What is a person entitled to demand having for free - paid for by other people working for them?

[perthbum]

115 think he should get help, 45 say he gets nothing....shame on the 45

 

[The Mark]

As the Democrats now engage in picking between candidates who promise the most free stuff - meaning forcing other people work for them - what do you claim a person can demand other people buy for them?

MULTIPLE CHOICE POLL - check everything that you claim other people can demand you buy for them.

Now, see, the way this question is worded I wondered if you were talking about what an employer should be able to expect his workers to provide for free.

But no, you're just playing the old bull**** song about how democrats want to give stuff away for free.

It's still bull****.


Now, I don't know about other democrats, but the ones I support want to do things like:

Subsidize public college so people can get educated without ending up horribly in debt. Obviously the money for that comes from somewhere, but the benefits to the society as a whole (more trained people) offset the costs.

Provide health care to everyone in the country free of charge at the point of use - obviously the money for that has to come from somewhere, and it will definitely in part be taxes we have to pay, but the elimination of the stress involved in thinking about whether you can afford to stay healthy vs. eat or some such will be good for everyone, beyond even everyone actually being able to get the healthcare they need.

I actually don't know about free housing policy or whatever, but IMO it makes sense to provide basic housing to people who cannot afford anything else, so long as it is combined with a system that allows and supports those same people getting back on their metaphorical feet and to a place where they don't need it. Certainly better than having people homeless.


These kind of things benefit everyone, even those who pay taxes but don't directly need the benefits those taxes pay for.

 

[perthbum]

Now, see, the way this question is worded I wondered if you were talking about what an employer should be able to expect his workers to provide for free.

But no, you're just playing the old bull**** song about how democrats want to give stuff away for free.

It's still bull****.


Now, I don't know about other democrats, but the ones I support want to do things like:

Subsidize public college so people can get educated without ending up horribly in debt. Obviously the money for that comes from somewhere, but the benefits to the society as a whole (more trained people) offset the costs.

Provide health care to everyone in the country free of charge at the point of use - obviously the money for that has to come from somewhere, and it will definitely in part be taxes we have to pay, but the elimination of the stress involved in thinking about whether you can afford to stay healthy vs. eat or some such will be good for everyone, beyond even everyone actually being able to get the healthcare they need.

I actually don't know about free housing policy or whatever, but IMO it makes sense to provide basic housing to people who cannot afford anything else, so long as it is combined with a system that allows and supports those same people getting back on their metaphorical feet and to a place where they don't need it. Certainly better than having people homeless.


These kind of things benefit everyone, even those who pay taxes but don't directly need the benefits those taxes pay for.

Such a stupid worded poll, the poster obviously hates anyone getting any benefits even if they are paralyzed from the waist down.

 

[concernedpuma]

Such a stupid worded poll, the poster obviously hates anyone getting any benefits even if they are paralyzed from the waist down.

Did you mean to say pollster? The pollster didn't bring forward the question from Hell to which you are reacting.. No one is suggesting that responsible and fellow humans would walk away from one paralyzed from the waist, or neck down. You seem to have wanted a reply from those who do, but you won't find it here!
Regards,
CP

 

[perthbum]

Did you mean to say pollster? The pollster didn't bring forward the question from Hell to which you are reacting.. No one is suggesting that responsible and fellow humans would walk away from one paralyzed from the waist, or neck down. You seem to have wanted a reply from those who do, but you won't find it here!
Regards,
CP

Come on, look at the poll "What is a person entitled to demand having for free - paid for by other people working for them?" straight away its obvious he hates people claiming anything. anyway glad to see 112 think they should get benefits while only 45 believe they should get nothing.

 

[RogueWarrior]

Would it not be easier just to ask all the CEOs for the answer instead of us guessing what their answers will be?

 

[What if...?]

Anything they would be forced to steal for their own survival if they couldn't obtain it via legitimate means and any basic investment that they would need to make them more productive in the long run.

The saying goes that it takes money to make money. If you are living in abject poverty then you lack the capital necessary to invest in yourself and make yourself more productive. Even if your situation is somewhat the result of your own choices, there is no benefit to society in leaving anyone in desperation. Desperate people resort to desperate measures.

I suggest you educate yourself on the concept of a Nash Equilibrium. It is a fundamental concept in economics. It's sort of like an economic version of a Catch-22, and often times once people find themselves stuck in a bad equilibrium it can be ridiculously difficult to get out now matter how good of choices you make. It is in the best interest of any society to keep people from falling into them and to help those that have get out.

But, of course we all know that you have no interest whatsoever in the free education we're offering you here today. Even though it would be in the best interest of society as a whole to learn something new we all know you'd much rather remain ignorant and hateful so instead I'll ask you this...

I notice that you left Security off the list. Why? Why can I be forced to pay for someone else's security? I would love to see fewer police on the streets and a much smaller military yet I have to watch my hard earned money taken out of my paycheck every week so that rich assholes never have to worry about coming home to a group of homeless people taking over their home by force.

Conservatives lost me completely when the details of what they mean by "small government"became clear:l.

They mean just the amount of government that protects our wealthy from the poor and foreigners and enforces contracts on those poor people.

If that's all they want then I say lets just do no government at all and let natural selection sort it out.

Because the folks who sqwawk most loudly about "law of the jungle" when talking about business and the economy are the first to call the cops for help when the "jungle" shows up on their doorstep.

 

[Fenton]

Democrats are the party of the working class. Democrats are in favor of labor unions. Democrats argue for increasing minimum wage and holding big corporations accountable for their actions. It is the Republicans who promote trickle down economics which benefits the rich at the expense of the working class. It is Republicans who seek to eliminate workers' unions and regulations that protect the working man from exploitation. Your consumption of right wing propaganda has twisted your understanding of the U.S. political parties.

Lol.....no, they may have been at once time, but they've abandoned the working class and the middle class in favor of platitudes and identity politics.

How does open borders help the " working class " or Unions for that matter ?
How does a carbon tax help the working class and how does exponentially driving up the cost of energy through global warming initiaves like the new Green deal help the working class ?

The Democratic party are regresssives and the biggest threat to the middle class in the Country

 

[What if...?]

What a bunch of drivel. Police protect my family and I. Being forced to pay for your dinner doesn't.

Why should I pay to protect you and your family?

What if i feel I don't need their protection? (I don't, by the way)

 

[Fenton]

Conservatives lost me completely when the details of what they mean by "small government"became clear:l.

They mean just the amount of government that protects our wealthy from the poor and foreigners and enforces contracts on those poor people.

If that's all they want then I say lets just do no government at all and let natural selection sort it out.

Because the folks who sqwawk most loudly about "law of the jungle" when talking about business and the economy are the first to call the cops for help when the "jungle" shows up on their doorstep.

Not really. We believe in “limited government,” where the power of the government to intervene in the lives and activities of the people is limited by constitutional law.

I

 

[What if...?]

Nothing I posted indicates me requiring her to do anything.

Tell me why I should have to work and the money goes to her children rather than my own?

She made herself a single mother, not I. It was her decision to have children. Her life and her children are her problem. My children and my life are my problem.

And if you die like her husband did? What of your wife and kids then?

 

[What if...?]

Not really. We believe in “limited government,” where the power of the government to intervene in the lives and activities of the people is limited by constitutional law.

I

That sounds good, if you don't think about it.

What do you propose the government be limited to doing? If its just defense, the police and the courts then my point still stands.

 

[Fenton]

That sounds good, if you don't think about it.

What do you propose the government be limited to doing? If its just defense, the police and the courts then my point still stands.

So the Constitution sounds great if you don't give it too much thought ?

So does " Free Healthcare," " Free College ", " a living wage ", and a " job guarantee "
All that's sounds peachy until you devote even the tiniest amount of thought and logic to it.

Fist, many of the options listed in the pole would increase the size of the Federal Govt exponentially.

Second, none of those things are " free ". Someone pays for them and it's not the Govt.

Third the Govt cannot guarantee you or anyone else a damned thing.

Focusing on the jobs guarantee, a jobs guarantee would transform the labor market in the US. It would force employers in the private sector to raise wages and benefits or risk losing workers to a Govt run program that offers full benefits and a higher hourly wage that's not based on a workers production, education or experience

Those cost would be shifted to consumer's of-course, who along with businesses and corporations would be paying higher taxes fund the stupid jobs guarantee program

It would crowd out private investment and stifle innovation and productivity, and would force capital and jobs out of the US

It is typically Left wing Progressive pablum proposed by people ( AOC and Bernie Sanders ) who have no concept of how a market economy functions, which means they have no idea how their agenda would impact the US economy.

 

[lwf]

Lol.....no, they may have been at once time, but they've abandoned the working class and the middle class in favor of platitudes and identity politics.

How does open borders help the " working class " or Unions for that matter ?
How does a carbon tax help the working class and how does exponentially driving up the cost of energy through global warming initiaves like the new Green deal help the working class ?

The Democratic party are regresssives and the biggest threat to the middle class in the Country

The Democratic Party is for stronger border security. The Republican Party is for weakening border security by wasting money on a physical wall when that money would be better spent on the men and women of CBP.

Driving up the cost of harmful energy sources makes clean energy competitive in the market, which ultimately drives down the true costs of energy down the road. The Democrats who support a carbon tax are ones who can see further down the road than the next election cycle. For the past decade or so Republicans have been on their heels and think they can't afford to look beyond the next win at any cost. Donald Trump is a case in point. All they can do is fan the flames of fear and hatred. Republicans have defined identity politics and regressive politics in the last two and a half years, and conservative economic policies like deregulation and tax cuts for the rich shrink the middle class and balloon the deficit and the poor population by default. Economists have known this since the Great Depression.

It is telling that even when they control the Executive Branch, the Judicial Branch, and half the Legislative Branch, the Republicans still resort to identity politics and still plan only how they're going to scrape the next win out of the disaster that has become the Republican Party. This is the flailing of a dying party so dysfunctional and so far removed from anything even remotely responsible at this point that it is not even able to take advantage of a win. My observation is that modern day Democrat policies have the future of the country and the middle class in mind, whereas Republican policies are concerned with nothing more than the immediate future of the party and the lining of their own pockets. Republican policies by and large are nothing more than empty promises meant to trick the uneducated into handing them a win so that rich lobbyists can scratch the backs of dishonest Republican legislators.

 

[concernedpuma]

So the Constitution sounds great if you don't give it too much thought ?

So does " Free Healthcare," " Free College ", " a living wage ", and a " job guarantee "
All that's sounds peachy until you devote even the tiniest amount of thought and logic to it.

Fist, many of the options listed in the pole would increase the size of the Federal Govt exponentially.

Second, none of those things are " free ". Someone pays for them and it's not the Govt.

Third the Govt cannot guarantee you or anyone else a damned thing.

Focusing on the jobs guarantee, a jobs guarantee would transform the labor market in the US. It would force employers in the private sector to raise wages and benefits or risk losing workers to a Govt run program that offers full benefits and a higher hourly wage that's not based on a workers production, education or experience

Those cost would be shifted to consumer's of-course, who along with businesses and corporations would be paying higher taxes fund the stupid jobs guarantee program

It would crowd out private investment and stifle innovation and productivity, and would force capital and jobs out of the US

It is typically Left wing Progressive pablum proposed by people ( AOC and Bernie Sanders ) who have no concept of how a market economy functions, which means they have no idea how their agenda would impact the US economy.

Does it strike you as somehow odd, as it does me, that those who would destroy our unique nation somehow imbue themselves with the innocent sounding mantle of Progressive? Progressive, progress toward what? The best they could hope to be called is half baked, lay down-rollover, sit Buddhist. For the life of me, I just can't understand why they won't evolve to the 21srt century. What is really curious to me, is that most of them embrace evolution(particularly if given the chance to attack Theists). To my understanding, evolution favors the strong. It seems they have a choice to make, don't they?
Regards,
CP

 

[SMTA]

As the Democrats now engage in picking between candidates who promise the most free stuff - meaning forcing other people work for them - what do you claim a person can demand other people buy for them?

MULTIPLE CHOICE POLL - check everything that you claim other people can demand you buy for them.

Even more posting stupidity.
Nothing is paid for by other people who work for them.
Figure how real life works before posting such garbage.

 

[concernedpuma]

Even more posting stupidity.
Nothing is paid for by other people who work for them.
Figure how real life works before posting such garbage.

JOKO is 100% correct. How can you reply in such a fashion, unless you have a Money Genie? From where do you see the magic funds coming? Money, as you should know, is a paper exchange for labor or can be interest paid for using someone else's labor.
Real life? Try it. It isn't all that bad, if you understand the rules.
Regards,
CP

 

[Wayne Jr]

Per the 1st Amendment, you're entitled to demand whatever you want. That doesn't mean you're entitled to what you're demanding, only that you have a right to demand it. Free speech includes stupid demands.

 

[concernedpuma]

The Democratic Party is for stronger border security. The Republican Party is for weakening border security by wasting money on a physical wall when that money would be better spent on the men and women of CBP.

Driving up the cost of harmful energy sources makes clean energy competitive in the market, which ultimately drives down the true costs of energy down the road. The Democrats who support a carbon tax are ones who can see further down the road than the next election cycle. For the past decade or so Republicans have been on their heels and think they can't afford to look beyond the next win at any cost. Donald Trump is a case in point. All they can do is fan the flames of fear and hatred. Republicans have defined identity politics and regressive politics in the last two and a half years, and conservative economic policies like deregulation and tax cuts for the rich shrink the middle class and balloon the deficit and the poor population by default. Economists have known this since the Great Depression.

It is telling that even when they control the Executive Branch, the Judicial Branch, and half the Legislative Branch, the Republicans still resort to identity politics and still plan only how they're going to scrape the next win out of the disaster that has become the Republican Party. This is the flailing of a dying party so dysfunctional and so far removed from anything even remotely responsible at this point that it is not even able to take advantage of a win. My observation is that modern day Democrat policies have the future of the country and the middle class in mind, whereas Republican policies are concerned with nothing more than the immediate future of the party and the lining of their own pockets. Republican policies by and large are nothing more than empty promises meant to trick the uneducated into handing them a win so that rich lobbyists can scratch the backs of dishonest Republican legislators.

HAHAHA good one! Oh, sorry. You were trying to be serious, weren't you? Well, it was funny anyway!!!!
Do you not see a contradiction between being Libertarian, and left? Perhaps, you should check out the Libertarian agenda, before claiming to be so.
Regards,
CP

 

[lwf]

HAHAHA good one! Oh, sorry. You were trying to be serious, weren't you? Well, it was funny anyway!!!!
Do you not see a contradiction between being Libertarian, and left? Perhaps, you should check out the Libertarian agenda, before claiming to be so.
Regards,
CP

No. I am libertarian on social issues, (in favor of 2nd amendment rights for instance) but tend left on economic issues (I do not falsely equate social security with socialism.)

I like my tax dollars to go to protecting the those of us without the resources to protect themselves, and I dislike laws against activity that victimizes no one.

 

[concernedpuma]

No. I am libertarian on social issues, (in favor of 2nd amendment rights for instance) but tend left on economic issues (I do not falsely equate social security with socialism.)

I like my tax dollars to go to protecting the those of us without the resources to protect themselves, and I dislike laws against activity that victimizes no one.

Not to labor a point, but your views confuse me. I agree with much of what you have written, but being Libertarian left is a bit like being a little bit pregnant.
I believe you are more conservative, or moderate than Libertarian. Being conservative allows for acceptance of social change, and no disrespect intended to Libertarian's, I don't think they are on board with very many social programs. They tend to be socially isolationist. At least that has been my observation.
Again, no disrespect intended and open to a better definition of Libertarian from one who truly is.
Regards,
CP

 

[lwf]

Not to labor a point, but your views confuse me. I agree with much of what you have written, but being Libertarian left is a bit like being a little bit pregnant.
I believe you are more conservative, or moderate than Libertarian. Being conservative allows for acceptance of social change, and no disrespect intended to Libertarian's, I don't think they are on board with very many social programs. They tend to be socially isolationist. At least that has been my observation.
Again, no disrespect intended and open to a better definition of Libertarian from one who truly is.
Regards,
CP

I don't know that I am a true Libertarian. My views don't confuse me, but deciding what to put under my "Lean" certainly does. My views have always been my own. I've never been the type to adjust my views according to what political theory I agree most with. Rather, I try to find a political theory that most resembles my own views. At this point, Libertarian seems to be closest at least when it comes to social and criminal issues. I'm pro-choice, pro-LGBTQ rights, pro-second amendment, and against legislating morality.

I suppose liberal comes the closest to my economic views. I believe it is the responsibility of the federal (and state) government to carefully regulate the economy: I believe there is such a thing as an economy growing too fast. This inevitably results in a cycle of unsustainable growth followed by deep, damaging depressions. This cycle results from laissez-faire free-market capitalism, and is great when it's growing, and deadly when it collapses. Most industries should be free market, but not all industries should be. The healthcare industry is one that I don't think should be for-profit. I think the government should use regulations and taxes to control the growth rate of the economy in order to keep it sustainable and avoid those bubbles that eventually must burst. (The healthcare industry is a bubble on the verge of bursting, and I feel that we as a people will share in the responsibility for the horrific consequences that will result from capitalism in the healthcare industry.) I also believe the government should use those taxes and powers of regulation to ensure a safety net for the poor and provide the unemployed with training that will make them contributing members of society. Those unable to contribute should be well taken care of.

I agree with certain views expressed by both liberals and conservatives. I also have strong disagreements with certain views expressed by both liberals and conservatives. I'm not sure where I fall on the spectrum, but I feel that neither a label of "liberal" nor a label of "conservative" would not adequately capture my lean. Because of the above reasons, I landed on "Libertarian - Left." I suppose "right leaning liberal" wouldn't be any further from the mark either. I think most centrists would view my views on the economy as too left of center to call me a centrist or a moderate.

 

[concernedpuma]

I don't know that I am a true Libertarian. My views don't confuse me, but deciding what to put under my "Lean" certainly does. My views have always been my own. I've never been the type to adjust my views according to what political theory I agree most with. Rather, I try to find a political theory that most resembles my own views. At this point, Libertarian seems to be closest at least when it comes to social and criminal issues. I'm pro-choice, pro-LGBTQ rights, pro-second amendment, and against legislating morality.

I suppose liberal comes the closest to my economic views. I believe it is the responsibility of the federal (and state) government to carefully regulate the economy: I believe there is such a thing as an economy growing too fast. This inevitably results in a cycle of unsustainable growth followed by deep, damaging depressions. This cycle results from laissez-faire free-market capitalism, and is great when it's growing, and deadly when it collapses. Most industries should be free market, but not all industries should be. The healthcare industry is one that I don't think should be for-profit. I think the government should use regulations and taxes to control the growth rate of the economy in order to keep it sustainable and avoid those bubbles that eventually must burst. (The healthcare industry is a bubble on the verge of bursting, and I feel that we as a people will share in the responsibility for the horrific consequences that will result from capitalism in the healthcare industry.) I also believe the government should use those taxes and powers of regulation to ensure a safety net for the poor and provide the unemployed with training that will make them contributing members of society. Those unable to contribute should be well taken care of.

I agree with certain views expressed by both liberals and conservatives. I also have strong disagreements with certain views expressed by both liberals and conservatives. I'm not sure where I fall on the spectrum, but I feel that a label of "liberal" and a label of "conservative" would not adequately capture my lean. Because of the above reasons, I landed on "Libertarian - Left."

Your reply is certainly encouraging, Thank you for your reply.
Labels are hard to wear, but based on your writing...maybe I am Librarian left! I find no fault with your reasoning at all. You friend, to my way of thinking, are a true American being! The day we can't be what you describe as yourself, will indeed be a dark day.
Reason not mantra!

Regards,
CP