I have a nazi-like idea in regard to mooches

[ricechickie]

Worth it, though.

Oh......ummm, sure.

 

[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

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!

I don't disagree with closing tax loopholes, but what you're missing is that they're not in the red if you take away their loopholes. Necessarily. You're not taxed on losses.

So what that means is, take away the loopholes and they aren't magically in loss of their income and magically need the hypothetical camp.

 

[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!"

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?

a LOT of people are day laborers who work day to day at different jobs and do just fine without being a full time emplpoyee

 

[G.T.]

kids are def worth it.

found out 3 days ago #2's a coming

 

[Skylar]

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.

No, I'm being quite accurate. You're demanding we criminalize poverty, where a person who doesn't have enough food to eat be put into internment camps for indefinite incarceration without trial.....if they get any form of public welfare.

Like say, food.

That's horrid. And quite unconstitutional.

As the collection of public benefits isn't a criminal act, nor could be rationally construed as one. Worse, your proposal mandates indefinite incarceration if they don't comply with your narrow release requirements. And that too is unconstitutional. A crime must come with a specific term of punishment.

 

[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?

a LOT of people are day laborers who work day to day at different jobs and do just fine without being a full time emplpoyee

that would be fine

 

[g5000]

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.

Untrue. Recipients of Social Security, Medicare, and Unemployment transfer payments have paid taxes.

Romney got his ass burned hard for making the exact same mistake you just did.

And "tax expenditure" is a very specific term. Just because you do not know that does not make it Orwellian.

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

That's exactly what I want. Ban all tax expenditures. Get rid of $1.2 trillion of mooching. Presto! Automatic budget surplus!

But I guess throwing the poor into camps would be more fun...

 

[boilermaker55]

But we do notice that the mooches of using tax expenditures was off your list.

So if you want to take advantage of one of the government's social behavioral programs like a tax deduction, credit, or exemption you should go to a camp?

I like it!

People who use tax expenditures are mooching $1.2 trillion off the country.

Nobody has to go.

This is a social compact.

If you are taking away money from my paycheck by force to sustain your life while you do nothing to improve your situation voluntarily, then either I get my money back - or - you're forced to work towards supporting yourself.

It's hardly that extreme, it's just nuanced.

 

[ricechickie]

kids are def worth it.

found out 3 days ago #2's a coming

Congratulations!

I was kidding.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

kids are def worth it.

found out 3 days ago #2's a coming

congrats, I have 5 myself D

 

[G.T.]

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.
[/quyote]

No, I'm being quite accurate. You're demanding we criminalize poverty, where a person who doesn't have enough food to eat be put into internment camps for indefinite incarceration without trial.....if they get any form of public welfare.

Like say, food.

That's horrid. And quite unconstitutional.

As the collection of public benefits isn't a criminal act, nor could be rationally construed as one. Worse, your proposal mandates indefinite incarceration if they don't comply with your narrow release requirements. And that too is unconstitutional. A crime must come with a specific term of punishment.

no.

Again, here, you conflate criminalizing poverty with criminalizing taking advantage of other people to sustain yourself while capable.

two very different things, and it's dishonest to continue to conflate the two so................keep huffing away if you must but you aren't saying anything.

 

[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.

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?

No, he's living in a cave. Haven't you met BuggerReb?

 

[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.

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

Its possible. Its also possible that we've had this debate before and you've already shown me your hold cards. And I've paid closer attention to your sources than you have.

Why don't you show us your sources for the 1.2 trillion in expenditures and we'll see how accurate my claims are. I think you'll find that my posts match the reality of your sources quite nicely.

 

[g5000]

A mooch is a mooch is a mooch.

We can ban all tax expenditures, lower tax rates, and pay down the debt.

But where's the fun in that when you can throw the poor into concentration camps instead!

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

No, he's living in a cave. Haven't you met BuggerReb?

The threads are a lot easier to follow if everyone cuts quotes, as I just did here.

 

[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?

No, he's living in a cave. Haven't you met BuggerReb?

I guess I just dunno where's there's free land for the taking anymore here in the US

if I knew, mebbe I'd stake some out mebbe maybe mebbe

 

[G.T.]

A mooch is a mooch is a mooch.

We can ban all tax expenditures, lower tax rates, and pay down the debt.

But where's the fun in that when you can throw the poor into concentration camps instead!

this is disingenuous

there is no concentration camp

there is free food and shelter in return for working towards getting yourself ready to sustain your own food and shelter

hyperbole isn't an argument, cmon dude.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

What about the kids? You're gonna leave them living in a camp or take them away from their parents?

So no consideration of "the best interest of the child" to consider here, just just the two choices you offer. When mothers are overwhelmed do you suggest, just propping them up indefinitely?? What happens when the best interest of the child / children conflicts with those choices??

Poor people don't suffer enough

If we don't make them suffer they will not want to stop being poor

Great talking point, no one wants to see anyone suffer, got any idea's as far as incentives to get them off assistance?? Like finding them jobs, getting them educated for jobs they currently can not do or showing them ways to become mores self sufficient!!

So if you want to take advantage of one of the government's social behavioral programs like a tax deduction, credit, or exemption you should go to a camp?

I like it!

People who use tax expenditures are mooching $1.2 trillion off the country.

Yeah, those fucking students and all those pell grants. And all those children getting money for food and housing. And how about medical care for these kids? Can you believe it?

WWJD indeed.

Our state has HOPE grants, the state lottery pay's for it and a multitude of other educational programs available to all .................
Pell
Grant's, seriously, you do not know much about PELL grants do you??

Think you can't afford college?
Think again. There could be many options out there to help you pay for college, if you qualify. We've listed some of them below to help you get started in the research process.

• Grants are awarded by the government and private organizations to help eligible students pay for school.
• Scholarships are given out by the government or by private companies. Your grades, heritage, religious affiliation, and other factors will help you qualify for these.
• Student loans are offered by the U.S. government. You can pay these back in very low, interest-free monthly payments.

Eligible students, would imply that they had to excel in grades or have shown a significant amount of knowledge about a particular subject that stood them out from others .................
Statistics say if you are black, you most likely will have problems here ........ the norm, not the exception.

Might want to check out those requirements, unless it is to meet racial quota's then the other categories will preclude most of black ethnicity.

Pay em back, ROFLMMFAO .........................

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.

Interesting. If France had it, would the revolution have happened?

We are not talking about France, this is America, totally different country............

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.

No we send em to Detroit or Chicago, one of the big urban disaster that they have already ruined, not much more damage they can do there ...............

 

[G.T.]

So far, to recap the thread:

The only person who engaged me from an honest place was Ravi.
Everyone else mischaracterized the idea and went on tirades against their mischaracterization.

The idea is not to punish anyone who is poor. We would help the poor as we do now: food and shelter, except the food would be healthier and the shelter would be safer, as most of the poor's shelter now is in crime habitat USA.

Further, the only people who lose in this scenario are:

those ABLE but UNWILLING TO work to get off of said assistance. <--and every word in said quote means something, so by conflating it by removing some of those words only bastardizes the whole conversation and it's engaging in futile talking past people for kicks.

 

[Skylar]

no.

Again, here, you conflate criminalizing poverty with criminalizing taking advantage of other people to sustain yourself while capable.

Poverty incorporates both the able bodied and the non-able bodied. As does hunger. That you criminalize hunger and poverty if a able bodied person uses government assistance to meet the needs of either is awful. Neither is a crime, rationally or by any semblance of our laws. And your proposal is more extreme than debtors prison, a concept so contrary to our legal system that its been anathema for approaching 2 centuries.

And you'd not only meet it....you'd *exceed it*. With vast 'internment camps' to house the 'criminal poor'.

Worse, indefinite incarceration is explicitly unconstitutional. There must be a term of punishment. 'Until you do what I say' isn't it. Your entire proposal is layers of hideously awful and blatantly unconstitutional.

Ignore as you will. I doubt the American people would if such a proposal were seriously contemplated. And the courts certainly wouldn't.