I have a nazi-like idea in regard to mooches

[Ravi]

The welfare state is a natural component of capitalism. Welfare payments provide a means of dampening worker outrage when wealth becomes concentrated into the hands of owners/masters. Without welfare, you get revolution.

Providing a place to live and eat is not an elimination of welfare, just a change in the way it's implemented to further incentivize those who "like" that way of living now, thus exacerbate themselves as being a problem, raising kids who become criminals............kill ppl, end up supported in prison, etc etc

There's a horrible cycle going on right now and nobody is offering solutions except "throw money at it!"

Who will run the camps? Private companies? My goodness, look at all the problems we have with privately owned prisons now.

I don't disagree, and I'm not sure who would run the camps. I also think they'd need their own constitutions so that the intention is never side-stepped as a power grab.

The only way you're kept - is this:

you showed up to the camp for gov't assistance with eating and housing
you are able to work or go to school in order to work towards supporting yourself
you do not

you can always leave once you do that, as well. no time limit on standing up

So you can just check in and live out your entire life there being fed, clothed, and housed?

the food isn't pleasant.

but yes.

and no.

you cant check out unless youre working towards sustaining yourself. otherwise, you were negligent with other people's money and you don't / shouldn't possess the right to be.

Not grasping why you'd want to do that. If they checked out without being able to sustain themselves they'd no longer be getting welfare, correct? Seems to me that would be one of your end goals.

 

[ricechickie]

Or applying the OP's logic of 'moochers' consistently.

Are we including those public school-using moochers?

 

[G.T.]

The welfare state is a natural component of capitalism. Welfare payments provide a means of dampening worker outrage when wealth becomes concentrated into the hands of owners/masters. Without welfare, you get revolution.

Providing a place to live and eat is not an elimination of welfare, just a change in the way it's implemented to further incentivize those who "like" that way of living now, thus exacerbate themselves as being a problem, raising kids who become criminals............kill ppl, end up supported in prison, etc etc

There's a horrible cycle going on right now and nobody is offering solutions except "throw money at it!"

Who will run the camps? Private companies? My goodness, look at all the problems we have with privately owned prisons now.

I don't disagree, and I'm not sure who would run the camps. I also think they'd need their own constitutions so that the intention is never side-stepped as a power grab.

The only way you're kept - is this:

you showed up to the camp for gov't assistance with eating and housing
you are able to work or go to school in order to work towards supporting yourself
you do not

you can always leave once you do that, as well. no time limit on standing up

So you can just check in and live out your entire life there being fed, clothed, and housed?

the food isn't pleasant.

but yes.

and no.

you cant check out unless youre working towards sustaining yourself. otherwise, you were negligent with other people's money and you don't / shouldn't possess the right to be.

Not grasping why you'd want to do that. If they checked out without being able to sustain themselves they'd no longer be getting welfare, correct? Seems to me that would be one of your end goals.

first off, thanks for having an honest conversation about a very hypothetical fucking 45 second idea that I had.

god damn some people are hard headed




anyhoo - the idea is that poverty leads to crime
if you leave before you can support your life, legally, what are you going to do? crime or die.

 

[Ravi]

A mooch is a mooch is a mooch. Whether he is collecting a mortgage interest deduction or an Obamaphone from the government.

No exceptions!

This is very true. Why don't renters get to right off a portion of their rent like owners do? Why do children count as deductions but dogs do not?

oh come on.... dogs?

you're smarter than GT, don't get involved in his shenanigans.

As a liberal what did you think of MY suggestion

Which suggestion in particular? Listen, it has been shown that dogs (and other pets) are a great help to depressed people and the elderly. Medicinal you could say. So in a way it would make more sense for pets to be tax deducible than it is to have children tax deductible.

 

[G.T.]

Or applying the OP's logic of 'moochers' consistently.

Are we including those public school-using moochers?

no, he was conflating two very different things: people who use tax loopholes, and people who are sustained in their entirety by welfare

 

[Ravi]

The welfare state is a natural component of capitalism. Welfare payments provide a means of dampening worker outrage when wealth becomes concentrated into the hands of owners/masters. Without welfare, you get revolution.

Providing a place to live and eat is not an elimination of welfare, just a change in the way it's implemented to further incentivize those who "like" that way of living now, thus exacerbate themselves as being a problem, raising kids who become criminals............kill ppl, end up supported in prison, etc etc

There's a horrible cycle going on right now and nobody is offering solutions except "throw money at it!"

Who will run the camps? Private companies? My goodness, look at all the problems we have with privately owned prisons now.

I don't disagree, and I'm not sure who would run the camps. I also think they'd need their own constitutions so that the intention is never side-stepped as a power grab.

The only way you're kept - is this:

you showed up to the camp for gov't assistance with eating and housing
you are able to work or go to school in order to work towards supporting yourself
you do not

you can always leave once you do that, as well. no time limit on standing up

So you can just check in and live out your entire life there being fed, clothed, and housed?

the food isn't pleasant.

but yes.

and no.

you cant check out unless youre working towards sustaining yourself. otherwise, you were negligent with other people's money and you don't / shouldn't possess the right to be.

Not grasping why you'd want to do that. If they checked out without being able to sustain themselves they'd no longer be getting welfare, correct? Seems to me that would be one of your end goals.

first off, thanks for having an honest conversation about a very hypothetical fucking 45 second idea that I had.

god damn some people are hard headed




anyhoo - the idea is that poverty leads to crime
if you leave before you can support your life, legally, what are you going to do? crime or die.

Or be a hill billy. Some people can actually support themselves without steady jobs or welfare.

And, da nada! I always like these hypothetical scenarios.

 

[g5000]

A mooch is a mooch is a mooch. Whether he is collecting a mortgage interest deduction or an Obamaphone from the government.

No exceptions!

You are either trolling or trapped in a warped moral relativism bubble.

Sorry, but tax expenditures account for $1.2 trillion a year. That is some SERIOUS mooching! You won't be able to top it. Those people sucking on that tit make food stamp people look like pikers.

So, yeah, moral relativism. Exactly. Only not the way you thought!

 

[Skylar]

In my opinion, it should be a new crime and written into law. Living off of Taxpayer money while able, and choosing not to, seek your own sustainability.

To me it is already criminal morally, and should be civilly.

So you're officially criminalizing poverty. And being poor isn't a crime morally. Damn, every major religion on earth lauds alms to the poor. Even Jesus took a side on this one.

Nope.

Being poor isn't the crime detailed above.

That's a step beyond debtors prison, as you're convicting them of criminal violations before they've even worked up a debt. And that's been outlaws in the US for centuries....and for very good reason.

And yes, you're criminalizing poverty. You're making it a crime for a person who doesn't have enough food to eat to get food. With an indefinite period of incarceration and no trial.

Its just an awful idea.

 

[Ravi]

off topic, but how do you follow a thread. I make a post and I seem to get thrown all over the thread and end up reading everyone's post twice.

 

[G.T.]

The welfare state is a natural component of capitalism. Welfare payments provide a means of dampening worker outrage when wealth becomes concentrated into the hands of owners/masters. Without welfare, you get revolution.

Providing a place to live and eat is not an elimination of welfare, just a change in the way it's implemented to further incentivize those who "like" that way of living now, thus exacerbate themselves as being a problem, raising kids who become criminals............kill ppl, end up supported in prison, etc etc

There's a horrible cycle going on right now and nobody is offering solutions except "throw money at it!"

Who will run the camps? Private companies? My goodness, look at all the problems we have with privately owned prisons now.

I don't disagree, and I'm not sure who would run the camps. I also think they'd need their own constitutions so that the intention is never side-stepped as a power grab.

The only way you're kept - is this:

you showed up to the camp for gov't assistance with eating and housing
you are able to work or go to school in order to work towards supporting yourself
you do not

you can always leave once you do that, as well. no time limit on standing up

So you can just check in and live out your entire life there being fed, clothed, and housed?

the food isn't pleasant.

but yes.

and no.

you cant check out unless youre working towards sustaining yourself. otherwise, you were negligent with other people's money and you don't / shouldn't possess the right to be.

Not grasping why you'd want to do that. If they checked out without being able to sustain themselves they'd no longer be getting welfare, correct? Seems to me that would be one of your end goals.

first off, thanks for having an honest conversation about a very hypothetical fucking 45 second idea that I had.

god damn some people are hard headed




anyhoo - the idea is that poverty leads to crime
if you leave before you can support your life, legally, what are you going to do? crime or die.

Or be a hill billy. Some people can actually support themselves without steady jobs or welfare.

And, da nada! I always like these hypothetical scenarios.

Then those ppl don't apply -

but in those scenarios, how are property taxes sustained? just asking...

 

[ricechickie]

Which suggestion in particular? Listen, it has been shown that dogs (and other pets) are a great help to depressed people and the elderly. Medicinal you could say. So in a way it would make more sense for pets to be tax deducible than it is to have children tax deductible.

Yeah, children are a drain on one's health!

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

The welfare state is a natural component of capitalism. Welfare payments provide a means of dampening worker outrage when wealth becomes concentrated into the hands of owners/masters. Without welfare, you get revolution.

Providing a place to live and eat is not an elimination of welfare, just a change in the way it's implemented to further incentivize those who "like" that way of living now, thus exacerbate themselves as being a problem, raising kids who become criminals............kill ppl, end up supported in prison, etc etc

There's a horrible cycle going on right now and nobody is offering solutions except "throw money at it!"

I have solution, and it's an easy one. Give every adult American a check for $30,000 every year. If they want to do better in life, they can work and earn more. With all of that new cash being spent in the economy, I guarantee you that there will be plenty of new jobs. ALSO, this well help solve the coming crisis of technological elimination of jobs requiring human labor.

Take the emotion out of it, and this might be the most logical plan of all.

I mean first, think about it, how much money would be be saved by eliminating ALL government subsidy programs? I mean EVERYTHING. You have to factor in outright payments as well as expenses, plus the government could sell all the excess equipment and buildings and get rid of thousands and thousands of government jobs.

Second, EVERY job would be filled by a person who WANTS to work, not people who work cuz they have to.

I would make it $50K to every HOUSEHOLD though. If you need more than that b/c you have twelve kids or whatever, WORK. That's it. $50K.

I could get behind that.

Oh, and a national sales tax, 10% to pay for it.

 

[Ravi]

The welfare state is a natural component of capitalism. Welfare payments provide a means of dampening worker outrage when wealth becomes concentrated into the hands of owners/masters. Without welfare, you get revolution.

Providing a place to live and eat is not an elimination of welfare, just a change in the way it's implemented to further incentivize those who "like" that way of living now, thus exacerbate themselves as being a problem, raising kids who become criminals............kill ppl, end up supported in prison, etc etc

There's a horrible cycle going on right now and nobody is offering solutions except "throw money at it!"

Who will run the camps? Private companies? My goodness, look at all the problems we have with privately owned prisons now.

I don't disagree, and I'm not sure who would run the camps. I also think they'd need their own constitutions so that the intention is never side-stepped as a power grab.

The only way you're kept - is this:

you showed up to the camp for gov't assistance with eating and housing
you are able to work or go to school in order to work towards supporting yourself
you do not

you can always leave once you do that, as well. no time limit on standing up

So you can just check in and live out your entire life there being fed, clothed, and housed?

the food isn't pleasant.

but yes.

and no.

you cant check out unless youre working towards sustaining yourself. otherwise, you were negligent with other people's money and you don't / shouldn't possess the right to be.

Not grasping why you'd want to do that. If they checked out without being able to sustain themselves they'd no longer be getting welfare, correct? Seems to me that would be one of your end goals.

first off, thanks for having an honest conversation about a very hypothetical fucking 45 second idea that I had.

god damn some people are hard headed




anyhoo - the idea is that poverty leads to crime
if you leave before you can support your life, legally, what are you going to do? crime or die.

Or be a hill billy. Some people can actually support themselves without steady jobs or welfare.

And, da nada! I always like these hypothetical scenarios.

Then those ppl don't apply -

but in those scenarios, how are property taxes sustained? just asking...

By the millions of people that buy property.

 

[Ravi]

Which suggestion in particular? Listen, it has been shown that dogs (and other pets) are a great help to depressed people and the elderly. Medicinal you could say. So in a way it would make more sense for pets to be tax deducible than it is to have children tax deductible.

Yeah, children are a drain on one's health!

Worth it, though.

 

[G.T.]

In my opinion, it should be a new crime and written into law. Living off of Taxpayer money while able, and choosing not to, seek your own sustainability.

To me it is already criminal morally, and should be civilly.

So you're officially criminalizing poverty. And being poor isn't a crime morally. Damn, every major religion on earth lauds alms to the poor. Even Jesus took a side on this one.

Nope.

Being poor isn't the crime detailed above.

That's a step beyond debtors prison, as you're convicting them of criminal violations before they've even worked up a debt. And that's been outlaws in the US for centuries....and for very good reason.

And yes, you're criminalizing poverty. You're making it a crime for a person who doesn't have enough food to eat to get food. With an indefinite period of incarceration and no trial.

Its just an awful idea.

No, you're mischaracterizing.

Which is the only way criminalizing being a leech has "holes" in it.

You are conflating poor with poor, using assistance, and able but refusing to support yourself. That's disingenuous, I'll stop responding to you and it will be all the same if you're going to try and talk PAST what I've actually said. That's a waste of my time, thnx.

 

[Skylar]

Sure you

A mooch is a mooch is a mooch. Whether he is collecting a mortgage interest deduction or an Obamaphone from the government.

No exceptions!

You are either trolling or trapped in a warped moral relativism bubble.

Sorry, but tax expenditures account for $1.2 trillion a year. That is some SERIOUS mooching! You won't be able to top it.

You have to combined the totals of programs as diverse as Earned Income Tax Credits and Medicaid, Pell Grants and WIC to get your numbers. Dozens and dozens of disparate programs.

I only have to add 2: Defense and Medicare. Or Medicare and Social Security. Or Social Security and Defense.

 

[g5000]

Or applying the OP's logic of 'moochers' consistently.

Are we including those public school-using moochers?

no, he was conflating two very different things: people who use tax loopholes, and people who are sustained in their entirety by welfare

A mooch is a mooch is a mooch.

The tax expenditure moochers are extorting $1.2 TRILLION every year. I guess you must be one of them sucking on that tit, eh?

No exceptions!

 

[G.T.]

The welfare state is a natural component of capitalism. Welfare payments provide a means of dampening worker outrage when wealth becomes concentrated into the hands of owners/masters. Without welfare, you get revolution.

Providing a place to live and eat is not an elimination of welfare, just a change in the way it's implemented to further incentivize those who "like" that way of living now, thus exacerbate themselves as being a problem, raising kids who become criminals............kill ppl, end up supported in prison, etc etc

There's a horrible cycle going on right now and nobody is offering solutions except "throw money at it!"

Who will run the camps? Private companies? My goodness, look at all the problems we have with privately owned prisons now.

I don't disagree, and I'm not sure who would run the camps. I also think they'd need their own constitutions so that the intention is never side-stepped as a power grab.

The only way you're kept - is this:

you showed up to the camp for gov't assistance with eating and housing
you are able to work or go to school in order to work towards supporting yourself
you do not

you can always leave once you do that, as well. no time limit on standing up

So you can just check in and live out your entire life there being fed, clothed, and housed?

the food isn't pleasant.

but yes.

and no.

you cant check out unless youre working towards sustaining yourself. otherwise, you were negligent with other people's money and you don't / shouldn't possess the right to be.

Not grasping why you'd want to do that. If they checked out without being able to sustain themselves they'd no longer be getting welfare, correct? Seems to me that would be one of your end goals.

first off, thanks for having an honest conversation about a very hypothetical fucking 45 second idea that I had.

god damn some people are hard headed




anyhoo - the idea is that poverty leads to crime
if you leave before you can support your life, legally, what are you going to do? crime or die.

Or be a hill billy. Some people can actually support themselves without steady jobs or welfare.

And, da nada! I always like these hypothetical scenarios.

Then those ppl don't apply -

but in those scenarios, how are property taxes sustained? just asking...

By the millions of people that buy property.

I'm saying for the hillbilly who lives without a job.

Is he living somewhere rent free?

How's he pay rent? How's he pay property tax? School tax?

 

[boedicca]

A mooch is a mooch is a mooch. Whether he is collecting a mortgage interest deduction or an Obamaphone from the government.

No exceptions!

You are either trolling or trapped in a warped moral relativism bubble.

Sorry, but tax expenditures account for $1.2 trillion a year. That is some SERIOUS mooching! You won't be able to top it. Those people sucking on that tit make food stamp people look like pikers.

So, yeah, moral relativism. Exactly.

Tax Expenditures are Big Government Orwellian Speak. The only true "tax expenditures" are transfer payments in which the government sends checks to people who have paid no taxes.

If you want to get rid of deductions to adjust taxable income, fine. Lower the rates and simplify the tax code.

 

[g5000]

Sure you

A mooch is a mooch is a mooch. Whether he is collecting a mortgage interest deduction or an Obamaphone from the government.

No exceptions!

You are either trolling or trapped in a warped moral relativism bubble.

Sorry, but tax expenditures account for $1.2 trillion a year. That is some SERIOUS mooching! You won't be able to top it.

You have to combined the totals of programs as diverse as Earned Income Tax Credits and Medicaid, Pell Grants and WIC to get your numbers.

Nope. You have no idea what tax expenditures are, do you.