Welfare Revised!

[Felix The Assassin]

Got this from a source, then found it on the net as well.
Good point of view!

http://bp2.blogger.com/_khYHLiypQ2c/...urine+test.jpg

[ 01-19-2007, 11:48 PM: Message edited by: Felix The Assassin ]

[PurpleXVI]

Not everyone without a job is a drug addict, there are plenty of ways for people to be down on their luck, plus, consider this.

Drug addicts are, by the wording of the thing, addicted, they NEED their drugs. If the state stopped paying them, they'd be out mugging people for their drug money rather than doing whatever the hell their drug of choice drives them to do.

Additionally, with a bit of money they'd have a chance to drag themselves out of their pit of addiction, with no money at all, they'd more likely die in a ditch somewhere, or end up robbing people just to eat.

[Timber Loftis]

I vote they can die in a ditch somewhere. I've been a functioning addict of one form or another for years. If a lazyass like me can do it, anyone can.

Now, Felix, the fallacy of the reasoning here is that your taxes don't really go to pay for welfare. 100% of your income taxes goes to pay the interest on the national debt. It's the homage we pay to the bankers who run the Fed Reserve, who we borrow our money from (when we could instead choose to print it for free).

The great secret of America is we have enough sin taxes and excise taxes to run every one of our social programs and the military (which is paid for by corporate taxes) without collecting one penny of personal income tax.

[PurpleXVI]

"Printing it for free"? I hope you do realize that printing money to fund the nation would devalue the money to nearly zero in a short span of time.

Could you provide the numbers for your claim, by the way, Timber? Additionally, that would probably require a cessation of payments on foreign debt. I can't imagine that going over very well at all, I mean, seeing as how China pretty much owns your country and all.

[Timber Loftis]

Printing money only devalues the money if you print too much. It's key to print the right amount, lest inflation kick in.

Here's an hour and forty minute long documentary on the topic, and yes it does include the figures. It's very in-depth and detailed regarding these issues.

The banking families of the world have convinced Europe and America to borrow money from them instead of printing it, but this deceitful coup is not necessary to the functioning of our countries. In fact, the borrowing of money in this fashion didn't exist in the US until the creation of the "Federal" Reserve in 1917. BTW, the "Federal" Reserve is a group of private bankers, and is about as "Federal" as Federal Express -- in other words, it ain't part of the government, despite its pretention to be a part of the government.

And, no, it wouldn't involve cancelling debt. In order to fix this and begin printing money for free again, we would first need to pay off existing debt. Once that debt was incurred, it became a legal obligation. I'm just saying there's no need to incur such debt, and we shouldn't keep doing it.

[PurpleXVI]

You're spending more than you're earning, that way you're incurring a debt. You'd have to knock off some of your current "adventures" to have your taxes cover your current fun.

I mean, just paying off the budget deficit is going to take a while.

Paying off the international debt is going to take even longer.

Additionally, the creator of said documentary is a Libertarian. I've yet to have the time to watch it but, honestly, the only thing a Libertarian aims for is to adjust the system into social status quo. I can't say I'd trust his judgement much.

[Timber Loftis]

You know so little about what libertarianism is, then. There are many different flavors of libertarianism, but it's all about less government and more freedom. I don't see how one can be against that notion.

Over an hour and forty minutes, you gotta think there's some worthwhile information in there... right? I mean, interviews and whatnot.

But if you are happy that our governments are the pawns of the world's great banking families, then fine. I'm not. From my glimpses into what it's like to be the wealthy elite running the world, I think that the notion of wealthy elite running the world is (1) very real and not fictitious and (2) deplorable from a moral standpoint.

Oh, I don't post on weekends, so I'll see any thoughts you have on Monday morning, and likely not before.

[PurpleXVI]

I know exactly what Libertarianism is: Freedom through less taxes paid(Financial freedom.), which is the same as freedom for the wealthy only.

Cutting government programs, education, healthcare, welfare, leaves the ones who aren't well-off to die and at the mercy of the rich. Financial freedom at the expense of social freedom. Sure, some poor people with exceptional drive will still have a chance to rise and prosper, but what about the rest of them? They'll be left to rot.

If it's anything else, then it's not Libertarianism, Conservatism, perhaps, but not Libertarianism. Libertarianism wants government to barely do anything but keep a system of laws in place, maintain the police force and maintain the army.

And I find it hilarious that a Libertarian(I suspect you are one, apologies if you ar enot.) would be opposed to the wealthy few running the world.

[Timber Loftis]

/sigh

As I said, you understand so little. If a libertarian is focused on economics, and is smart enough to know how economics works, then he can recognize externalities in the Smithian market model, and allow for government to address those externalities, realizing the market itself will never do so.

This of course means not cutting all government programs, like many of those you reference. But it does mean cutting a lot of the bullshit.

You need to quit thinking big government is the answer to combat the rich running the world. Big government is more rich aristocracy running the world, just with a different hat.

You would do well to listen and be a participant in these online discussions rather than just being a trampoline bouncing back your preconceived notions and know-it-all attitude as a knee-jerk reaction to everything folks say.

If you want to learn more about libertarianism, check out www.lp.org. There's a party platform and whatnot. I don't agree with some of it, but there's a lot more there to like than to dislike.

And, think about it.... If what I'm saying is right (watch the video) then these income taxes aren't helping the poor. They are merely going to the bankers. Get it? You say that me being against income taxes is against the poor, and I'm pointing out that NONE of it goes to the poor, so it must have a net zero effect on them.

Anyway, enough twattle from me for one day... I'll be back later.

[PurpleXVI]

The way to combat the rich running the world is to give everyone a fair chance to learn, live and rise. This is achieved through government-supplied education, healthcare and, to some extent, welfare.

The way to combat the rich running the world is to do as much as possible to make sure that those born to poor families do not have any disadvantages.

My description of Libertarianism fits with every Libertarian that I've ever had any form of contact with, aside from the Anarchist offshoot that for some hilarious reason have adopted the Libertarian name rather than just calling themselves what they are.

This debate might also function better if you read what I wrote rather than just condescendingly shaking your head and claiming that I don't know anything.

How will cutting down on big governments cut the power of the wealthy? Not at all. They've already got all the money they need and a stranglehold on so many parts of industry, banks and so forth. Cutting down on big government might, assuming that you're right, shake their power slightly, but as long as they retain their control, it won't change a thing.

Someone will always be in charge, one way or another. Either the strongest, the richest, the best orator, the most beautiful, the one with the biggest gun or the one with the right dad. Remove the current most wealthy and the next one will spring up. Destroy all government and someone with shiny white teeth and nice hair will speak inspiring words to the rabble, then rule them the next day. All we can do is attempt to institute a system whereby the one in charge can't order us all raped by lions if we look at him wrong and where the worst ways of choosing our ruler, like lineage, are totally out of the picture.

This is, mind you, also a pretty hilarious situation. Here's how it goes.

Felix: I think we should cut down on welfare to the people who just waste it, rather than using it for what it was meant for(Getting back on your feet if random chance knocks you down.).
Me: Well, I happen to disagree, I think it'd hurt more than it would help.
You: The wealthy bankers are running our governments!

I mean, we're sorta talking past each other. I'm saying why I think social programs are good for society, you're telling me why we need to cut down on government(And by that I guess social programs? Otherwise what you're saying is completely unrelated to this debate.) so the Banker/Reptoid/Illuminati won't monitor our brainwaves.