Taxpayer paid the interest on my ice cream. And he had no say in the matter. He had to do it. "

Ah, this actually clears up a lot. Thanks

(btw you might want to look up what a loan is and who actually pays that interest. Might be useful in future discussions)

8/28/2011 8:47:25 PM

subsidized loans don't accrue interest while you are in school. they are "subsidized" i.e. paid for by the government. the borrower still has to pay back the loan, but they don't have to pay the interest they accrue while in school.

unsubsidized loans, however, accrue interest from the time of disbursement, and have to be paid back.


anyway, still nobody has addressed this:

Quote :

""So indeed there are no such thing as rights to freedom or liberty, just temporary privileges provided you don't receive help from the government. Does this go for military pensioners and spouses of deceased servicemen? What about people who receive FEMA assistance during natural disasters? Seeing as how rural communities basically get roads as a handout (their local economies could never support them), perhaps they should have their bank accounts monitored as well. Same with police protection. I live in a safe neighborhood and have never made use of police services, so why should people who get police protection from my tax dollars not get their bank accounts monitored as well?""

8/28/2011 10:21:40 PM

Quote :

"If "circumstances" regulate how much liberty one is entitled to, then fuck liberty - it ain't all that it's made out to be."

Being born in the 18th century limits your abilities. You cannot own an iPod or ride in an airplane, for example.

Quote :

"the entire notion that people on welfare should be monitored automatically assures the growth of government, which is supposedly what you libertarians are against. hmmmm..."

A libertarian would be against most welfare in general, not what people spend it on. A libertarian would be against the government monitoring what people do, whether such monitoring was to reduce fraud or engender support among nannies trying to use welfare as a smoke-screen to run people's lives. As such, the people you were talking to were clearly NOT libertarians.

But you know how they are, you are one of them. You don't think workers and managers are negotiating the right distribution of profits, so you want to manage that aspect of their lives for them. The same with the nannies you are arguing against. They think the poor are managing their lives improperly and so someone else should be in charge of managing those aspects for them.

8/28/2011 10:24:50 PM

Quote :

"""So indeed there are no such thing as rights to freedom or liberty, just temporary privileges provided you don't receive help from the government. Does this go for military pensioners and spouses of deceased servicemen? What about people who receive FEMA assistance during natural disasters? Seeing as how rural communities basically get roads as a handout (their local economies could never support them), perhaps they should have their bank accounts monitored as well. Same with police protection. I live in a safe neighborhood and have never made use of police services, so why should people who get police protection from my tax dollars not get their bank accounts monitored as well?"""

Military pensioners and spouses - getting cash for services performed

FEMA aid recipients - getting cash or aid to make up for verified loss

Police for safe areas and roads for bumpkins - not getting cash, strictly speaking, and everyone gets the benefits of these when/if travel there.

Food stamp, welfare, section 8 recipients - individuals getting cash for....existing.

These are fundamentally different things, and it's not too hard to justify spying or conditions on one but not the other.

Private companies already treat these things differently. Petty cash often comes with paperwork, receipt requirements, etc. but giving out company t-shirts or employee mileage reimbursements comes with no strings. This really isn't hard.

That said, I'm against the spying or conditions for these programs. But that position is rational and has reason behind it.

[Edited on August 29, 2011 at 8:12 AM. Reason : a]

8/29/2011 8:11:31 AM

^good post. I think he understands but just wants to argue.

Quote :

"the borrower still has to pay back the loan, but they don't have to pay the interest they accrue while in school. "

But it accrues interest when you leave school. Im sure you cut a check for the full amount of your loan upon graduation. If so, nice job.

8/29/2011 12:30:19 PM

Quote :

"Military pensioners and spouses - getting cash for services performed"

That's called their salary. And spouses don't do a damn thing to deserve anything. Basically "marrying rich" by making a sugar daddy out of the military industrial complex.

Quote :

"FEMA aid recipients - getting cash or aid to make up for verified loss"

Huh? What difference does it make if it's a "verified loss"? Getting laid off and requiring welfare to get by doesn't count as a loss? Why should I have to pay to keep idiots alive who chose to live in places where they're subject to such risks?

Quote :

"Police for safe areas and roads for bumpkins - not getting cash, strictly speaking, and everyone gets the benefits of these when/if travel there. "

I don't travel there, so why should I have to subsidize their stupid decisions to live in the middle of nowhere?

Quote :

"Food stamp, welfare, section 8 recipients - individuals getting cash for....existing."

For making poor decisions? Granted, many of them are in that situation for no fault of their own: 9% unemployment anyone? Not unlike the decision to join the military, to marry someone who's joining the military, to live in a rural area that couldn't on its own support modern infrastructure, to buy a home in a flood zone. These are all terrible choices but for some reason they don't get their bank accounts monitored by people like me who are smart enough NOT to make all those stupid choices?

Quote :

"These are fundamentally different things, and it's not too hard to justify spying or conditions on one but not the other. That said, I'm against the spying or conditions for these programs. But that position is rational and has reason behind it."

No, it's only rational if you first employ a string of flimsy post-hoc rationalizations to it. Folks hate poor people because they're icky, and assume from sensationalist stories that they're all lazy queens who just sap off the government teet because it's SO LUXURIOUS to live on subsistence-level welfare programs. It's just simple class prejudice, plain and simple, and is in no way consistent at all.

You want to make a "it benefits everyone in the long run" argument about roads in rural areas? Okay, we can go down that road later, but that's not what you guys were talking about when welfare was first brought up. The argument then was that they're getting money so they should be monitored, with no mention whatsoever of the long-term benefits of a social safety net (such as the existence of a sustained middle class). So if you want to talk long-term benefits to these programs, let's do so, but you don't get to ignore that angle right up until the moment somebody talks about the OTHER many welfare programs poor-haters never mention.


[Edited on August 29, 2011 at 1:25 PM. Reason : .]

8/29/2011 1:17:59 PM

^I suppose you dont get any benefits where you work? Part of the Military's compensation is healthcare and pension. Ideally most public sectors would move towards defined contribution plans as the private sector has.

As for FEMA, ideally this would be better handled by charities and private insurance companies. Most people have to buy federal insurance who live in at risk areas, so just like if you crashed your car you could get money from the insurance company. As for your example of getting laid off, you can purchase private insurance to help in case that happens. THe best way would be to have an emergency fund built up.

This might strike you as odd but many people feel that our welfare system actually harms people long term, one of many reasons to oppose it. But as I pointed out before if you claim to be disabled to get taxpayer money and are caught working a job under the table, then there shoudl be penalities and I think most people would support having a system/rules in place to investigate such issues. We have a system set up for providers of medicare/medicaid....why not one set up for people who claim to not have any money yet find money to spend on worthless things? Seems pretty consistant actually.

Why not end all the programs and let charities handle it? That way people who want to support X cause can support it. ANd if some charity is not doing a great job helping others it will go out of business in favor of another, more effective charity. Thus the providers have direct control over how their money is spent.

8/29/2011 2:59:29 PM

Quote :

"Except for people who receive welfare. So you believe in liberty being a privilege, not a right. "

I was not aware that welfare was a part of "liberty". You are specifically being a fucktard

8/29/2011 3:23:38 PM

Aaronburro, again you miss the point. The liberties and rights in question being lost are that of privacy and not having the government directly monitor your bank account. Were you purposely fucking that up or do you just have abysmal reading comprehension?

8/29/2011 5:12:20 PM

Quote :

"^I suppose you dont get any benefits where you work? Part of the Military's compensation is healthcare and pension. Ideally most public sectors would move towards defined contribution plans as the private sector has."

I'm reading this as "It's just like the private sector....except not"

Quote :

" As for FEMA, ideally this would be better handled by charities and private insurance companies."

FEMA insurance programs were formed exactly because charities and private insurance companies completely failed to even attempt to cover people in those situations.

Quote :

"Most people have to buy federal insurance who live in at risk areas, so just like if you crashed your car you could get money from the insurance company."

See above.

Quote :

" As for your example of getting laid off, you can purchase private insurance to help in case that happens. THe best way would be to have an emergency fund built up."

Are you noticing that the only solutions you propose to anything here are "Have extra money and either spend it on insurance of save it up." which doesn't do a lot of good for people living paycheck to paycheck (Which are exactly the people we're discussing who are most at risk when it comes to layoffs or emergencies).

Quote :

" This might strike you as odd but many people feel that our welfare system actually harms people long term, one of many reasons to oppose it."

It doesn't strike me as odd at all because I've already argued with hundreds of these people and literally not a word you've typed here is new to me.

Quote :

"But as I pointed out before if you claim to be disabled to get taxpayer money and are caught working a job under the table, then there shoudl be penalities and I think most people would support having a system/rules in place to investigate such issues."

So how do you catch them? Set up snitch networks? Monitor their bank accounts? Welcome to the previous page of discussion that you apparently skipped over.

Quote :

"We have a system set up for providers of medicare/medicaid....why not one set up for people who claim to not have any money yet find money to spend on worthless things? Seems pretty consistant actually."

Should we monitor their bank accounts? Once a-fucking-gain you're retreating to increasingly abstract questions to avoid the one that this argument is based on: Does receiving assistance mean you lose your rights and liberties?

Quote :

"Why not end all the programs and let charities handle it? That way people who want to support X cause can support it. ANd if some charity is not doing a great job helping others it will go out of business in favor of another, more effective charity. Thus the providers have direct control over how their money is spent."

Because charity has never, ever, in the history of planet Earth, been able to handle a fraction of the people affected by a fraction of these problems. Your entire argument is theoretical but guess what: We have hundreds of years of history to look back on during which government social services are the rare case and most people lived mostly independently of governments except the rare conscription, and throughout all those hundreds of years the vast majority of people lived in poverty, serfdom, or worse. Hell, let's look at America in the 19th century, when poverty was (at best) around 1 in 5!

[Edited on August 29, 2011 at 5:20 PM. Reason : .]

8/29/2011 5:19:18 PM

^ why do that when it's just safer to assume that a middle class has always existed because of the charitable good will of the privileged class?

8/29/2011 5:34:44 PM

Quote :

"The liberties and rights in question being lost are that of privacy and not having the government directly monitor your bank account."

then don't ask for help from the gov't. it only seems normal to ask for some oversight from the gov't when you beg them for money. At the point where the gov't wants to monitor my bank account when I am NOT receiving welfare or unemployment, then we'll talk.

Quote :

"Because charity has never, ever, in the history of planet Earth, been able to handle a fraction of the people affected by a fraction of these problems."

a statement which is patently false. but don't let reality get in the way of your delusion.

Quote :

"We have hundreds of years of history to look back on during which government social services are the rare case and most people lived mostly independently of governments except the rare conscription, and throughout all those hundreds of years the vast majority of people lived in poverty, serfdom, or worse. "

none of that is due to a lack of charity. you lose, good day sir! moreover, the existence of poverty, in general, is not an indictment on a lack of charity. moreover, you miss HIS point which was that, surely, if people thought it were a good idea, they would give out of their own pockets directly, something that should certainly be more effective than the bureaucratic nightmare we have today.

8/29/2011 5:58:55 PM

Quote :

"most people lived mostly independently of governments except the rare conscription, and throughout all those hundreds of years the vast majority of people lived in poverty, serfdom, or worse."

And then the enlightenment and industrial revolution came and transformed society from a feudal government run affair to a capitalist market affair. Then, a great time later, society was so wealthy it could afford to offer such luxuries as social services. Is not capitalism great?

8/29/2011 7:02:08 PM

Quote :

"then don't ask for help from the gov't. it only seems normal to ask for some oversight from the gov't when you beg them for money. At the point where the gov't wants to monitor my bank account when I am NOT receiving welfare or unemployment, then we'll talk. "

no shit, this doesnt seem this hard to understand. Hey if I didnt want the chance that Medicare might audit my books I can NOT TAKE MEDICARE. My LIBERTY is NOT violated when you consent to the rules of the payer. If you dont like the rules, then PASS.

Exactly, ill try to find the study that shows that the govt is the least effecient way to deliver money/services to the needy. Just too big and no market pressure. Hell in Va alone we have 3 different medicaid insurances. Why?

^It is great, too bad those entitlements are going to bankrupt us. In a true capitalistic system if the business is bleeding money from one dept it has to restructure, cut, or eliminate that dept to stay afloat. And I know one of you guys will say that our govt isnt a business..so true. Well when they inflate the currency to pay off our loans it will be the poor that will suffer the most..sadly.

Quote :

"Does receiving assistance mean you lose your rights and liberties? "

All? No Some? yep. When you go to work to receive a paycheck do you lose your "rights and liberties" for several hours that YOU agreed to? Can you just sit at home missing work, tell your boss to fuck off and expect that he will still pay you? Is this really that hard of a concept to understand?

As for the Miltary pension example, they are receiving those benefits bc that was what they agreed to when they served a number of years. My point about the private sector vs the public was that these type of deals are undefined and a fiscal nightmare when people continue to live longer and health care costs rise. GM for example paying more for retirees than its current workforce. My HOPE is that the public sector will move towards a definded contribution plan in the future.

Oh and are you seriously suggesting that people cannot save any money? I will STRONGLY disagree.

Answer this question Foolish, should we check/monitor anyone who applies for govt funds at all?

[Edited on August 29, 2011 at 8:20 PM. Reason : .]

8/29/2011 8:13:09 PM

Str8Foolish:

Quote :

"I just said I want to present information to everybody and let them dmocratically administer our product. "

Interesting question: if it is good to "democratically administer our product" then why would you object so if the democratic system administers our product by restricting it from being used to buy tobacco? I am not a fan of democratic processes for this exact reason. What is your defense?

8/30/2011 12:30:42 AM