By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - Blindness to being dependent on the government...

kain_kusanagi on 21 March 2013
richardhutnik said:
kain_kusanagi said:
richardhutnik said:
kain_kusanagi said:
richardhutnik said:

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?

 

I really don't understand how anyone can view working for the government the same as receiving Welfare. Working for the government is no different than working for a private company. You clock in, do a job, get a check. Same as any job. If you think the government should employ less people, join the club. But the truth is that people working for the government are taxpaying contributors to society. Welfare slugs don't do anything but hold their hand out.

I'm a small government type of person. I work for county government, but I think the federal government is too big and takes too much control from local government. There is a HUGE difference between the monster that is federal government and accountable/transparent local government. There's waste in all government, but the feds make city and county government look flat out frugal. I don't want the government making up jobs just to get people work. I want the government to shrink. It's better that the government outsource to your brother's company. I'd rather the government build up defense to maintain security than take over health care.

Should the government pay for your brother's company's defense contract? I don't know. That's not really something I can assess. Maybe it's important and your brother's company can do it better, faster and cheaper than the government can. I do believe that defense and security are two of the primary purposes of the US Government.

If your brother lost his job I'm sure he could find another. It might not have anything to do with weapon systems, but there are a lot of jobs out there and technical skills are useful in most of them. But that doesn't really matter in this discussion. What matters is that the government, for whatever reason, decided to outsource and your brother's company is doing the work. It's cheaper for the government and it is better for the economy.


From an economic viewpoint, and that of people, welfare and government employers have a similar impact.  Both involve a centralized entity acting as a force to change the outcome of markets.  In both cases, there is a taking of money out of the economy and reallocated in way that wasn't governed by individual wallets.  One can debate whether or not this is good or needed, but in both cases, it is there.  The only apparent debate is whether or not the recipients of the tax dollars (or borrowed money) are "worthy" of getting the money.  The big bruhaha in this thread is that individuals getting welfare are seen as "unworthy" because they didn't earn it and the government employees, and contractors supposedly did.  In both cases though, the individuals who originally had the money had no say in both individuals getting the money.  The only differents is a degree of resentment at welfare recipients not earning it.  To this, go ahead and propose makeshift work for the recipients of welfare to do, to get the money and go ahead and see how many people actually would support that who are complaining about the welfare recipients not getting it.  The issue really isn't whether or not they deserve it, but rather that reality that tax dollars took people's money and reallocated it to places people object.  And this reallocation is what my brother objects about.   He is upset his social security tax cut stimulus is over, and also upset that government money isn't going his way, but to other programs, like the department of energy.

What's your beef with government? I want my tax money to go to defense. I don't want it going to 3rd generation welfare slugs. I want it going to police and prisons. I don't want it going to social medicine. What do you want? Your brother seems very reasonable, but I'm not seeing where you're coming from.

My beef?  He is the one with the beef.  He wants everything cut but what he wants, which is defense, because he lives on it.  And other people want other thingd dismantled.  The end result was the sequester, where he gets gets hit to the place where he is going to possibly not make it.

So we can go with what you want.  Bring back debtor's prison.  Take every single third generation welfare slug and throw them in prison, or hire more police to beat them into getting some work.  Maybe they can go clean windshields or something for tips.

The reality is this, the United States spends FAR more on military than every other nation, usually to protect the interests of multinational corporations, and rich and elite so they don't take a bath financially.  Anyone who ends up really being for smaller government also wants the government shrunk also wants the militaary shrunk, military bases closed, and stop doing interventionalism, and getting U.S troops killed or disabled and in need of welfare.

It seems quite reasonable to you, because an American empire is your government program of choice.  For others, it is the arts, or science or research, or education, or whatever.  So long as what is big is what matches your values, it is in line with good spending.  When it isn't, it is pork.

Your low opinion of the motives of the US Government shapes your world view and my opinion shapes mine. Your brother and I agree. Defense, police, prison to me is not pork.  You and have polar opposite views of what this country should be. I think that's about as far as our discussion can go at this point. I now understand where you are comming from and you understand me. But we aren't going be able to pull each other in the other direction.



Around the Network
richardhutnik on 21 March 2013
kain_kusanagi said:
richardhutnik said:
kain_kusanagi said:
richardhutnik said:
kain_kusanagi said:
richardhutnik said:

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?

 

I really don't understand how anyone can view working for the government the same as receiving Welfare. Working for the government is no different than working for a private company. You clock in, do a job, get a check. Same as any job. If you think the government should employ less people, join the club. But the truth is that people working for the government are taxpaying contributors to society. Welfare slugs don't do anything but hold their hand out.

I'm a small government type of person. I work for county government, but I think the federal government is too big and takes too much control from local government. There is a HUGE difference between the monster that is federal government and accountable/transparent local government. There's waste in all government, but the feds make city and county government look flat out frugal. I don't want the government making up jobs just to get people work. I want the government to shrink. It's better that the government outsource to your brother's company. I'd rather the government build up defense to maintain security than take over health care.

Should the government pay for your brother's company's defense contract? I don't know. That's not really something I can assess. Maybe it's important and your brother's company can do it better, faster and cheaper than the government can. I do believe that defense and security are two of the primary purposes of the US Government.

If your brother lost his job I'm sure he could find another. It might not have anything to do with weapon systems, but there are a lot of jobs out there and technical skills are useful in most of them. But that doesn't really matter in this discussion. What matters is that the government, for whatever reason, decided to outsource and your brother's company is doing the work. It's cheaper for the government and it is better for the economy.


From an economic viewpoint, and that of people, welfare and government employers have a similar impact.  Both involve a centralized entity acting as a force to change the outcome of markets.  In both cases, there is a taking of money out of the economy and reallocated in way that wasn't governed by individual wallets.  One can debate whether or not this is good or needed, but in both cases, it is there.  The only apparent debate is whether or not the recipients of the tax dollars (or borrowed money) are "worthy" of getting the money.  The big bruhaha in this thread is that individuals getting welfare are seen as "unworthy" because they didn't earn it and the government employees, and contractors supposedly did.  In both cases though, the individuals who originally had the money had no say in both individuals getting the money.  The only differents is a degree of resentment at welfare recipients not earning it.  To this, go ahead and propose makeshift work for the recipients of welfare to do, to get the money and go ahead and see how many people actually would support that who are complaining about the welfare recipients not getting it.  The issue really isn't whether or not they deserve it, but rather that reality that tax dollars took people's money and reallocated it to places people object.  And this reallocation is what my brother objects about.   He is upset his social security tax cut stimulus is over, and also upset that government money isn't going his way, but to other programs, like the department of energy.

What's your beef with government? I want my tax money to go to defense. I don't want it going to 3rd generation welfare slugs. I want it going to police and prisons. I don't want it going to social medicine. What do you want? Your brother seems very reasonable, but I'm not seeing where you're coming from.

My beef?  He is the one with the beef.  He wants everything cut but what he wants, which is defense, because he lives on it.  And other people want other thingd dismantled.  The end result was the sequester, where he gets gets hit to the place where he is going to possibly not make it.

So we can go with what you want.  Bring back debtor's prison.  Take every single third generation welfare slug and throw them in prison, or hire more police to beat them into getting some work.  Maybe they can go clean windshields or something for tips.

The reality is this, the United States spends FAR more on military than every other nation, usually to protect the interests of multinational corporations, and rich and elite so they don't take a bath financially.  Anyone who ends up really being for smaller government also wants the government shrunk also wants the militaary shrunk, military bases closed, and stop doing interventionalism, and getting U.S troops killed or disabled and in need of welfare.

It seems quite reasonable to you, because an American empire is your government program of choice.  For others, it is the arts, or science or research, or education, or whatever.  So long as what is big is what matches your values, it is in line with good spending.  When it isn't, it is pork.

Your low opinion of the motives of the US Government shapes your world view and my opinion shapes mine. Your brother and I agree. Defense, police, prison to me is not pork.  You and have polar opposite views of what this country should be. I think that's about as far as our discussion can go at this point. I now understand where you are comming from and you understand me. But we aren't going be able to pull each other in the other direction.

You are seriously saying there is NO pork in the defense department budget?  Congressmen voted for weapons systems the military didn't want, because it brought jobs to their district.  "War" is a term used political, and "national defense' also, to pass any sort of large scale federal initative that is wanted to be done.  The wars on poverty, drugs, and terror were done to justify this agenda or that.  Note the word, "War".  Eisenhower got the national highway bill past siting national defense.  It isn't that, in theory, defense, and so on, aren't needed, but the reality that they are used to hide pork, even more than other things.  It is a bit like how "climate change" (was global warming) is a label used for all eco-friendly folks to attack fossil fuels and past agendas to get green technology funded.

The thing is that, there is nothing intrinsically magical that makes one government service more or less incompetent and others, unless the said service is underfunded and doesn't draw in the best of the best.  The same government that brings the VA also is involved with Social Security.

My view is there are things government needs to do, but it would be preferable that citizens pick up the slack and do it, rather than let problems fester and then demand the government bail them out. 



richardhutnik on 21 March 2013
snyps said:
richardhutnik said:
snyps said:

@richardhutnik: Your right I was totally unclear. Let me be more specific if I can.

To your first question. How to bell the cat? Any person(s) that wants to stop paying taxes must vote for candidates with records of ending taxation in some form agreeable to them. All the while still obeying the tax code. I know this will not guarantee a bell on the cat but it is all I can do. Spread an Idea. If ppl don't take to it then they certainly deserve the government they have.


To your concern over absolute freedom I say; “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.”

So what I advocate is that police and sheriffs volunteer. With paid expenses paid for with the smallest tax possible. That goes for all govt employees. Im willing to serve in the state senate without pay ( and I have a BS degree). I believe a government of volunteers would attract public servants with an interest in public good. Not bureaucrats. But again. I fail to find a solution to accomplish this outside of simply voting for candidates that refuse pay/pensions/benefits. There are others like me and we are growing. The Idea is out there and it's spreading :D

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.



i just wanted to say i agree with you. it meets a demand. “The Founders warned that a free society depends on a virtuous and moral people. The current crisis reflects that their concerns were justified.” I have run for a position in my county party. And I intend to run for state assembly or senate next election. I've only been aware of the founders true intent for about a year.

In human nature there is this destructionist bent that believes, somehow, if you tear something down, then magically everything will be put back together.  Occupy wanted to tear down the economic and political system, and not sure what to replace it with.  I speak from I believe anyone who wants to have things better, needs to go out there and do it.  On that note, I see very few that do.  I know I have a lot of issues and fail to see anyone stepping up.  

All I can say is good luck with it. So long as people are dependent, they won't vote their masters out, if they need them.



johnsobas on 21 March 2013
Mummelmann said:
johnsobas said:
come on, defense is the one thing that everyone can agree the government should be doing.


Defense against what, exactly? I never understood that, when was the US invaded by an enemy or even threatened by any army? The only thing I see is a massive military that goes preemptively into other countries, bombs them to smitherines and leaves them in ruins with no infrastructure, governing organs, funds or future, only contempt and poverty. Oh, and asks that NATO helps pick up the bill and try to stabilize the region afterwards.

War is bleeding the US dry, war is costly, read up on some English and French history and see how utterly depleted even the richest nations can become by waging war on everyone and everything.

i agree with you, i didn't  say they should be invading other countries.  Defense is one of the only thing the constitution gives to the federal government to do.  We do need a strong defense, but just that, a defense.



currently playing: Skyward Sword, Mario Sunshine, Xenoblade Chronicles X

richardhutnik on 21 March 2013
johnsobas said:
Mummelmann said:
johnsobas said:
come on, defense is the one thing that everyone can agree the government should be doing.


Defense against what, exactly? I never understood that, when was the US invaded by an enemy or even threatened by any army? The only thing I see is a massive military that goes preemptively into other countries, bombs them to smitherines and leaves them in ruins with no infrastructure, governing organs, funds or future, only contempt and poverty. Oh, and asks that NATO helps pick up the bill and try to stabilize the region afterwards.

War is bleeding the US dry, war is costly, read up on some English and French history and see how utterly depleted even the richest nations can become by waging war on everyone and everything.

i agree with you, i didn't  say they should be invading other countries.  Defense is one of the only thing the constitution gives to the federal government to do.  We do need a strong defense, but just that, a defense.

Actually there are a number of things the Federal Government does besides defense.  It regulates interstate commerce, whis has been used a LOT to increase the scope of the Federal Government's role in the UNited States.  And the elastic clauses enables the Federal Government of the United States to get into a lot of different things.  

Also derived from national defense is the idea of protection.  This can, as time go on, get fairly broad.  The said "War on terror" started, because despite having the world's premier military, individuals hijacked some plane with box cutters and flew them into buildings with symbolic value. 

You an see what is in mind for the U.S Constitution by looking at the Preamble:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.