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

[Hyperbully]

The Congress and Senate get healthcare and other socialized benefits paid for by taxes. They also get many (all?) provisions of Obamacare, such as non-discriminatory insurance.

Why should conservative representatives benefit from something they vehemently oppose providing to everyone else, and why don't conservatives have a problem with this?

[Freedom&Liberty]

All employers that offer health insurance receive the same benefit. It's part of being in a group plan.

[Chachma v'Oz]

Congress has the authority. Why doesn't a member in each house who opposes these programs step up to the plate and submit a bill giving members the freedom to opt out?

[Hyperbully]

It's a form of socialized medicine, which conservative representatives are more than happy to benefit from.

[Freedom&Liberty]

Almost everyone who's employed is eligible to join a similar plan. I guess you two are jobless hobos or something. Congressmen probably can opt out if they want to. No one is currently FORCING them to have insurance, but liberals will be soon enough.

The reality is that federal government has no authority to offer or force ANY type of insurance on anyone.

[Ponycar_302]

It's not socialized medicine, it's a benefit included with the job. It goes along with vacation time, pay, a free car, a pension after four years service, and whatever else they get. That's like saying a police officer or some clerk in a court room or a mail man receives socialized medicine since they're all paid by the government.

That said, I don't believe politicians should get any of that stuff, except the pay. Go back to the old ways where they show up to debate and vote, then return to their homes/jobs.

[TRUE LIBERTY]

I vote for the most conservative candidate I can find. Find me one that supports your idea and he will get my backing until then I take the most conservative candidate I can find. But if my taxes are being taken for a entitlement I dont support I am going to use it. While at the same time I am going to oppose continuing such program until my last days. I would be happy to opt out of all these entitlement and use MY MONEY better then government can or ever has. And never look back at the failure of government and everything they touch.

[302Riz]

Yes but now, the government believes that you cant spend or use your hard earned money the way you see fit. Without government intervention, people will be homeless, poor, hungry and dying.

Oh, wait a minute...

[TRUE LIBERTY]

[Cd.]

The Congress and Senate get healthcare and other socialized benefits paid for by taxes. They also get many (all?) provisions of Obamacare, such as non-discriminatory insurance.

Why should conservative representatives benefit from something they vehemently oppose providing to everyone else, and why don't conservatives have a problem with this?

100% right! I believe that all elected officials should

1 Get no more health care than anyone who is not covered.
2 Be paid minimum wage!

Almost everyone who's employed is eligible to join a similar plan. I guess you two are jobless hobos or something. Congressmen probably can opt out if they want to. No one is currently FORCING them to have insurance, but liberals will be soon enough.

The reality is that federal government has no authority to offer or force ANY type of insurance on anyone.

Thats bullshit! Lots of people work and do not get coverage.

And guess what else, if you choose not to get health care then nobody will force you to use it. Just don't take mine away!

[Hyperbully]

No one has ever collected taxes at gunpoint.

I like Penn, but the problem with many of his positions is that they don't take into account reality, practicality, or the human condition. He actually comes off as a bit delusional and/or an asshole, because he expects everyone else to be an idealized human being, while he himself is not one. I would like to get a look into his finances and see how much of his wealth goes towards feeding and sheltering the homeless and treating the mentally ill.

We form governments to do together what we cannot do alone. A good government serves the will of the people, and a good people want to take care of their poor. I'm not looking to earn moral credit or achieve joy by helping the poor. I'm looking to get the job done so people don't have to suffer.

You know what? Fuck you, Penn.

[Archaix]

We had charity-led welfare for 99% of humanity's existence. Didn't work; people starved.

[Davidxvx]

[Silly picture of a fat man with bad facial hear and an ill-fitting suit beside an inane quote.

In 2010, six friends and I founded a charitable trust. I have chaired the trust board since mid 2011. We currently have around fifty volunteers. In our main fundraising campaign last year, we raised $23,000 for village development work in northern India. One of New Zealand's wealthiest businessmen matched every dollar raised. We run a social enterprise competition for school students; over 200 people participated this year. Last year's winning team provided water tanks to an island in Tonga. Some of the ideas I judged in the semi finals last weekend included plans to provide solar water heating to Kiribati, solar panels to other pacific islands and wifi combined with solar charged laptops to a Tongan island, to facilitate education there.

So, hey, first: What exactly have you done to posture about the meaning of charity?

Secondly, here's the thing: None of these things could I have done without the support that the New Zealand people, via the state, have provided me throughout my life. I went to good, state schools. I went to a (state-funded) university and received a (state funded) scholarship. I am protected from the aggression of others by our police and justice system. I benefit from well-maintained roads and state subsidised medical care.

And, because - as a corporate lawyer - I have an above average income, in many ways, I benefit far more from the services provided by the state than others do. Without a robust legal system, without police and courts, my job would not exist - and, even if it did, my material wealth would be ill protected. I benefit more from more free schooling than most.

Therefore, although I pay more tax than most, I have no objection to this. My society has provided me much. I do not object to returning the favour.

The far right tends, in my experience, to underestimate grossly the value of state services. I have no problem with being compelled to pay tax, even for redistributive purposes, because, one, I believe that it is an ethical imperative, and, two, I believe that it is in my rational self interest to do so. (I note that societies with extreme economic disparities tend to suffer from that, politically and economically, so see redistribution as beneficial for maintaining a stable society)

In short: You benefit from the state. You pay. Otherwise, you're freeloading.

[Freedom&Liberty]

We had charity-led welfare for 99% of humanity's existence. Didn't work; people starved.

And yet billions of people survived without government support.

[TRUE LIBERTY]

No one has ever collected taxes at gunpoint.

I like Penn, but the problem with many of his positions is that they don't take into account reality, practicality, or the human condition. He actually comes off as a bit delusional and/or an asshole, because he expects everyone else to be an idealized human being, while he himself is not one. I would like to get a look into his finances and see how much of his wealth goes towards feeding and sheltering the homeless and treating the mentally ill.

We form governments to do together what we cannot do alone. A good government serves the will of the people, and a good people want to take care of their poor. I'm not looking to earn moral credit or achieve joy by helping the poor. I'm looking to get the job done so people don't have to suffer.

You know what? Fuck you, Penn.

Every tax is threatened and backed by a gun. Try not paying your taxes it is not the girl scouts who come knocking.

Maybe not your strange version of reality but mine was a 17 year old high school drop out living on the streets. Working my way up from being a person who picks up trash to now running my own very successful business and a home I only dreamed about back then. His reality is quite real.

It doesnt matter how much he gives to charity. The point is its not the responsibility of our government under force.

We formed this government so you and government stay the frack out of my life and let me do what I want with a majority of my money. Not vice versa.

[TRUE LIBERTY]

And yet billions of people survived without government support.

Exactly. But yet I got the poster above me saying because I would rather have private citizens giving charity instead of a government that has no successful entitlement ever im the free loader. Charity and the organizations that help people have a far better record then government. Government entitlements fail they get more money and you cant get rid of them. Private charity fails people have the power to stop giving to them and choose to pick another charity. Government entitlements cause far more misery and dependents then actually helping anyone.

[TRUE LIBERTY]

We had charity-led welfare for 99% of humanity's existence. Didn't work; people starved.

And we will have even millions more across the globe no matter how well intentioned all failed government programs are.

[Chachma v'Oz]

In 2010, six friends and I founded a charitable trust. I have chaired the trust board since mid 2011. We currently have around fifty volunteers. In our main fundraising campaign last year, we raised $23,000 for village development work in northern India. One of New Zealand's wealthiest businessmen matched every dollar raised. We run a social enterprise competition for school students; over 200 people participated this year. Last year's winning team provided water tanks to an island in Tonga. Some of the ideas I judged in the semi finals last weekend included plans to provide solar water heating to Kiribati, solar panels to other pacific islands and wifi combined with solar charged laptops to a Tongan island, to facilitate education there.

So, hey, first: What exactly have you done to posture about the meaning of charity?

Secondly, here's the thing: None of these things could I have done without the support that the New Zealand people, via the state, have provided me throughout my life. I went to good, state schools. I went to a (state-funded) university and received a (state funded) scholarship. I am protected from the aggression of others by our police and justice system. I benefit from well-maintained roads and state subsidised medical care.

And, because - as a corporate lawyer - I have an above average income, in many ways, I benefit far more from the services provided by the state than others do. Without a robust legal system, without police and courts, my job would not exist - and, even if it did, my material wealth would be ill protected. I benefit more from more free schooling than most.

Therefore, although I pay more tax than most, I have no objection to this. My society has provided me much. I do not object to returning the favour.

The far right tends, in my experience, to underestimate grossly the value of state services. I have no problem with being compelled to pay tax, even for redistributive purposes, because, one, I believe that it is an ethical imperative, and, two, I believe that it is in my rational self interest to do so. (I note that societies with extreme economic disparities tend to suffer from that, politically and economically, so see redistribution as beneficial for maintaining a stable society)

In short: You benefit from the state. You pay. Otherwise, you're freeloading.

I've been trying to get that across for some time now. Those of us who have benefited the most from our social and economic systems have the best reasons for maintaining the health of both systems and should be more than happy to pay whatever it takes to sustain them. As you say, a lot of people undervalue what the state accomplishes. We got to where we are today with everyone else's help, whether they realize it or not, and there's no reason any of us should expect that to come at low cost because we've been successfull.

[Toby-T]

The Congress and Senate get healthcare and other socialized benefits paid for by taxes. They also get many (all?) provisions of Obamacare, such as non-discriminatory insurance.

Why should conservative representatives benefit from something they vehemently oppose providing to everyone else, and why don't conservatives have a problem with this?

I bolded the key word in your post. I am glad you chose your wording as you did. The opposition is not to people having this quality of coverage, but to using the power of government to FORCE the hard-earned money of one group of people into the hands of those who do nothing whatsoever to earn it and yet feel absolutley entitled to it.

I am not referring to those who CANNOT provide for themselves. I am referring to those who DO NOT bother to. I don't feel that government, nor any other individual, is obligated to provide me and my family with anything at all. It is MY obligation to provide it for myself!

You, on the other hand, feel you are owed something you havent earned. This is the crux of our differing opinion.

[Freedom&Liberty]

Those of us who have benefited the most from our social and economic systems have the best reasons for maintaining the health of both systems and should be more than happy to pay whatever it takes to sustain them. As you say, a lot of people undervalue what the state accomplishes. We got to where we are today with everyone else's help, whether they realize it or not, and there's no reason any of us should expect that to come at low cost because we've been successfull.

Have you considered that people wouldn't even need social programs, if they didn't exist? Do you realize the self perpetuating nature of handing out free stuff? God forbid that people figure out a way to help each other without help from liberals in government.

Hunger has always been the worlds best motivator.