Welfare, the ACA, higher minimum wage all come with a cost.

When I read comments like "You're selfish" or "The GOP only cares about RICH PEOPLE" or other such commentary when discussing welfare, minwage, the ACA, Medicare or whatever it bugs me.

When you raise the minimum wage, that has to be PAID for. Someone pays that extra wage, and that has a cost. Be it less jobs, lowered profit margins, whatever, there is a cost associated. When you have 49 million people signed up for food stamps, that has a price tag.

When you offer "Cheap healthcare" with a premium, someone else is paying.

The list goes on.

This isn't about caring folks, it's about cost. Of course conservatives care. We have no more desire to see someone starve in the streets then anyone else. We don't take joy out of seeing someone live their life on 20k a year and we sure as hell take no pleasure in the detrimental cost medical care can burden a family with.

Any ONE of these programs, could be paid for, we get the basic "taking care of people" but that "taking care" costs EVERYONE. You are taking money from hardworking people and don't give me that "well they can afford to pay more" ****. You are forcibly taking money from them to fund your little guilt assuaging programs. In any other context it's theft. You're stealing from future generations by piling debt today they will NOT be able to cover later.

Both parties are guilty of using public funds for emotional votes. "Vote for me, I care more! I'll fund (insert government program of your choice) more then my opponent!"

It's easy to play that game, and people in groups tend to be really stupid. Herd mentality takes over. It's just dumb. Politicians thrive on stupid.

It is far easier to say "Hey, I CARE" then it is to say "We cannot afford this". We the people allow this because we don't want to be seen as "not caring".

We cannot afford to "care" like this anymore, the piper is coming, and his bill is quite large. We will not be able to pay the bill. Today's 40 and under will live to see the wreck that America has become because we let emotions > common sense. We let our hearts ignore reality.

The federal government has NO BUSINESS providing ANY of these programs. But it does. You can say I'm heartless all you want, I'm thinking not about my wallet today, but all of us tomorrow. Cause we're all in for a world of **** when the dollar implodes. History tells the tale, and if you think it cannot happen here... Look around people. When people get scared they do stupid things, when societies get scared people die.

Caring is great, but caring comes with a cost and when you ignore that cost...

Why can't people just provide all this "help" for the poor voluntarily? Why do we have to mandate it by law?

To quote P.J O'Rourke:

"There is no virtue in compulsory government charity, and there is no virtue in advocating it. A politician who portrays himself as 'caring' and 'sensitive' because he wants to expand the government's charitable programs is merely saying that he's willing to do good with other people's money. Well, who isn't? And a voter who takes pride in supporting such programs is telling us that he'll do good with his own money--if a gun is held to his head."

TeleKat said:

Why can't people just provide all this "help" for the poor voluntarily? Why do we have to mandate it by law?

To quote P.J O'Rourke:

"There is no virtue in compulsory government charity, and there is no virtue in advocating it. A politician who portrays himself as 'caring' and 'sensitive' because he wants to expand the government's charitable programs is merely saying that he's willing to do good with other people's money. Well, who isn't? And a voter who takes pride in supporting such programs is telling us that he'll do good with his own money--if a gun is held to his head."

Click to expand...

because there exists a scrooge like attitude toward the poor in todays society.

TeleKat said:

Why can't people just provide all this "help" for the poor voluntarily? Why do we have to mandate it by law?

To quote P.J O'Rourke:

"There is no virtue in compulsory government charity, and there is no virtue in advocating it. A politician who portrays himself as 'caring' and 'sensitive' because he wants to expand the government's charitable programs is merely saying that he's willing to do good with other people's money. Well, who isn't? And a voter who takes pride in supporting such programs is telling us that he'll do good with his own money--if a gun is held to his head."

Click to expand...

1) Charity can be inconsistent and often when its needed most, like during times of recession, is when donations are the smallest.

2) Some folks are in certain conditions which charities don't support, or for which relevant charities are not equipped to deal with.

3) You'll never when with an argument that its morally or "virtuously" superior to tax someone less and let someone else go hungry or die than it is to tax them slightly more and give that other person life.

Well you said the federal government, would you be fine with state administration of these services with the federal government acting as central administration?

TeleKat said:

Why can't people just provide all this "help" for the poor voluntarily? Why do we have to mandate it by law?

To quote P.J O'Rourke:

"There is no virtue in compulsory government charity, and there is no virtue in advocating it. A politician who portrays himself as 'caring' and 'sensitive' because he wants to expand the government's charitable programs is merely saying that he's willing to do good with other people's money. Well, who isn't? And a voter who takes pride in supporting such programs is telling us that he'll do good with his own money--if a gun is held to his head."

Click to expand...

Charity would never be able to help as much as government programs can or reach as many people. I doubt a charity would be willing to loan me money and give me thousands in grants to go to university. Universal healthcare is effective for both the poor and wealthy, even the poor have access to the best doctors and specialists. It cuts costs for all and provides access for all.

Carjosse said:

Well you said the federal government, would you be fine with state administration of these services with the federal government acting as central administration?

Click to expand...

No federal involvement. Too much temptation to do something. The feds control the money... hens meet your new guard, mr fox.

Carjosse said:

Charity would never be able to help as much as government programs can or reach as many people. I doubt a charity would be willing to loan me money and give me thousands in grants to go to university. Universal healthcare is effective for both the poor and wealthy, even the poor have access to the best doctors and specialists. It cuts costs for all and provides access for all.

Click to expand...

Oh so what is the spending limit? 17 trillion? 30 trillion? 100 trillion?

TeleKat said:

Why can't people just provide all this "help" for the poor voluntarily? Why do we have to mandate it by law?

Click to expand...

Take a look at our history and poverty rates up until the mid 1940's, and thats why.

MrVicchio said:

When I read comments like "You're selfish" or "The GOP only cares about RICH PEOPLE" or other such commentary when discussing welfare, minwage, the ACA, Medicare or whatever it bugs me.

When you raise the minimum wage, that has to be PAID for. Someone pays that extra wage, and that has a cost. Be it less jobs, lowered profit margins, whatever, there is a cost associated. When you have 49 million people signed up for food stamps, that has a price tag.

When you offer "Cheap healthcare" with a premium, someone else is paying.

Click to expand...

Every such economic manipulation on the part of government has winners and losers—those who are better off because of that act, and those who are worse.

To those on the wrong, those who wind up on the losing side of any such government interference are “greedy” for objecting to the cost imposed on them, to someone else's benefit. They like to paint it as the undeserving wealthy having to pay “their fair share” so that the poor can benefit. As one prominent wrongist put it on this forum…


The reality, of course, is that it isn't wealthy people having to settle for a lesser luxury car. It's the person who wants to work, and cannot find a job, who is “greedy” because he objects to the conditions that left him jobless and unable to support himself and his family, so that a McBurgerFlipper who still lives with his parents can make more than his limited skills are worth.

Ultimately, it's people who are inclined to be depending on government for their support, who benefit, at the expense of those who are more inclined to want to carry their own weight.

The wrong's concern for the poor is exactly as sincere as that which Judas expressed.

Wiseone said:

1) Charity can be inconsistent and often when its needed most, like during times of recession, is when donations are the smallest.

Click to expand...

Yes, that is true. Donations go down, people struggle. What happens when the money runs out at the Federal level? Hmmm?

Wiseone said:

2) Some folks are in certain conditions which charities don't support, or for which relevant charities are not equipped to deal with.

Click to expand...

Name one.

Wiseone said:

3) You'll never when with an argument that its morally or "virtuously" superior to tax someone less and let someone else go hungry or die than it is to tax them slightly more and give that other person life.

Click to expand...

Here Joe, I know you've worked REALLY hard, and you have a family, and dreams and desires, but **** that, Bob needs food so we're gonna give him food. What? Well you can afford, sucks to be you pal.

MrVicchio said:

Yes, that is true. Donations go down, people struggle. What happens when the money runs out at the Federal level? Hmmm?

Name one.

Here Joe, I know you've worked REALLY hard, and you have a family, and dreams and desires, but **** that, Bob needs food so we're gonna give him food. What? Well you can afford, sucks to be you pal.

Click to expand...

That's right. Are you going to argue that its morally superior to let Bob starve on the street rather than take a smidgen from someone who has something to give? I'm perfectly OK with playing a little more in taxes to not live in a country where people starve.

As for the other thing, Social Security pays out over 750 billion a year. Can you name a charity capable of undertaking that task?

Wiseone said:

That's right. Are you going to argue that its morally superior to let Bob starve on the street rather than take a smidgen from someone who has something to give? I'm perfectly OK with playing a little more in taxes to not live in a country where people starve.

As for the other thing, Social Security pays out over 750 billion a year. Can you name a charity capable of undertaking that task?

Click to expand...

A smidgeon here, a smidgeon there, a program this a program that... hey it's only 40% of your income, you still got more then Bob!
Theft, no matter how noble your intent, is still theft Wiseone. Taxes are legalized theft.

Social Security isn't a charity, it's a government enforced ponzi scheme.

Wiseone said:

rather than take a smidgen

Click to expand...

A smidgen? A smidgen??? Half my goddamn paycheck is stolen from me every month!! I'm barely making ends meet, meanwhile I'm getting taxed into oblivion. Tax here, tax there, tax everywhere. My income is taxed, my inheritance is taxed, my food is taxed, my car is taxed, my home is taxed...everything is taxed. So no, it's not a "smidgen." Don't try to play it down!

Can you name a charity capable of undertaking that task?

Click to expand...

No, no I cannot name a charity that makes that much. Want to know why? Because half of everybody's paychecks is stolen from them every month, so at that point...not many people are capable of being charitable or willing to be charitable. Charity would be alot more popular in a society when charity isn't forced at gunpoint.

Are you going to argue that its morally superior to let Bob starve on the street

Click to expand...

Are you going to argue that it is morally superior to take half of my hard-earned paycheck by force and make me give it to another person, rather than allow me the freedom to give to charity on my own terms? Even in times like this, when I'm barely making ends meet and I'm already being forced to be charitable, I still donate time and money to charities. The time and money I give would increase as I actually get to keep more of my income.

I'm perfectly OK with playing a little more in taxes to not live in a country where people starve.

Click to expand...

That's your choice. Not mine, not anyone else's. It's yours, and you don't get to make that choice for me. I don't want to see people starve either, but there are better ways to go about doing that then stealing half my income. You want to help the poor? Go down to the city and buy a homeless man a sandwich. Go volunteer at a womens' shelter. Open up your home to the needy. That's much more honorable and virtuous than spending other people's money.

I always find it amusing to listen to the RWers talk about this. It seems they want a civilization to do buisness in, but dont want to contribute to that society.

Carjosse said:

Well you said the federal government, would you be fine with state administration of these services with the federal government acting as central administration?

Click to expand...

No, we want the government to "administer" - read foul up - as little as possible.

TeleKat said:

A smidgen? A smidgen??? Half my goddamn paycheck is stolen from me every month!! I'm barely making ends meet, meanwhile I'm getting taxed into oblivion. Tax here, tax there, tax everywhere. My income is taxed, my inheritance is taxed, my food is taxed, my car is taxed, my home is taxed...everything is taxed. So no, it's not a "smidgen." Don't try to play it down!



No, no I cannot name a charity that makes that much. Want to know why? Because half of everybody's paychecks is stolen from them every month, so at that point...not many people are capable of being charitable or willing to be charitable. Charity would be alot more popular in a society when charity isn't forced at gunpoint.




Are you going to argue that it is morally superior to take half of my hard-earned paycheck by force and make me give it to another person, rather than allow me the freedom to give to charity on my own terms? Even in times like this, when I'm barely making ends meet and I'm already being forced to be charitable, I still donate time and money to charities. The time and money I give would increase as I actually get to keep more of my income.



That's your choice. Not mine, not anyone else's. It's yours, and you don't get to make that choice for me. I don't want to see people starve either, but there are better ways to go about doing that then stealing half my income. You want to help the poor? Go down to the city and buy a homeless man a sandwich. Go volunteer at a womens' shelter. Open up your home to the needy. That's much more honorable and virtuous than spending other people's money.

Click to expand...

I stopped reading when you said half your paycheck was taken in taxes. Frankly I don't believe you in the slightest, perhaps you wouldn't mind posting a copy of your W2?

MrVicchio said:

A smidgeon here, a smidgeon there, a program this a program that... hey it's only 40% of your income, you still got more then Bob!
Theft, no matter how noble your intent, is still theft Wiseone. Taxes are legalized theft.

Social Security isn't a charity, it's a government enforced ponzi scheme.

Click to expand...

Taxes are a necessary function of government which cannot exist without them, and I don't believe your claim either I'd love to see your W-2 as well

TheDemSocialist said:

Take a look at our history and poverty rates up until the mid 1940's, and thats why.

Click to expand...

you need to update yourself a bit.

Little Bang for the Anti-Poverty Program Buck - NYTimes.com

we have spent almost our entire national debt on anti-poverty programs. the result not much.
in 1965 the poverty rate was 19% today it is 14%. so after 50 years and 13-15 trillion dollars all it got was a 5% drop in the poverty rate.

that is a horrible ROI. so no it really didn't affect the poverty rate that much. in fact if the government would have mailed every person under the poverty rate a check it would have put them above the poverty rate.

the poverty rate is 10k or so. the amount of money spent would be about 14k per person.

mak2 said:

I always find it amusing to listen to the RWers talk about this. It seems they want a civilization to do buisness in, but dont want to contribute to that society.

Click to expand...

Its not about contributing, mak. You epitomize the arrogance to which this thread was created to expose.

What right have you to lay claim to another persons property to give to another person?

Wiseone said:

Taxes are a necessary function of government which cannot exist without them, and I don't believe your claim either I'd love to see your W-2 as well

Click to expand...

I never said I pay 40% Wife and I make 80k a year and pay at that level. Taxes are are nesseccary evil.

Arrogance? really? What should a buisness have to contribute to our socitety? Is it ever appropriate to cut into the profit margin for some societal good?

MrVicchio said:

Its not about contributing, mak. You epitomize the arrogance to which this thread was created to expose.

What right have you to lay claim to another persons property to give to another person?

Click to expand...

TeleKat said:

That's your choice. Not mine, not anyone else's. It's yours, and you don't get to make that choice for me. I don't want to see people starve either, but there are better ways to go about doing that then stealing half my income. You want to help the poor? Go down to the city and buy a homeless man a sandwich. Go volunteer at a womens' shelter. Open up your home to the needy. That's much more honorable and virtuous than spending other people's money.

Click to expand...

That's the thing about the wrong's idea of “charity”. Numerous studies have shown that those on the right are far more genuinely generous about giving of their own accord, from what is rightfully theirs to give, to vagarious charitable causes; than those on the wrong. It puts the lie to the wrong's frequent accusation of those on the right as being “greedy”.

Those on the wrong are frequently inclined to be very “generous” with other people's money, but very stingy with their own. Somehow, they think that this makes them the more virtuous side.

mak2 said:

Arrogance? really? What should a buisness have to contribute to our socitety? Is it ever appropriate to cut into the profit margin for some societal good?

Click to expand...

Businesses contribute by providing jobs, products and investments. You seem to think they owe some greater debt. Why? Class wafare and income envy.

MrVicchio said:

I never said I pay 40% Wife and I make 80k a year and pay at that level. Taxes are are nesseccary evil.

Click to expand...

So you file jointly and pay 40% of your 80K despite being in a 25% tax bracket for just the last 8K of your income?
2013 Tax Brackets | Tax Foundation

**** I should be the one complaining I make 55K a year as a single man and I'm paying the same percentage as you guys, although not this year because I was deployed and rode the taxpayer gravy train to the land of free money and not last year because I wasn't making 55K last year.