My Repub neighbor - critique my logic

My neighbor is an avid *ush supporter. Her lifelong support for the republican party, I believe, stems from her total distaste for entitlement programs.

In short, it just burns her up to think some "lazy" person gets any of her tax dollars. (Never mind the sweeping welfare reform legislation passed under Clinton).

What burns me up is that she readily admits her cushy lifestyle is due to the fact her father was wealthy and has provided for her throughout her life.

I see this as the epitome of hypocrisy.

Is there any moral difference between entitlement from the government and entitlement from inherited wealth?

From the receiver's perspective, it is "something for nothing" in both cases.

What do you think?

imo

"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."

"establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, and promote the general welfare."
Can you imagine Rush and insure domestic tranquility? He does the exact opposite. And Scalia, Reinquist, and Thomas with establish justice? The whole GOP and promote the general welfare. They only promote welfare for the elite wealthy ones. Let the rest "Trickle Down"

pissing and moaning and not doing anything. If it really, deeply offends her to pay taxes, then she should have the courage of her conviction and stop paying taxes. Unless she does that, she's just another whiner. And I especially can't stand whiners who think that all tax money goes to things like welfare. Ask her whether she'd like firemen to come if her house catches fire, or if she'd prefer that it just burn to the ground, since she's opposed to taxes?
These people are morons.

She probably hates paying school taxes too...

You may ask her if she feels any moral compulsion to help those less fortunate. If her answer is no, then I don't think you have any way of getting through to her.

If she says yes, you might find examples of people who had assistance and were able to use this help to better themselves and go on to help others (Carol Burnett springs to mind). Tell her that these people are doing the same thing she is-the only difference is the source of their entitlement.

They were born with a peculiar sort of blindness, and you can't manage to describe blue to the blind. It just doesn't work.

Just tell her it's the most Unchristian thing you've ever heard and walk away.

They do hate to be called that, and it gets the few of them capable of thought to think.

I'll bet it's less than 1%. Every single taxpayer knows a portion of our taxes goes to programs we don't like or support.

I'd never care about if the GOP and their fellow travelers never cared about those less fortunate if they didn't have so much socialism for the corporations. Redistributing income upwards is OK, just not to the "people".

wealth for the wealthy and protects a lot of people and companies from having to compete in order to make profits.

And it is having a very deleterious effect on our economy.

The American economy was at its peak in the late 50s thanks to all the wealth FDR was able to untap, created by the middle and working class, thanks to programs that forced a lot of money down to the poorest and to those who worked for a living, and that money was like yeast. It caused a lot more wealth to grow.

You can't grow an economy by shifting all the wealth, benefits and profits to the top, and all the risk and costs to the bottom.

... which is the source of all wealth, rose from 1950-53 primarily due to the GI Bill and the early Civil Rights movement. Labor's equity in wealth creation rose again in 1966-1970 as the first "baby boomers" were graduated from colleges and universities in the second wave of higher education for the non-elite and the realization of the Civil Rights movement. That time also saw the surge in productivity of the computer age. With the exception of a recovery between 1996-2000, the indolent ownership elite have increasingly re-entrenched the plantation economics of 'trickle-down,' externalization of costs, and the burden of corporate welfare on the backs of working people. The decline in labor's equity participation in the fruits of their own labor has been decimated by the Busholini Corporatist Cabal to a greater extent than any time in the last 60 years.

but more than 1%. I'm legal counsel for our public assistance agency. "Welfare" is no longer an "entitlement" (food stamps still is).

You could arm yourself with the facts: the average public assistance recipient is 27 years old with fewer than 2 children, she stays on public assistance an average of 14 months and she was left by her husband who is not paying any/adequate child support. There is no public assistance (federal) unless there are children so the argument here about not knowing where our next great talent comes from is a good one. In effect, we don't pay the mom, we pay the kids.

Everyone on public assistance must work or be engaged in activities that will lead to work (in my state at least, it will not support someone while they get a college degree but will support some other types of training.) The federal lifetime limit is 5 years, many states set shorter lifetime limits. TN is the lowest with 18 months. My state, Utah, is 3 years. You can get an extension if there is medical evidence that you can't work or you are needed at home to take care of a child who needs care due to the child's medical condition. (There are a couple of minor reasons for extensions too but they are rare in my state at least.)

Of course, I used this argument and the person accused me of lying. She said public assistance is the largest % of the federal budget and these people stay on "welfare" their whole lives. Another pretty easy number to remember in an argument like this is that the federal budget is roughly divided in fifths: 20% (or so) goes to defense, 20% to social security benefits, 20% goes to interest on the debt, 20% goes to medical care (medicare, medicaid, and federal employees) and 20% pays for everything else (including public assistance, the courts and prosecutors, the environment, the state department with out embassies throughout the world, education, agriculture, the FBI, the CIA etc, etc.) So unless you cut defense, medical care, social security or the debt, the savings from cutting anything else is meaningless.

Her father isn't a "stranger." Frankly -- and I can't prove this, it's only a hunch -- I believe this is connected to racism, as well. "Lazy person" is code for person of color, I believe.

It's completely irrational. The total sum of entitlements as a percentage of the tax dollar is miniscule, let alone the percentage of that representing cheating the system. Compare it to the interest on the national debt!

There's a widespread belief that "lazy people" are living it up on the labor of others -- that's the emotional button. "I'm working and he's not, it's not fairrrr!!!" There is no work ethic there saying work is good for you, be glad to have your health and a job, be glad to be among those who are able to contribute, be glad that unlike people who rely on social services, you aren't disabled or mentally ill or destitute or homeless...

Wealthy people who feel sorry for themselves and angry about "entitlements" should remember that they can trade place with these lucky lazy people just any day!! All they have to do is give away all their money and their job, and they too can live in the bed of roses that is the welfare system. Those who rely on it don't have the choice of trading places!

nt

What you get from your family is not "nothing" whether it is intelligence, brown eyes or some cash . . . certainly not nothing.

As far as family money vs. entitlement money the 2 have very little in common.

The government takes money from tax payers (who basically have no choice but to pay the taxes)and gives it to people in the form of entitlements. The one who is paying out the money had absolutely no choice about any of it- They have to pay or the IRS will seize their assets.

On the other hand, giving money to ones family is entirely voluntary . . . there is no coersion & the government has no hand in it - Unless of course you give more than the government lets you give . . . then you have to pay 'gift tax' on it.

I see your point- you really want to feel superior to your neighbor or something. But what business is it of yours where her money comes from?? Is it your neighbor's business what your bank accounts look like?

Sorry about the rant but I hate nosey neighbors if you don't like her politics, fine, but her family is really none of your business.

I believe the point was about the hypocrisy of complaining that people should only have money they've worked for, yet living on money they themselves didn't work for.

This is why I was careful to say "From the receiver's perspective, it is "something for nothing" in both cases"


And BTW, I didnt' ask her about her money, she volunteered the info. I would never ask someone a question like that.

If you haven't got a VP yet, my Arrow is available.

Sounds just like that toad, doesn't it? :)

How about Ken Lay or GW Bush*. Bush* inherited much of his wealth which was obtained through war profiteering. Kenny Boy Lay ripped off thousands of people. I think an examination of how wealth is obtained is very proper. It is a small way of combating the rape and pillage of America by Republican thugs.

Apparently you missed that

She feels she is entitled to, as a rich prick. Her answer should give you all the ammunition you need to tear her a new one and leave her trembling with shame.

...functioning society is WORK. Work is the source of all wealth. You want people to be able to enter the marketplace and contribute their fullest potential.

To me welfare is really just two things:

(1) it's a system to make sure that all children start with a chance. We don't want to lose diamonds in the rough. You never know where the next wealth and knowledge-creating Einstein, Sean Combs, or John Edwards is coming from, so everybody has to have a chance to become those people. We do that by making sure parents aren't poor (child tax credit) and making sure they have the infrastructure within which they need to succeed (public education).

(2) Welfare is a safety net. You always reach higher when you know that if you fail you won't starve. In the UK in the 18th century, if you took a chance on doing something that had the potential for huge rewards but failed, you could end up in debtors prison or starving and dead. So you take the safe route -- you do what your parents did and you stay close to home. I think that we take care of people at the bottom so that if you're near the bottom you're still willing to take a chance -- your still willing to go to college for four years, or move to a different city for a higher paying job.

I don't think you could have the most efficient econonomy possible, striving for even greater results, if we didn't have a committment to an effective safety net, and if we weren't willing to do everything we could to give all chidren a chance.

Now the funny thing is that your friend is making no contributions to society. She's actually the one who's really wasting space. I bet she went to good schools all her life. What if someone who was willing to work had her spot in college? We might have missed out on the cure for cancer, or the invention of the solar powered flying car because your neighbor was freeloading.

Perhpas her hatred of entitlement programs comes from the knowledge that her life has been an entitlement program and it has turned into a waste of space, and that's it's really the people who are using their entitlements to find ways to make a better world for their children, or it's people who tried and failed who are getting entitlements who really deserve them and are making the most of them.

Yikes!

My rw neighbor explained to me yesterday that we shouldn't depend on mideast countries for oil. We should only use US resources. But he wouldn't agree that we should explore alternate energy resources either because we can't run anything with them and will have to introduce them gradually -- so we shouldn't even consider that now. My head is still spinning from the conversation

need I say more...? :eyes:

we white people have no clue how much privilege we have due to the color of our skin, most children of rich people have no clue how privileged that wealth makes them.

Imagine not having to worry about paying for college, that any college is affordable. Imagine not having to worry that your car will break down because you can't possibly fix it. Imagine not having to decide between paying the electric bill and the water bill.

The privilege of wealth covers a vast array of things, not merely being freed from the constant, grinding worries of poverty. Take the college example. Most kids in the middle class are going to be able to afford college, just not an expensive private one. Community colleges and most public universities are reasonably affordable. But if dear old mom and dad can simply foot the bill for whatever expensive private school you can get into (and they're up to $40,000 per year including room, board, tuition, books, and incidentals) and maybe on top of that you can join a fraternity/sorority, then you have no idea what the financial struggle is for most people out there. If there's family wealth to set you up in an apartment while you're looking for a job, that's a lot different from staying at home an extra six months while you save every penny for the first and last month's rent and security deposit at a run-down Shabby Villas.

There's hard work and there's hard work. It's the safety net that the rich have that they simply don't understand does not exist for the vast majority out there.

It happens.

inheritance is not an entitlement, it is a property right that vests upon death. one has things, and deems where it goes on death.

government entitlements simply put are tax dollars earmarked to go to certain people for certain things, but they are not a property right of either the recipient or the government.

of money can keep all they can, while their savings are turned into taxes on the middle and lower classes. Nice job, if you can get it.

The reality should be, you didn't have that property before the individual that owned it died, therefore you are a beneficiary of something you did nothing to accrue. You, as the recipient, never paid taxes on the money as it was earned; you, as the recipient, feel that an accrual of unearned property should not be taxed. Then why should a Lottery winner pay taxes? Why should a homeowner pay taxes?
Why should a worker pay taxes? If you don't have to pay taxes on something you didn't earn, you certainly shouldn't have to pay for something you did!

Point is, these people are just plain cheap. They want everything, but don't want to pay for it. They want a great car, but don't want to pay taxes for roads. They want safety, but don't want to pay taxes for police, fire or national protection. They want laws, but they don't want to be held to them. They are hypocrites, plain and simple.

I don't care if someone makes $50 million...but don't place the tax burden for all this nation offers on the guy or gal that makes $20,000.

such as college tuition assitance and government subsidies of colleges such that students don't bear the full brunt of the cost of college education. Remember about 30% don't go to college and they are paying for her and her kids eduction.

Ask her about federal programs to subsidize her mortgage -- Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac provide a secondary market for banks to roll over middle class mortgages so that the middle class can afford them. I think it is about 30% that don't own their own homes.

Does she have a pension? What about federal programs that guarantee pensions?

Was daddy a vet? We could go into veterans benefits.
Daddy was rich... and so we subsidize his tax credits for his business. Did he benefit from any improvements to the infrastructure paid for by people who wont reap the benefits like he does?
Daddy provided for her all her life maybe by taking advantage of a few tax shelters paid for by people who don't benefit from them. Maybe Daddy never really paid too much in tax anyhow...so what's she complaining about?

Does she ever wonder why her streets get paved and her schools get computers and not the schools in the inner cities? Federal monies trickling into her particular coffers.

The middle class sucks off the federal teat big time and is just too hypocritical to notice it.

getting a gift from your family is getting the money from someone else who gave it to you willingly.

getting the money from the government is getting a gift from people who had no choice but to give it to you or get sent to jail.

You asked for a critique of logic. There's a try.

you don't see the hypocrisy here.

When was the last time you voted Dem?

Just curious.

Far more than Clinton, anyway. But I guess it is okay when we are subsidizing the crooks at Halliburton. :eyes:

a la Dick Cheney and Halliburton.

Just to name one example.

At least the people who are on welfare need the goddamn money. I don't think the CEO of Halliburton needs another billion dollar no-bid contract to buy diapers for his kids.

stems from brain damage

since I assume she really made out like a bandit then