Question for Extreme Fiscal Conservatives: What Would Happen If You Got Your Way?

[spidey07]

THis thread is soooo funny.
I know a lot of so called anti government, anti welfare, social fiscal conservatives.
And I can tell you... they are "THE FIRST" to come a runnin with both hands wide open for those government $$$'s when the going gets tough.
They are against abortion, until their little 14 year old gets PG by the boy next door.
Then... they want that abortion. Little Sally cannot have her future jeopardized by the burden of a baby at the age of 14. And what would the neighbors say?

Or that anti government, social conservative family that suddenly finds their kid has a handicap. They have no problem seeking every handout dollar from that hated government, to help raise their handicapped child. All through adulthood by taking government housing assistance and government employment assistance handout available for that handicapped child.

WHen it comes to government welfare and free money, there is no such thing as a social fiscal conservative. Not when some of that free money can be directed their way.
Who is fooling who?

What the hell are you talking about?

That family PAID for insurance. And you are part of the problem - a working man PAID his taxes and if he so happens to need a handout from the government, so be it. He's only getting his money back.

god damn communists are in our country. Destroy them, kill them and defeat them.

 

[Zorkorist]

THis thread is soooo funny.
I know a lot of so called anti government, anti welfare, social fiscal conservatives.
And I can tell you... they are "THE FIRST" to come a runnin with both hands wide open for those government $$$'s when the going gets tough.
They are against abortion, until their little 14 year old gets PG by the boy next door.
Then... they want that abortion. Little Sally cannot have her future jeopardized by the burden of a baby at the age of 14. And what would the neighbors say?

Or that anti government, social conservative family that suddenly finds their kid has a handicap. They have no problem seeking every handout dollar from that hated government, to help raise their handicapped child. All through adulthood by taking government housing assistance and government employment assistance handout available for that handicapped child.

WHen it comes to government welfare and free money, there is no such thing as a social fiscal conservative. Not when some of that free money can be directed their way.
Who is fooling who?

You have a very good point, and that is most humans are weak, and will flock to Government assistance.

This explains Government's popularity.

Ayn Rand's Superman, is the antithesis of this. And it is something we should all strive for; not being weak; not relying on Government but ourselves; and finally, not empowering Government so the next person CAN be weak.

-John

 

[Lithium381]

THis thread is soooo funny.
I know a lot of so called anti government, anti welfare, social fiscal conservatives.
And I can tell you... they are "THE FIRST" to come a runnin with both hands wide open for those government $$$'s when the going gets tough.

I consider myself a social and fiscal conservative and have been fed by the government teat before.... it was temporary during hard times. I'm now on my own and doing fine, never been in jail, pay my mortgage on time and pay taxes.

I think welfare is a GOOD THING when used properly. What I disagree with is people making their entire existence based on handouts. It should not be my responsibility to make someone elses livelihood(through government proxy) when I have my own to worry about. I donate to charities and my church.

Those who have not developed their OWN safety net will be desperate, and desperate people do desperate things. It is their lack of foresight and personal responsibility to prepare for when the SHTF.

 

[jackstar7]

Who causes most violent crime in america?

Weren't we all rather violently sodomized by the financial sector not too long ago? Oh... I bet that doesn't count...

 

[glenn1]

What if all safety nets and all income redistribution were really done away with? Do you think that ALL Americans would be able to feed, clothe and house themselves? If not, what would happen to those Americans? Do you think that charities would help ALL of them?

Compared to many on this board I'm fairly fiscally conservative, but I do think the government should guarantee some very basic things like shelter, food and clothing. Shelter could even be a tent and food could even be military rations. For those that don't support even the most basic safety nets, what do you think will happen to the people at the "bottom" of our society?

You do realize there are middle positions in between keeping the status quo that is bankrupting us, and their complete elimination and moving to social darwinism.

One approach would be to scrap the multiply redundant social net programs in favor of an overall benefit amount that is defined and can be used for any purpose. So instead of qualifying separately for unemployment, food assistance, etc, recipients could get one check to be used for any and all of these purposes. That would allow us to explicitly determine how much we're going to spend on social net programs and budget accordingly.

 

[Lithium381]

Weren't we all rather violently sodomized by the financial sector not too long ago? Oh... I bet that doesn't count...

It may count but not in the scenario we're discussing here. We're talking about when the government goes bankrupt because they can't balance a budget due to their overspending.

The wild-west that liberal states are so scared of when talking about gun legislation will come... the criminals(who weren't supposed to have firearms) will have firearms and no way to sustain themselves except through violence. The law abiding citizens who were hobbled due to constricting gun legislation will be at a disadvantage.

There will be no financial sector in the new era, at least not in its current form. When your dollar is worthless, are you valuable?

 

[Infohawk]

To assume people would starve and be living on the streets butt naked is nothing but FUD.

Really? Have you seen the job market? Do you realize there are old people out there that live on public benefits? Acting like everyone would magically find a job is fairly ridiculous, isn't it?

 

[Infohawk]

You do realize there are middle positions in between keeping the status quo that is bankrupting us

Of course I do. My question is directed at people that think there should be no benefits / safety nets at all.

 

[Infohawk]

Is that what you want to go back to, pre-history? Sure, man "survived then." Is mere survival enough?

And there's no point even comparing to pre-history. We need industrialized agriculture to produce enough food. The current population size is completely dependent on large-scale industrial human cooperation.

infohawk is obviously looking for the "I'm so scared, Government must lead us so we all don't die, answer," and challenging people who believe that Government is not the answer, but the problem.

-John

Why don't you just answer the questions instead of assuming what I want to hear?

 

[Zorkorist]

And there's no point even comparing to pre-history. We need industrialized agriculture to produce enough food. The current population size is completely dependent on large-scale industrial human cooperation.



Why don't you just answer the questions instead of assuming what I want to hear?

I have answered the question, infohawk.

-John

 

[JSt0rm]

You haven't been paying to world events I see.

There will come a time very soon where the haves and have-nots will war. It's all part of the communist in chief's plan. Learn from history and prepare. It's already started.

Learn from history, it's happening all over again. But the last time we believed in country, and now the left has mobilized via a "community organizer" as president.

I'm prepared to survive him, are you?

lolololol. Oh man.

 

[Infohawk]

The people, have easily survived for millenia, without Government.

-John

I have answered the question, infohawk.

-John

That was your answer? First of all, government has also been around for millenia so I'm not sure what kind of anarchic fantasy you're dreaming of. Second, the overall population may have survived, but many individuals perished in the previous millenia before modern industrialization and welfare safety nets. Are you conceding that many individuals would perish or did you have something else in mind that you could expand on.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Reg: They've bled us white, the bastards. They've taken everything we had, not just from us, from our fathers and from our fathers' fathers.
Stan: And from our fathers' fathers' fathers.
Reg: Yes.
Stan: And from our fathers' fathers' fathers' fathers.
Reg: All right, Stan. Don't labour the point. And what have they ever given us in return?
Xerxes: The aqueduct.
Reg: Oh yeah, yeah they gave us that. Yeah. That's true.
Masked Activist: And the sanitation!
Stan: Oh yes... sanitation, Reg, you remember what the city used to be like.
Reg: All right, I'll grant you that the aqueduct and the sanitation are two things that the Romans have done...
Matthias: And the roads...
Reg: (sharply) Well yes obviously the roads... the roads go without saying. But apart from the aqueduct, the sanitation and the roads...
Another Masked Activist: Irrigation...
Other Masked Voices: Medicine... Education... Health...
Reg: Yes... all right, fair enough...
Activist Near Front: And the wine...
Omnes: Oh yes! True!
Francis: Yeah. That's something we'd really miss if the Romans left, Reg.
Masked Activist at Back: Public baths!
Stan: And it's safe to walk in the streets at night now.
Francis: Yes, they certainly know how to keep order... (general nodding)... let's face it, they're the only ones who could in a place like this.

(more general murmurs of agreement)
Reg: All right... all right... but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans done for us?
Xerxes: Brought peace!
Reg: (very angry, he's not having a good meeting at all) What!? Oh... (scornfully) Peace, yes... shut up!

 

[Zorkorist]

But at what cost?

All's dandy, when you can enslave men, and tax them to hell and back.

Throw the black men in Jail, for smoking a joint.

Abolish Nuclear industry, because the coal and oil industry say to.

Tax the rich, and anybody with means, and five it to the poor.

Make sure everyone buys insurance, so they are poor when someone they know needs help.

When you need help, het in line at the 'ospital.

Not Hospital!

'ospital!

Take two Red Forms, and throw the second one out.

Sign the first, in triplicate, and raise it over your head ('ed)

This way you get prompt medical attention.

And now, for something completely different...

-John

 

[Mursilis]

Of course I do. My question is directed at people that think there should be no benefits / safety nets at all.

I have no problem with having a "safety net" - but it should be PAID for. People who advocate for more benefits for the poor rarely want to provide those benefits with their OWN money. Don't pretend to be some sort of humanitarian by forcing others to borrow money just so you can take it, give it away, and declare yourself better than the rest.

 

[Red Dawn]

What the hell are you talking about?

That family PAID for insurance. And you are part of the problem - a working man PAID his taxes and if he so happens to need a handout from the government, so be it. He's only getting his money back.

god damn communists are in our country. Destroy them, kill them and defeat them.

You're just chomping at the bit to kill someone, face it.

 

[Atreus21]

Just to be clear, do you think that under your reforms nobody would need to be homeless, hungry, dirty? Or do you concede that some people would be fucked anyway?

Some people are going to be fucked regardless of the system.

The way I look at it, fiscal conservatives ask themselves the question, "Who plans for whom?" There answer is, or should be, "One should plan for himself."

Capitalism has some hard edges that sometimes have to be smoothed out with with non-market actions, but I think those are exceptions to the rule.

 

[Macamus Prime]

Most of the posters on these forums want the "bottom" part to suffer. They hope something comes along and wipes them all out. They are banking on the rich squeezing the bottom until it pops.

Even though these posters themselves are human trash, they somehow got into their diseased mind that they are better.

Sorry, you are trash - plain and simple. Don't flatter yourselves thinking you are somehow better; an inbred bloodline, missing teeth and racist fears aren't something to be proud of.

 

[Atreus21]

Most of the posters on these forums want the "bottom" part to suffer. They hope something comes along and wipes them all out. They are banking on the rich squeezing the bottom until it pops.

Even though these posters themselves are human trash, they somehow got into their diseased mind that they are better somehow.

Sorry, you are trash - plain and simple. Don't flatter yourselves thinking you are somehow better; an inbred bloodline, missing teeth and racist fears aren't something to be proud of.

You should talk to a counselor.

 

[jackstar7]

Taxation != slavery

 

[Mursilis]

Most of the posters on these forums want the "bottom" part to suffer. They hope something comes along and wipes them all out. They are banking on the rich squeezing the bottom until it pops.

Even though these posters themselves are human trash, they somehow got into their diseased mind that they are better.

Sorry, you are trash - plain and simple. Don't flatter yourselves thinking you are somehow better; an inbred bloodline, missing teeth and racist fears aren't something to be proud of.

Someone's clearly projecting.

 

[brencat]

Most of the posters on these forums want the "bottom" part to suffer. They hope something comes along and wipes them all out. They are banking on the rich squeezing the bottom until it pops.

We want nothing of the kind. The solution as always is somewhere in the middle. If people want unsustainable handouts and safety nets as they are now, then we need to have an intelligent conversation about what it will cost in terms of taxation. If we're not prepared to pay those taxes or even talk about it, then those entitlements need to be scaled back to a level that is acceptable.

I am willing to pay *reasonable* taxes so that we can have civilization. But too much taxation and a bloated inefficient wasteful bureaucratic government is more than some of us fiscal conservatives bargained for. I am NOT looking for the complete dismantling of our social safety nets, anarchy, and the resultant zombie apocalypse that would follow.

 

[Acanthus]

I'm an extreme fiscal conservative, and yeah, I advocate getting rid of pretty much all welfare. I'm not for doing it overnight though, things need to be phased out to let people plan for things. I'm not for throwing people on the street tomorrow.

I give to charity and would give a lot more if I wasn't taxed so heavily and knew that people didn't have government welfare to take care of them. I feel much better and more confident knowing I'm giving it to a charity than I do the government.

I also hold the view that with a smaller government and less interventions and taxes that the economy as a whole would be a lot more productive overall and we'd be more wealthy, there would be more jobs and they would pay more and we'd have less of a need for welfare overall. There also wouldn't be the people who don't really need welfare but take it and abuse the system and ruin it for everyone else. I also believe its more moral for people to help others voluntarily than for the government to come in, take your money forcefully, and redistribute it to others.

Anyway, I know the resident libs will go bonkers at me for saying this. But that's my view on welfare.

I would like to see a study on how much money in the SS and various welfare systems actually gets to helping people vs how much does in private charities. It would be an interesting way to quantify which ideology is more correct on this point of efficiency.

On your second point. I think we can concede that most people are not moral in their actions. I don't want to put words in your mouth, however.

 

[Acanthus]

We want nothing of the kind. The solution as always is somewhere in the middle. If people want unsustainable handouts and safety nets as they are now, then we need to have an intelligent conversation about what it will cost in terms of taxation. If we're not prepared to pay those taxes or even talk about it, then those entitlements need to be scaled back to a level that is acceptable.

I am willing to pay *reasonable* taxes so that we can have civilization. But too much taxation and a bloated inefficient wasteful bureaucratic government is more than some of us fiscal conservatives bargained for. I am NOT looking for the complete dismantling of our social safety nets, anarchy, and the resultant zombie apocalypse that would follow.

We are taking the lowest share from the populous in the modern history of the US. What is reasonable taxation?

 

[KGB]

Here's what will really blow your mind. Every single one of my co-workers (upper middle class consultants) thinks exactly like I do and have been prep'ing as well. Your views are the extreme minority of this nation.

NOPE!

Your views are merely the majority of your cubicle.