Also.... yeah working for the government is a lot different then welfare. To suggest they're the same is just silly.

That's like complaining that your brother gets an allowance from your dad for doing nothing, while your doing all the chores in the house and get paid. Agree or disagree I really don't see anything hypocritical for being mad that one guy is getting money for doing nothing. (Even if it's less.)

I feel for how awkward that must make your conversations with your bother considering your past experience but i think your just venting out of frustration and making a connection that isn't really there.


I will say though... if there was anything that made me more "Pro small government" it was working for the government. The kind of waste that was there was tremendous. We'd sit around for hours getting paid $15 an hour... because they were ordered to keep people working even when they didn't have any of the paperwork essential for the job. At the end of the Census we'd be handed two forms. Get one form filled and it counts as a 4 hour day. Get 2 filled and it counts as an 8 hour day.

There isn't any incentive to save money so they actually go out of there way to spend it.

Of course... i'd actually argue there is nothing hypocritical in being against welfare... even if you receive it.

It's just be stupid NOT to. After all, that money is spent anyway, if you don't take it, it will just be given to someone else.

It's the same reason it's stupid for anti-spending congressmen to not get any pork projects. That money is going to be spent anyway... why punish your people short term, because they're responsible? Best Case scenario, eventually you get majorities to stop wasteful spending and the end result is, your guys got less short term spending for longer.

Worst case scenario when everybody is forced to pay up do to the default... your people are less well off because you stopped gouging when everyone else kept gouging and dragged everyone else downards.

It's the same reason green advocates are stupid when they propose special fuel blends and fuel taxes and coal taxes, that energy just gets spent out of state and out of country. Increasing pollution.

You are no closer to stopping global warming, which requires a global solution, and you've slowed down your own economy until either such a solution is reached or we hit the tipping point feeback loop.

The only thing you get from not partaking in these things is a pointless sense of pride for not contributing to the problem... that was unstoppable and going to happen anyway.

You just slapped every single Public sector worker in the face by referring to them as welfare recipients. I really have nothing to contribute as a result of such an attack on roughly 8% of the population of the US.

You should probably get a clue in the meantime.

Belling the cat is an expression saying that an idea sounds awesome, but no one has an answer for.  If you can come up with a solution, that is great.  Pretty much here, sure get mass people to do it, but individually, it isn't going to happen.  If most people don't object to paying taxes, or end up getting benefits and need government (see social security), then it isn't going to happen.  If you feel that strongly about this issue, then run for government and be the candidate who believes there should be no taxes.  See how far you can get.  Unless you can show the way to it, it isn't going to happen.  Or go find one of those candidates and work on the campaign.  The issue is that congress people get elected based on the pork they bring back to their districts.  And the issue ends up being a shiny object people say they will vote for rhetorically, but the reality is that people live on the pork from Washington.  Almost nothing in Washington, unless is is manpower overhead, is not spending of some sort to address some concerns of some individuals or interest group.  In short, it meets a demand.

Well, people don't want to pay for work for them to do, and pay them even more money to offset the added costs, if the job market doesn't provide any.  WPA is a political no-no.  So, end result is that the said individuals end up having to do welfare.  The work is not there.  Well, you do have requirements like in NY state that DO have work requirements, or treating work like a full time job.  In NY state, they want people to apply to 40+ jobs a week LOCALLY, and have like at least 10 I believe actually get contact names of managers.

In regards to government employees, or defense contractors, there isn't much else they can do if the cuts come down.  They are to specialized to find work in other sectors.  My brother would have a seriously hard time finding work elsewhere.  Considering how much under water he is now, trying to do what I do now, with a family, and factor in no health coverage, he would be seriously out of luck.  In short, he is dependent on government.  Being dependent doesn't mean you don't have requirements to meet.  The thing is you have no choice BUT to meet those requirements.

He is throwing stones in a glass house.  He depends ojn tax dollars, and wants smaller government.  That is the issue here.  And he wants it done selectively, in ways he doesn't get hurt.  That is what everyone in his situation is in, and the end result is he gets hurt.  The other was is the sequester.  For him, he doesn't see any waste with the military, or really any where he is.  He wants less regulations (aka, less oversight) and believes that will result in less costs.  

There is a political reality, even seen in corporate life, that any cuts won;'t be applied smartly.  People don't live anywhere or rewarded for making smart cuts. Cuts mean less resources.  So, it comes across the board, and end result is that you get affected by it, as he does.  Pretty much the game in large organizations is to load up on pork as much as you can, grow large, and then have surplus if the axe falls.

Pretty much, if you make a living off of serving in government, and your life depends on it, your railing such a way, results in yourself getting hurt.  Unless  there are values of people to make it otherwise, to readjust, you get what had happened now, and you get hurt.  But you continue to support such policies also that hurt you.

As for the parent analogy, in bith cases you are dependent.  You don't have freedom.  So, is the idea that we have a very large government that gives everyone jobs and runs things?  So, we can make it not welfare by having it so that people do work, and there is oversight and managers to make sure people do what they have to do?  Isn't the point to run smaller government?  How can you have smaller government, when you don't say the issue is spending itself, but add conditions like, "Well, so long as the person works for the money, it is ok and not dependence on the government!"

The short: Would  Libertarian support people being employees of government, and working jobs as an answer to government being too big?

They are dependent on the government to give them work.  Being dependent on one's employer, and getting affected by budget cuts to the government, is dependency.  I said they are dependent.  Welfare recipients are also.  

And the attacks on government workers and their pensions and so on, is showing that they do get equated with welfare recipients:

http://www.newrepublic.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/76884/why-your-fireman-has-better-pension-you

In this argument, it is intrinsically seen as government workers being worse than those in the private sector, because government structure intrinsically makes the quality of work worse.

You missed my point. You said your brother is on the government dole. He is not. Welfare is being on the government dole. Working for the government is no different than working for a private company. Working means you earn your money. Being on the government dole means you get welfare for NOT contributing to society. Sure there are legit reasons for people to be temporarily on welfare, but that's not the issue. You say your brother complains about those on the dole while being on the dole. That's just not the case.

Good luck translating work for a government  defense contractor into any other sector out there.  He is going to have a very hard time of it, if his specialization is into designing weapons systems and that work isn't available, due to budget cuts.  His livelihood is dependent upon tax dollars.

In regards to the use of the word "dole" in the original post, I was using the term as receiving of tax dollars in some form.  The current definition is usually seen as different than that.  Pardon my using a non-standard definition.  If you were to go Libertarian, excess spending on weapons systems that is not needed, and pork brought back to districts would be seen as a form of dole.  

So, I want to focus on the main issue here.  Is everyone in favor of the government employing people to do marginally important tasks, if doing such means an increase in number of government employees, so that such payments aren't see as unearned handouts?  Is the issue that people don't actually work that is the problem, or is it one of redistribution of income by means of government bureaucrats to where they feel is necessary?  And if the government is creating makeshift work for people, to get their money, does that then mean that the people receiving the money aren't dependent on it?  Does dependency suddenly go away when people actually do something in exchange for the payout?

If anything they should keep the social programs and cut the military. I would be in support of a government take over of health care completely.  The government should assume control of all drug companies.  There shouldn't be profit in human health services.  I wonder why USA healthcare system sucks so bad and is so overpriced?  Seems like the "free" market doesn't do shit when it comes to health care costs.  USA has one of the highest health care costs out of any nation with a shitload of people that can't afford basic dental and health care.  I view the health industry in the same light as the cable companies in USA.  Monopoly/Oligopoly system that screws over the consumer.

Some might be like oh why you calling for complete government take over of health care?  It will just turn out to be shitty, blah blah blah....  Guess what?  I haven't been to a doctor in over a decade (besides my appendectomy which I paid for the surgeon, MRI, pathologist but not hospital stay which was 20k for one night)...  Health insurance is way too overpriced in USA.

Explain to me how after paying for surgeon, MRI, pathologist the bill still comes out to 20k for a one night stay in a hospital after an appendectomy.