Why don't conservatives force their representatives to give up their socialized benefits?

[9ball8]

Yeah, let's find out how the founding fathers felt about forcing people to pay taxes. Link: http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyame...tones/whiskey/
Yep, it looks like they were willing to kill a few folks who didn't want to pay taxes on stuff they sold, which obviously equates to paying taxes on part of their income.

Libertarians, line up your principles. If a shopkeeper has a right to conduct his business, so does government. Sometimes that means coercing freeloaders who refuse to cough up for services and products they use. The argument is whether to pay for stupid government tricks, not whether to pay anything at all.

[Freedom&Liberty]

Using tax dollars is the liberal way. They expect nothing from anyone except the taxpayer.

[9ball8]

....Worked my way through the company until I managed my own territory. And finally my wife in 2008 convinced to start my own business which was a great idea. Anyways have never taken from the government but instead the COMMUNITY who helped me because I was willing to earn it.

Correction: you never took food stamps or other social safety net benefits, yet. You have taken from the government since you were born, in the form of roads, law and environmental health, to name a few ways the gov't provides order to our lives. When you retire in your mid-60's or later, you will probably accept medicare and social security, and well you should. One would be hard pressed to find a better return on retirement and medical benefits, since they are administered by a non-profit entity. Of course, those programs could be administered at even lower costs to the taxpayer. But we have seen little effort by so-called conservatives and libertarians to isolate those funds from political raids, or subject them to draconian audits to eliminate as much fraud & waste as possible. Better to preserve such programs as whipping boys, administered by sloppy leftists in the Democrat party.

[9ball8]

Using tax dollars is the liberal way. They expect nothing from anyone except the taxpayer.

Once the majority of taxpayers become informed voters, the taxpayer is paying a minimal tax for the maximum, long term benefit. Doesn't mean a Ferrari in every garage, which is why I made sure to mention "long term" benefit. If you'd care to elaborate on founding fathers' attitude toward tax collection, please feel free.

[TRUE LIBERTY]

Correction: you never took food stamps or other social safety net benefits, yet. You have taken from the government since you were born, in the form of roads, law and environmental health, to name a few ways the gov't provides order to our lives. When you retire in your mid-60's or later, you will probably accept medicare and social security, and well you should. One would be hard pressed to find a better return on retirement and medical benefits, since they are administered by a non-profit entity. Of course, those programs could be administered at even lower costs to the taxpayer. But we have seen little effort by so-called conservatives and libertarians to isolate those funds from political raids, or subject them to draconian audits to eliminate as much fraud & waste as possible. Better to preserve such programs as whipping boys, administered by sloppy leftists in the Democrat party.

Those I payed for and are the few things government are actually supposed to be doing.

I tell you what let me keep my money for those horrible entitlements that are all mismanaged, in the red and billions every year embellezed from and let me make my own decisions. And if I fall thats my problem and I expect nothing from no one. I dont want a effort to fix those programs I just want out! You can keep that crappy care and crappy return of investment and let me keep whats mine.

[Cd.]

That is my point exactly F&L. My family has health insurance. Why? Because I worked myself through college, earned a couple degrees, got some work experience under my belt, and eventually landed a good job with a great benefits package. I knew my family needed to eat and needed health care so I did something about it. Libs seem to think a story like mine is miraculous. There is no miracle in good old fashioned hard work.

People need to get their hands dirty instead of just holding them out for freebies.

You do not know what you are talking about. I know people who worked all their lives doing heavy manual labor in mines and steel mills and when the mill closes or the mine goes bust they loose everything. For ever Horation Algiers anticdot you can produce I can show you a dozen people who did not succeed.

Life is not about what we think we deserve. Life is about busting our butts to go out and supply for ourselves what we need. I swear, that sounds like something a kindergartner would say "Its not fair that Johnny has more cookies in his lunch box than I have in mine! WAAAAHHHH!"

I totally agree by the way that access to affordable health care should be a priority to a civilized society, I just think the assumption that this goal can only be achieved by taking all liberty and power from individuals and handing it over to the government to decide how it is distributed is ridiculous.

Bottom line, you want it given to you. I want to earn it for myself. This is the difference in our philosophies.

Government is not always a good thing but sometimes its the only way to make things fair and get corporations to play by the rules.

If it were not for people like Theodore Roosevelt and others we would still have sweat shops, child labor and 12 hour work days.

This "I made it all by myself and fuck the rest of them" mentality is not one based on reality. It just does not ring true.

[Cd.]

Using tax dollars is the liberal way. They expect nothing from anyone except the taxpayer.

Unlike the Conservatives who want to put the national debt on a credit card and pay it off to China.

[9ball8]

Those I payed for and are the few things government are actually supposed to be doing.

I tell you what let me keep my money for those horrible entitlements that are all mismanaged, in the red and billions every year embellezed from and let me make my own decisions. And if I fall thats my problem and I expect nothing from no one. I dont want a effort to fix those programs I just want out! You can keep that crappy care and crappy return of investment and let me keep whats mine.

See the conflict: gov't. builds roads, but since that is what they are supposed to do, there is no need for draconian audits or business plans. Because there is inadequate audit or business plans imposed on SS or medicare, these programs fall short. If any program falls short, it is eliminated or reformed thru the audit process and imposition of the business plan. This applies to both the public or private sector. If that had been done since the beginning, both SS and medicare would be considered the best in the world (as far as stability and sustainability), or they would have ceased to exist decades ago. Best to maintain them as sloppy examples of leftist incompetence, if one is a crass, superficial politician on the right side of aisle.

[TRUE LIBERTY]

Government is not always a good thing but sometimes its the only way to make things fair and get corporations to play by the rules.

If it were not for people like Theodore Roosevelt and others we would still have sweat shops, child labor and 12 hour work days.

This "I made it all by myself and fuck the rest of them" mentality is not one based on reality. It just does not ring true.

Government is never good when it grows large. A large government gives the power to corporations that the left hate so much. Small government equals corporations with little power.

Its not I made it and fuck everyone else. Its I made it and I will give back to the community how I see fit. Not how the government thinks it should be with my money.

[Chachma v'Oz]

As long as it is not enticement with peoples tax dollars Im with you 100%. Otherwise it is there decision to rise or fall. Or swim or drown.

There's no reason to exclude programs that are funded by tax dollars. The fellow who gets the job starts making money, his employer makes more money, and the government revenue from the increased productivity goes up as well. There's no downside whether the impetus is community-provided (ideally) or government-provided (more realistically).

[TRUE LIBERTY]

There's no reason to exclude programs that are funded by tax dollars. The fellow who gets the job starts making money, his employer makes more money, and the government revenue from the increased productivity goes up as well. There's no downside whether the impetus is community-provided (ideally) or government-provided (more realistically).

Well here is one of the biggest splits with the left and right. I see no good for tax dollars being used for such things. Private organizations have a far better track record of getting the most bang for there buck in helping people through charity and health then government could ever dream of. There is no successful government program ever that isnt in the red, corrupted or just doesnt work as designed in helping people. And besides the fact I just dont believe it is there business to do such things where that fact has been debated at nauseum whether it is governments role or not.

Back to the grill.

[Archaix]

Private organizations have a far better track record of getting the most bang for there buck in helping people through charity and health then government could ever dream of

I call bull.

[Chachma v'Oz]

Well here is one of the biggest splits with the left and right. I see no good for tax dollars being used for such things. Private organizations have a far better track record of getting the most bang for there buck in helping people through charity and health then government could ever dream of. There is no successful government program ever that isnt in the red, corrupted or just doesnt work as designed in helping people. And besides the fact I just dont believe it is there business to do such things where that fact has been debated at nauseum whether it is governments role or not.

Back to the grill.

So we should hold private organizations responsible for the high unemployment rate. Good to know.

[hadit]

So we should hold private organizations responsible for the high unemployment rate. Good to know.

Not when the government retards economic activity and raises the cost of employment intolerably high.

[Chachma v'Oz]

If only economic activity as too many practice it today didn't require so much regulation to keep it both honest and sustainable. Are you old enough to remember when there was fiduciary responsibility, business ethics and professional standards that served as self-regulation? Boy, has a lot of that gone out the window. Now it's short-term gain, take the money and run, and let the chips fall where they may.

People won't stand for that sort of treatment and have understandably turned to government to mitigate the damage it causes.

[Freedom&Liberty]

Once the majority of taxpayers become informed voters, the taxpayer is paying a minimal tax for the maximum, long term benefit. Doesn't mean a Ferrari in every garage, which is why I made sure to mention "long term" benefit. If you'd care to elaborate on founding fathers' attitude toward tax collection, please feel free.

The current crop of taxpayers are not well informed. They're paying the maximum, and getting the short term. minimum in return. If you care to elaborate on the founders attitude toward spending, please feel free.

[hadit]

If only economic activity as too many practice it today didn't require so much regulation to keep it both honest and sustainable. Are you old enough to remember when there was fiduciary responsibility, business ethics and professional standards that served as self-regulation? Boy, has a lot of that gone out the window. Now it's short-term gain, take the money and run, and let the chips fall where they may.

People won't stand for that sort of treatment and have understandably turned to government to mitigate the damage it causes.

The problem with that is, of course, that government simply cannot do much to prevent that mindset. All it can do is create ever more restrictive environments until it chokes off the economic activity needed to generate growth, much like our efforts to keep our kids safe have given way to less and less unrestricted free play for them. Here's a dirty little secret. Government is run by people, the very same kinds of people who take the money, run, and let the chips fall where they may. Government just gives them the power of the law that the private sector does not have. IOW, people are turning to an entity that not only has the same inclination as the entities it is supposed to regulate, but that has power those entities do not.

[Chachma v'Oz]

But unlike those other entities, we collectively control government, and only with it do have have any control over the others. That's the whole point.

[hadit]

But unlike those other entities, we collectively control government, and only with it do have have any control over the others. That's the whole point.

You have less control over the government than you do over companies. If a million voting shareholders make their wishes known in a shareholders' meeting, the company listens. If the same million people march in protest over Roe v Wade, Washington ignores them. IOW, it takes a LOT more people to make in impact on government than it does on business, because business actually has to please its customers. Government doesn't, because you have no other recourse.

[TRUE LIBERTY]

So we should hold private organizations responsible for the high unemployment rate. Good to know.

Some yes! The ones the government gave kick backs to. The ones government gave far to much power and influence over our lives for some back scratching. But in the end it goes back to the heart of the problem. A far to big government with to much of its tenacles in the little guy and the big guy.