# News & Current Events > Economy & Markets >  Is anyone here receiving a govt. pension, social security or support payments from govt?

## cbc58

If so... would you mind telling us what it is (pension, benefits, SS, Medicaid/care, or whatever) - and how do you feel about receiving these benefits in light of the current economic situation (govt. is broke).   

A honest discourse on this from both sides needs to happen and it would be beneficial to see different viewpoints on the receiving end vs. the paying end.   I know alot of younger folks will say "it's not my problem" - but it is whether they like it or not - and they getting saddled with a future that doesn't look so rosy.

----------


## opal

Does VA comp count?  Hubby served 20+ years - gets disability but not concurrent receipt.. still being screwed out of his earned retirement and he gets SSDI.  Long story there involving 4 separate DD214's and some sealed records.. but I digress.
100% permanent and total disability - 23 documented service connected disabling conditions with the VA.
how do we feel about it?  It was part of his contract for joining the service.. and they're really not living up to their part of the deal.   He's got his masters in EEE from MIT and would like to work but cannot.
He'd like to be able to say he's medically taken care of but he's not.   He had a temp filling put in in July.. still has not been able to get an appointment for the permanent filling.
 ok.. I'll stop or this could turn into a full on morning rant

----------


## tod evans

Never even used the GI bill.

I disliked "Our-Government" so much when I got out of the service I swore then and there I would do everything in my power to not cooperate, support or even acknowledge them in any way.

----------


## cbc58

Opal,

VA comp counts and while I sympathize with your husbands situation - I wonder what your thoughts are from a RP perspective on govt. spending vs. the debt situation we are in.  I don't know what type of contract is signed upon enlistment but the fact is that the US is broke and borrowing money to pay Vet's benefits and other govt. programs.  

Trying to look at this problem from all sides and yours is on the extreme end where a disabled vet should be supported but only in terms of a reasonable ability to pay.  I can't see how payouts can possibly go up from here in terms of the value of today's dollars as we are broke (more than broke - in debt up to our grandkids eyeballs).

My mother-in-law receives SS surviving spouse benefits in addition to her own and honestly she doesn't need it.  She uses it to go out to eat, buy clothes and travel.  She feels entitled to it and I think she shouldn't get it.  Another person I know retired from the military at the age of 49 - gets a nice pension but works at a full time job.  If we are broke - why should these people get anything?  Know this is not a popular side to take... but we're fu#&ing broke folks.

----------


## Acala

I work for local government so I get a paycheck on the taxpayers and may one day get a pension (I have been paying for one but have doubts about it ever materializing).  Local government has some debt, but here generally operates in the black.

I don't get any Federal or State benefits.  But my general opinion about Federal benefits is that you should take what you can get while you can because the ship is going down and you can't stop it.  Time to grab what you can and make a life raft.

----------


## cbc58

isn't that in direct contradiction to the RP methodology?

----------


## jclay2

> I work for local government so I get a paycheck on the taxpayers and may one day get a pension (I have been paying for one but have doubts about it ever materializing).  Local government has some debt, but here generally operates in the black.
> 
> I don't get any Federal or State benefits.  But my general opinion about Federal benefits is that you should take what you can get while you can because the ship is going down and you can't stop it.  Time to grab what you can and make a life raft.


Agreed.

My wife and I have combined received at least 50 k via college and other things, however within the first 2 years of work, all of that money and then some was taken back from us.

----------


## cbc58

you paid 50k+ back plus regular taxes?

----------


## eric_cartman

the more money you get from the government... the quicker the government will go bankrupt.  the sooner the bankruptcy happens, the better IMO.  hopefully that'll stop the wars, stop the police state, etc.... and get the country back on the right track

----------


## klamath

These threads always make me laugh.

----------


## Adrock

Ron Paul was asked if he receives social security. Here is the video clip.

----------


## klamath

> Ron Paul was asked if he receives social security. Here is the video clip.


RP also received 30 years of congressional pay he  didn't really need....

----------


## ILUVRP

i was in the military 8 yrs ( started at $85/mo , $200/mo when got out )  , then active reserves/national guard 5 yrs. went to jr    college at nights under gi bill while working . 

worked goverment defence plant 30 yrs very high tech electronics , between my employer and my money put about 250k into social sec , compound the interest on the contrib's and would be about $300k at time of retirement .



retired with no retirement from employer , just profit sharing plan . at 62 started getting ss ( and spouse ) , about $1800/mo , it's been 10 yrs , so if the ss account had 300k when i started drawing ss , after the 1st year 300k-21k , then about 280k add interest ,
after drawing for 13 yrs i figger i now have got back all i put into ss plus what my employer put in ( i figger it to be part of my salary while working there ) .

from now on i guess you could say i am using money the people working now are putting into ss, for sure not as good as congressman get.

legacy costs are going to break all goverments --city-county-state-federal

my solution , military --stay 25yrs for 50% retirement , for every year in a haz zone get 2 yrs credit 
                  goverments --firemen/policemen change to 25 yrs to retire

above is just some numbers to chew on , i have no regrets .

one think about getting older other than getting more ss $ is its more easy to shoot your age playing gold , i have done it 5 times .

been lucky , never used medicare/cad

----------


## jclay2

> you paid 50k+ back plus regular taxes?


No. The amount me and my wife have paid in taxes from just 2 years of work has exceeded those benefits (most of which derived from college grants).

----------


## TonySutton

I am a retired Marine.  I do collect a pension for my 20 years of service.  I do not feel guilty in receiving the money I get.  This was an informed choice I made.  I took 20 years of being shipped away from my family and earning less than I could have in the private sector in part because of the total package I was offered which included medical care and a pension.

I would like to see the military move more towards a 401k type program so members who serve less than 20 years could get something towards their retirement.

in the past several years I have been using a portion of my retirement to support the liberty movement  so it is all good.

----------


## Adrock

I have no problem with people collecting on contracts they have made with the government. That doesn't mean you can't work to eliminate programs or change how the government contracts in the future.

----------


## cbc58

direct question - the US govt. is running a $1.6 trillion yearly deficit.  should not all payouts be reduced across the board for everyone receiving govt. $$ to bring this to $0 ?   and we haven't even started to get into the 50-70 trillion in unfunded liabilities promised...

to other posters who say "take what you can now" - how is the system crashing faster going to change things for the better?   it's just more debt being pushed off that has to be paid eventually - either through inflation, a lower standard of living or higher taxes.  you think govt. is going to get smaller?  is there ANY time in history where a currency collapsed and the govt. didn't get bigger and make life worse for it's citizens?   this is like eating sugar for years and the dentist telling you to stop or your teeth will rot and you'll need dentures - then they do -- and you find out dentures suck.   it's not sunshine and roses coming.. it's misery.

----------


## cbc58

"I have no problem with people collecting on contracts they have made with the government."

We are the govt.  We are broke.  Are you advocating we put our kids and grandkids on the hook to pay for things when they have no say in the matter?

----------


## Adrock

I thought that a major reason the Roman Empire collapsed was because of overspending and inflating it's currency.

----------


## klamath

> "I have no problem with people collecting on contracts they have made with the government."
> 
> We are the govt.  We are broke.  Are you advocating we put our kids and grandkids on the hook to pay for things when they have no say in the matter?


So what exactly are you sugesting people that are now too old to return to the workforce do? You seem to be passing a lot of judgement?

----------


## angelatc

My husband gets unemployment, and when that runs out we'll probably go on welfare.  I am going to get back what I paid in, and then some hopefully, and are teaching our kids the ropes too.    I don't really care about your kids.  

I didn't have the option not to participate in these programs, and I'm certainly not going to be guilted into funding them, either.

----------


## opal

Here's how I feel about the veterans benefits.  When people enlist in the armed services, the contract says.. paraphrased, give us a career and we'll take care of your medical for life and they pay into retirement each paycheck... at least they did while hubby was in service.  1975 - 1998.  They were contracted for those benefits, and earned them.  This is a contractual issue and the govt should live up to it.

Illegal immigrants did not pay in.. have any contracts with the govt and ALL programs that benefit these people should not exist.  

Welfare recipients that just live off the government.. same thing.. the programs should not exist.

The government being broke cannot and should not be blamed on spending for vets.  

Veterans are not welfare recipients.  Disabled due to service to this country (misguided as it is these days) should be on the top of the list for spending, however, they are not.  The appropriations for veterans has to be passed each year.  The system over spends on the bureaucracy and the benefits don't trickle down properly.

Hubby was in 5 major military *accidents/incidents* got shot 3x, had a hand severed and reattached - RPG injury, and his last one was the one that removed  him from recruiting poster picture status - resulted in a leg amputation.  Some of his service was national guard duty so that he could attend graduate school at the same time early in his career.  He earned his retirement, and has never gotten a dime of it.  One of his periods of service has not been actually counted towards retirement/concurrent receipt) because *we* were in a place in the world that remains undocumented (shhh)
He does get VA comp - barely enough to live on and he would LOVE to work but is unable (would get fired for attendance issues mostly)  He might get 4 good hours a day before health issues creep into every day life.

I am sure there are vets that are abusing the system as there are for every govt program but those that actually served and had the rest of their lives sidetracked due to that service, deserve every cent.

----------


## ILUVRP

something to also chew on , can anyone spell hippo-crits

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...xHfCpk8nAG5aFA

----------


## Acala

> I have no problem with people collecting on contracts they have made with the government. That doesn't mean you can't work to eliminate programs or change how the government contracts in the future.


Folks, it's done.  There isn't going to be any intentional, orderly, planned elimination of government programs or spending.  They just had a knock-down fight to the finish about whether or not they would just reduce the rate of increase of spending!  And they agreed not to!  They are not EVER going to cut spending by any significant amount.  They are going to run the bus off the cliff.  Ron Paul tried.  We tried.  Other people tried.  We didn't make it and now it is too late.

It still makes sense to support liberty as a political movement, but not because there is any hope of turning this around.  Rather, the hope is in laying a foundation for what gets built up out of the ashes.  And that includes supporting political leaders that will be around to fight for freedom during reconstruction. 

Once the bus hits the bottom of the ravine, then we can start picking up the pieces.  

But for now, you should do exactly what the elite insiders are doing - grabbing every remaining shred of wealth you can get your hands on and trying to position yourself to survive what is coming. 

That's my advice, for whatever it is worth.

----------


## Adrock

> We are the govt.  We are broke.  Are you advocating we put our kids and grandkids on the hook to pay for things when they have no say in the matter?


I agree. Let's change it for the future. Past contracts need to be honored though. The only legal way to get out of past contracts is to go though bankrupcy. I would recommend focusing on cutting welfare for individuals and corporations (no contracts) and bringing home the troops. That would get you most of the way where you want to go budget-wise.

----------


## angelatc

Veterans aren't welfare recipients, Social Security isn't welfare, yada yada yada.

----------


## polomertz

In the past I've collected unemployment.  People kept asking me how I can collect something like that and believe in what I do.  I tell them that's the system, I don't agree with it but I will take what I can with what's available to me.  Remember Ron's earmark talk?  It's the system we operate in & he's just trying to return as much money as he can to the people.  He's talked about taking all your deductions & tax breaks you can, even if you don't believe in them.  Also, I don't blame the banks for taking bailout money.  I'd do the same thing.  It's our pussy-ass government that doesn't respect the rule of law & citizenry who won't replace it with something more accountable.

----------


## seraphson

> RP also received 30 years of congressional pay he  didn't really need....


....and that of which he partially returns back. Something many other congressman can't say they've done.

----------


## cbc58

> So what exactly are you sugesting people that are now too old to return to the workforce do? You seem to be passing a lot of judgement?


How about live with less.  How about have their family support them rather than the govt.  (I am only talking in terms of receiving more out than paid in - i think every penny paid in should be available).

What do you suggest we do given the fact that we are beyond broke ?

----------


## tod evans

> What do you suggest we do given the fact that we are beyond broke ?


Fire every federal employee whose job is not authorized in the constitution and provide them with zero unemployment benefits.

Stop all undeclared wars and eliminate all foreign aid.

See where we are in a year...

----------


## klamath

> How about live with less.  How about have their family support them rather than the govt.  (I am only talking in terms of receiving more out than paid in - i think every penny paid in should be available).
> 
> What do you suggest we do given the fact that we are beyond broke ?


Is your MNL really receiving her own as well as her husbands surviver benefits? My mother could only chose between the two. She gave up her own SSI and only recieves surviver benefits. Are you going to take her in if she quits accepting benefits?

----------


## brandon

> My husband gets unemployment, and when that runs out we'll probably go on welfare.  I am going to get back what I paid in, and then some hopefully, and are teaching our kids the ropes too.


You are teaching your kids how to not work and be on welfare?  Or am I misreading this?

----------


## cbc58

yes she is - not sure why but she gets both or a portion thereof.  we would take her in if she wanted - most other family members also would take her in.

----------


## Confederate

> ....and that of which he partially returns back. Something many other congressman can't say they've done.


No, he doesn't give back part of his salary. He gave back part of his expense account for offices, staffers, etc.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Is anyone here receiving a govt. pension, social security or support payments from govt?


No, no and no.

Government employees used to have lower pay, but the best benefits and retirement. Now they often have the best pay too (for an average worker, white or blue collar). In the competition for workers, the government is winning. Thus they are taking many of the best out of the private sector. And we wonder why the private sector has problems...

Of course that generalization excludes many exceptional jobs in the private sector, which can lead to exaggerated wealth. Entertainment, sports and Wall St being examples where people can make extraordinary money (with the additional caveat that Wall St is often siphoning from government too).

----------


## Confederate

I'm on SSDI, food stamps, unemployment and medicaid.

----------


## cbc58

> I'm on SSDI, food stamps, unemployment and medicaid.


are you serious?

----------


## Confederate

> are you serious?


The quicker I can suck the federal government dry the sooner the Confederacy can rise once again!



PS: No, I'm not serious about receiving 'benefits'

----------


## oyarde

> are you serious?


 No , he is not serious .

----------


## brandon

If the government ever wanted to give me some kind of handout or benefit, I would definitely take it.  What I would never do is to become dependent on the government as long as I am in good health. My financial independence is one of the most important things to me.

----------


## ILUVRP

> If the government ever wanted to give me some kind of handout or benefit, I would definitely take it.  What I would never do is to become dependent on the government as long as I am in good health. My financial independence is one of the most important things to me.


i think everyone on this forum would do the same.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

I completely sympathize with posters like tod evans, and I agree _with the sentiment_.  Right on!  Don't deal with these creeps!  Don't dirty yourself with their blood money!  Myself, I also do not receive any direct payments like Socialist Security, welfare, or food stamps.  But I do receive lots of indirect benefits and subsidies.  The food I buy at grocery stores was subsidized by the thieves at the Department of Agriculture; I avail myself of roads that are funded by theft; I use electricity that comes from an aggression-based system; my tap water is likewise anything but free-market.  Should we give these things up?

To quote Walter Block:

"Consistent refusal to deal with government thieves would involve one in committing suicide, since governments control all of the earth's surface. This is anathema to libertarianism, which holds life, not death, as the ideal."

Dr. Block has written on this issue -- should a libertarian take gov't money? -- on many occasions.  Here is one of his expositions:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block175.html

----------


## angelatc

> You are teaching your kids how to not work and be on welfare?  Or am I misreading this?


Yes, pretty much.  How to not pay into the system, legally.


As long as we continue to fund this crap, it will exist.  I understand the need for working - bringing home more money than welfare and other programs pay, but people putting money into the bottomless pit of need are possibly a bigger problem than people taking money out.

----------


## sam1952

> *Folks, it's done.  There isn't going to be any intentional, orderly, planned elimination of government programs or spending.  They just had a knock-down fight to the finish about whether or not they would just reduce the rate of increase of spending!  And they agreed not to!  They are not EVER going to cut spending by any significant amount.  They are going to run the bus off the cliff.  Ron Paul tried.  We tried.  Other people tried.  We didn't make it and now it is too late.*
> 
> It still makes sense to support liberty as a political movement, but not because there is any hope of turning this around.  Rather, the hope is in laying a foundation for what gets built up out of the ashes.  And that includes supporting political leaders that will be around to fight for freedom during reconstruction. 
> 
> Once the bus hits the bottom of the ravine, then we can start picking up the pieces.  
> 
> But for now, you should do exactly what the elite insiders are doing - grabbing every remaining shred of wealth you can get your hands on and trying to position yourself to survive what is coming. 
> 
> That's my advice, for whatever it is worth.


+1

----------


## klamath

> i think everyone on this forum would do the same.


Not.

----------


## talkingpointes

If there is one group of people I wouldn't mind receiving money at all is returning vets. Their lives are seriously in need of the help most of the time returning. They were willing to give their life (albiet for nothing) so we can give a few dollars.

----------


## klamath

"_Get everything you can, break the system_!" Heard this from the counterculture baby boomers as well in the '60's and '70's. Well they have been doing it damned near 50 years. Strange how the cycles keep repeating themselves. The younger generation think they have discovered a startling NEW concept because they has so little respect for their parents and grandparents that they never bothered to listen to what their parents and grandparents said about life and ideas of their youth and repeat exactly what they dispise in the older generations. Human's are funny.

----------


## Tod

> Folks, it's done.  There isn't going to be any intentional, orderly, planned elimination of government programs or spending.  They just had a knock-down fight to the finish about whether or not they would just reduce the rate of increase of spending!  And they agreed not to!  They are not EVER going to cut spending by any significant amount.  They are going to run the bus off the cliff.  Ron Paul tried.  We tried.  Other people tried.  We didn't make it and now it is too late.
> 
> It still makes sense to support liberty as a political movement, but not because there is any hope of turning this around.  Rather, the hope is in laying a foundation for what gets built up out of the ashes.  And that includes supporting political leaders that will be around to fight for freedom during reconstruction. 
> 
> Once the bus hits the bottom of the ravine, then we can start picking up the pieces.  
> 
> But for now, you should do exactly what the elite insiders are doing - grabbing every remaining shred of wealth you can get your hands on and trying to position yourself to survive what is coming. 
> 
> That's my advice, for whatever it is worth.


Thread winner right here ^

----------


## dannno

With all of the trillions of dollars given to big banks, corporations, defense contractors and all that money wasted on overseas wars, don't you think that if we cut all that spending first it would spur most of the people dependent on government into a much more efficient and productive private sector?

The OP is playing the same tired old game as the establishment.. they pretend the only thing we can cut is granny's pension.

----------


## Zippyjuan

If you seriously want to reduce government and balance the budget you HAVE to look at Grannie. And GI Joe.  Three programs consume the vast majority of the budget- defense spending, Social Security, and Medicare/Medicaid.   If you got rid of EVERYTHING else, you still cannot balance the budget (in the absence of higher taxes). They are also going to be the fastest growing portions on into the future unless changes are made.

----------


## klamath

People that use the logic "get everything you can so it will break the system" reminds me of someone trying to commit suicide because their life is so horrible and wake up horribly disfigured and in horrible pain the rest of their lives. They think they have it bad now only to realize just how really really worse it can get.....

----------


## Dianne

Not me, although I sure could use some reimbursement of the money I've been raped out of since I was 15 years old... now ... 60... you do the math.

I have not collected one dime for the 45 years I've paid into this jackleg system.   I've been raped 45 years by the "lawbreakers" aka the "lawmakers" .    I am the equivalent of a tenant farmer ..   this government has used me, abused me... what more can I say?    I don't believe I will collect one dime stolen from me, over the past 45 years.

----------


## Danke

> Not me, although I sure could use some reimbursement of the money I've been raped out of since I was 15 years old... now ... 60... you do the math.
> 
> I have not collected one dime for the 45 years I've paid into this jackleg system.   I've been raped 45 years by the "lawbreakers" aka the "lawmakers" .    I am the equivalent of a tenant farmer ..   this government has used me, abused me... what more can I say?    I don't believe I will collect one dime stolen from me, over the past 45 years.


They say ignorance of the law is no excuse.

----------


## UWDude

I took college grants and loans.
Never taken welfare or food stamps, unemployment etc. although I have definitely been broke enough to qualify. It wasn't too long ago I was eating beans, rice and oatmeal every day.
Meh, I wish I had taken welfare or food stamps.  I'd have a lot more cash and savings right now.   I'm selling my silver to make ends meet.
The ethical way means a life of suffering, while the unethical carelessly play.
And since I don't believe in an afterlife based on deeds, I am just hurting myself.
But I simply cannot find my lack of pride to get food stamps or welfare.
And it's not like I even judge people who use it, as my mom was on it for a few years.
I dunno, maybe it is the best way to get back to the city, as there is nothing for me where I am.

It seems like I never learn the lesson:
If you try to be the change you want to see in the world...
...you'll be left with nothing but a world laughing past you.

----------


## MelissaWV

To read these threads, it is only ethical to pay into the system... and never to take anything out.  The OP says it'd be against Ron's philosophy.

Right?  So Ron will not collect any SS, or have Medicare benefits, and he definitely never took a Government paycheck on any level, and of course he never went to a school that benefits from Government dollars!

We're all paying into it on some level or another.  While I don't agree with the "get all you can so that you can bankrupt the system" idea, I do believe that it's not hypocritical or the end of the world to use benefits you've paid into.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> direct question - the US govt. is running a $1.6 trillion yearly deficit.  should not all payouts be reduced across the board for everyone receiving govt. $$ to bring this to $0 ?   and we haven't even started to get into the 50-70 trillion in unfunded liabilities promised...
> *
> to other posters who say "take what you can now" - how is the system crashing faster going to change things for the better?   it's just more debt being pushed off that has to be paid eventually - either through inflation, a lower standard of living or higher taxes.  you think govt. is going to get smaller?  is there ANY time in history where a currency collapsed and the govt. didn't get bigger and make life worse for it's citizens?   this is like eating sugar for years and the dentist telling you to stop or your teeth will rot and you'll need dentures - then they do -- and you find out dentures suck.   it's not sunshine and roses coming.. it's misery*.


Every welfare state/empire collapses in one way or another.  This is a good thing.  I don't see a problem with people using the system to expropriate money from the regime.  Your argument could also be used against participating in the political process, you know.  

btw, this situation just goes to show that Constitutionalism as we know it can't work long term.  It's too destructive.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> If you seriously want to reduce government and balance the budget you HAVE to look at Grannie. And GI Joe.  Three programs consume the vast majority of the budget- defense spending, Social Security, and Medicare/Medicaid.   If you got rid of EVERYTHING else, you still cannot balance the budget (in the absence of higher taxes). They are also going to be the fastest growing portions on into the future unless changes are made.


Truth.  And where is that FEMA party you're hosting?  I'd like to come.

----------


## UWDude

> If you seriously want to reduce government and balance the budget you HAVE to look at Grannie. And GI Joe.  Three programs consume the vast majority of the budget- defense spending, Social Security, and Medicare/Medicaid.   If you got rid of EVERYTHING else, you still cannot balance the budget (in the absence of higher taxes). They are also going to be the fastest growing portions on into the future unless changes are made.


Granny, GI Joe, and Goldman Sachs.
Why are we paying interest on money we should be printing ourselves anyway?
Why did we ever agree to pay interest?
Why should we pay interest on an unconstitutional agreement?
Why are we even worried about our "national debt"?

We are the breadbasket of the world.  We have tons of resources and one of the best educated workforces.  We aren't going to "die" or "collapse" if we default on something we never really wanted in the first place.

Why is my sorry 35 year old ass responsible for the idiotic choices of the generations before me?  Why do I have to pay for the wars I never wanted but gleefully sold by the MIC and banks to us as a way to jump start the economy, amongst other things?

$#@! em.
Hang em and burn em, I say.
And let the rest beg to forgive us our debts.
Or chain em and hang em too.

----------


## Acala

> If you seriously want to reduce government and balance the budget you HAVE to look at Grannie. And GI Joe.  Three programs consume the vast majority of the budget- defense spending, Social Security, and Medicare/Medicaid.   If you got rid of EVERYTHING else, you still cannot balance the budget (in the absence of higher taxes). They are also going to be the fastest growing portions on into the future unless changes are made.


Yup.  And it will not happen.  

For several generations now, government in this country has been primarily about handing out largess.  The excuses for it - national security, helping the poor, supporting the elderly, protecting consumers, etc. - are almost inumerable, but the real government agenda is, and has been for over a century, taking wealth and freedom from any source they can get their hands into and giving it to whoever helps get them elected.  Banks, unions, and government contractors of various types have been major recipients but certainly not the only ones.  Major voting blocks, like Social Security beneficiaries and government workers, are at the trough too.  It has become a way of life.

The fact is that the primary business of government is keeping the feeding trough full, and has been for generations.  They really don't know how to do anything else.  And so they won't.  They will use every trick, every deceit, every cowardly scam, every manner of theft and fraud, to keep the trough full for as long as possible because THAT is all they know how to do.  You might as well ask a lion to become a vegetarian as ask Congress to seriously cut spending.  They will die first.  

They are just about out of slop for the trough now.  But they are not going to stop until every drop they can get their hands on has gone to the hogs.  Then the hogs will turn on them and on each other.

You are not going to stop this from happening.  But it is in the interest of keeping the light of liberty burning for our posterity that YOU survive the debacle that is coming.  If you need to elbow in for some of the slop so you can survive the days following the end of the empire, by all means DO IT!

----------


## LibForestPaul

> Granny, GI Joe, and Goldman Sachs.
> Why are we paying interest on money we should be printing ourselves anyway?
> Why did we ever agree to pay interest?
> Why should we pay interest on an unconstitutional agreement?
> Why are we even worried about our "national debt"?
> 
> We are the breadbasket of the world.  We have tons of resources and one of the best educated workforces.  We aren't going to "die" or "collapse" if we default on something we never really wanted in the first place.
> 
> Why is my sorry 35 year old ass responsible for the idiotic choices of the generations before me?  Why do I have to pay for the wars I never wanted but gleefully sold by the MIC and banks to us as a way to jump start the economy, amongst other things?
> ...


+1

Guess what happens when the debt is declared null and void...millions of useless beueracrats will need to do real work instead of shuffling papers, government contractors will actually have to find work, instead of getting handouts, and maybe Jamie Diamond will have to learn a useful trade, like carpenrty.

----------


## oyarde

No , I recv no government benefits , I use roads , pay for that in gas taxes that are near $1 per gallon , license and license plate fees , auto sales tax. I use the Post office and pay near a $1 to mail two letters.The only govt benefits I use are covered in Article One Section Eight and my State Constitution.

----------


## erowe1

> If so... would you mind telling us what it is (pension, benefits, SS, Medicaid/care, or whatever) - and how do you feel about receiving these benefits in light of the current economic situation (govt. is broke).


Is the government being broke something we should try to avoid?

Should we also be helping the Mafia with its finances?

----------


## cbc58

> Is the government being broke something we should try to avoid?
> 
> Should we also be helping the Mafia with its finances?



What is the meaning of this post?

----------


## erowe1

> What is the meaning of this post?


It was two questions.

----------


## torchbearer

> direct question - the US govt. is running a $1.6 trillion yearly deficit. should not all payouts be reduced across the board for everyone receiving govt. $$ to bring this to $0 ? and we haven't even started to get into the 50-70 trillion in unfunded liabilities promised...
> 
> to other posters who say "take what you can now" - how is the system crashing faster going to change things for the better? it's just more debt being pushed off that has to be paid eventually - either through inflation, a lower standard of living or higher taxes. you think govt. is going to get smaller? is there ANY time in history where a currency collapsed and the govt. didn't get bigger and make life worse for it's citizens? this is like eating sugar for years and the dentist telling you to stop or your teeth will rot and you'll need dentures - then they do -- and you find out dentures suck. it's not sunshine and roses coming.. it's misery.


depends on how old you are on when it would be better for the economy/government to finally crash and burn.
if you are younger, the quicker it happens, the better- because you'd have time to rebuild your wealth(possibly).
if you are older, you want to keep kicking the can down to your grandkids in hopes you'll punch-out before the economy does.

----------


## cbc58

> It was two questions.


how would you answer them?  you must have an opinion or wouldn't have crafted them.

----------


## torchbearer

> Yes, pretty much. How to not pay into the system, legally.
> 
> 
> As long as we continue to fund this crap, it will exist. I understand the need for working - bringing home more money than welfare and other programs pay, but people putting money into the bottomless pit of need are possibly a bigger problem than people taking money out.


 I have often thought the same thing. I know that the protection racket people bang enough tax protestors to keep most people in line, but everyone should be seeking a way to eliminate contributions to the beast.

though, if you think about it- if everyone stopped sending in their protection payments tomorrow, uncle Ben could just print up what the government wanted, and steal the wealth from the people that way.

----------


## erowe1

> how would you answer them?  you must have an opinion or wouldn't have crafted them.


No to both.

But I'm not the person who wrote the OP.

----------


## ican'tvote

The state is not the people. The state is force. 
There is nothing wrong with accepting the money it dishes out to placate you. Just try to use it for good, and don't become dependent.

I don't receive anything myself.

----------


## Jingles

I receive nothing from the state. All I get is my income stolen from me.

----------


## jbauer

Everyone gets something from the state.  You get it in the form of subsidies either direct or indirect.  We are spending what 40% more then what we're taking in?  Everyone is getting some bennifit from those dollars that were created out of nothing.  Even if you don't see it show up in your checking account.  

As for direct payments from the government and whether they should be changed?  I think we all need to suffer equally for our transgresions.

----------


## jbauer

> I receive nothing from the state. All I get is my income stolen from me.


No roads, no police, no fire fighter, no water/gas/electric lines, no groceries, hospitals, etc etc etc.  We're all getting something from "the system".  You're welcome to argue if you're getting back your fair share but we're all getting something.

----------


## erowe1

> Everyone is getting some benefit from those dollars that were created out of nothing.


No, that is the opposite of how it works.

Those dollars that are created out of nothing don't come with things to buy that also come from nothing. All the goods, services, and so on that exist with those dollars would exist without them (or, more likely, some even better arrangement of goods and services would). They would just have smaller price tags. What these dollars created out of nothing result in is that a greater portion of all the existing goods and services are getting allocated by the government than would be otherwise.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> No roads, no police, no fire fighter, no water/gas/electric lines, no groceries, hospitals, etc etc etc.  We're all getting something from "the system".  You're welcome to argue if you're getting back your fair share but we're all getting something.


Yay, the "public goods" fallacy again!

----------


## jbauer

> Yay, the "public goods" fallacy again!


Public good or not.  Everyone benifits in some form or fasion from our government existing even if those "dollars" could be better allocated or used by an individual.  Every dollar you pay into taxes doesn't just poof into nothing (although most do).

----------


## cbc58

> No, that is the opposite of how it works.


No, that is how it has worked.  You are confusing idealist economics (what could/should have happened
) vs. the reality of what has actually transpired.  Jbauer is right IMHO

----------


## majinkoola

I don't get any benefits, and I stopped teaching as soon as I could get another job, mainly because I didn't feel right taking money from the state.

I see no problem with other people taking money from the state. What I do have a problem with, and it really annoys me on this board, is when SS/Medicare recipients support continuing the system because they paid in. That is nonsense. Money is being stolen from me to pay for that right now. So take the money if it's there, but support ending it now.

----------


## Aeroneous

I get payments from my GI Bill and disability payments from the VA for a service-connected disability.  Can I live without either of these benefits?  Easily.

I'm sure many people on this forum will disagree with me and think that I shouldn't continue to accept this money from the state, but here's my philosophy:

I pay thousands upon thousands of dollars each year in taxes to a government that is misappropriating my funds and engaging in unconstitutional wars.  Our true voices in government have been stifled, and it's rare that we see any form of "fair" election at the federal level.  Since the government isn't using my funds appropriately and I don't really get a say in how they need to be spent, I feel as though I deserve a refund.  I simply see accepting these payments from the state as a means for getting back a small amount of the misused money I pay in taxes.

Kinda roundabout, I guess, but that's my justification.  Feel free to tell me I'm wrong.

----------


## angelatc

> though, if you think about it- if everyone stopped sending in their protection payments tomorrow, uncle Ben could just print up what the government wanted, and steal the wealth from the people that way.


At least the inflation would start at the bottom.

----------


## Gumba of Liberty

> I get payments from my GI Bill and disability payments from the VA for a service-connected disability.  Can I live without either of these benefits?  Easily.
> 
> I'm sure many people on this forum will disagree with me and think that I shouldn't continue to accept this money from the state, but here's my philosophy:
> 
> I pay thousands upon thousands of dollars each year in taxes to a government that is misappropriating my funds and engaging in unconstitutional wars.  Our true voices in government have been stifled, and it's rare that we see any form of "fair" election at the federal level.  Since the government isn't using my funds appropriately and I don't really get a say in how they need to be spent, I feel as though I deserve a refund.  I simply see accepting these payments from the state as a means for getting back a small amount of the misused money I pay in taxes.
> 
> Kinda roundabout, I guess, but that's my justification.  Feel free to tell me I'm wrong.


You're not. 

The public-works fallacy is the same as the broken-window fallacy. Just because the State is providing you services does not mean you are benefiting from these services. If you compare the costs (the unseen) to the benefits (the seen) of public works you realize that the State is a net burden on your existence and the only way to liberate yourself from the State is to reclaim your rightful property in anyway you can.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Public good or not.  Everyone benifits in some form or fasion from our government existing even if those "dollars" could be better allocated or used by an individual.  Every dollar you pay into taxes doesn't just poof into nothing (although most do).


/facepalm   SMH... You have some reading to do.  Pages 3-32 here:http://mises.org/books/economicsethics.pdf " ("Fallacies of the Public Goods Theory and the Production of Security", Hoppe.)

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> You're not. 
> 
> The public-works fallacy is the same as the broken-window fallacy. Just because the State is providing you services does not mean you are benefiting from these services. If you compare the costs (the unseen) to the benefits (the seen) of public works you realize that the State is a net burden on your existence and the only way to liberate yourself from the State is to reclaim your rightful property in anyway you can.


Well-played, sir!  +rep

----------


## Adrock

Since the government does not create wealth, the public services provided to a society are provided with wealth originally taken from the society. To say someone is personally gaining from something that was taken from them to begin with is a fallacy.

----------


## Aeroneous

> Since the government does not create wealth, the public services provided to a society are provided with wealth originally taken from the society. To say someone is personally gaining from something that was taken from them to begin with is a fallacy.


If everything that was taken from everyone was given back to everyone proportionally, this would be true.  Unfortunately the government redistributes wealth and there are people who DO get wealth FROM the state WITHOUT paying in their fair share.  It's messed up, isn't it?  We pay taxes so that urban inner-city fat mothers with ten kids that don't want to work can talk to their friends on their Obamaphone.

----------


## Adrock

> If everything that was taken from everyone was given back to everyone proportionally, this would be true.  Unfortunately the government redistributes wealth and there are people who DO get wealth FROM the state WITHOUT paying in their fair share.  It's messed up, isn't it?  We pay taxes so that urban inner-city fat mothers with ten kids that don't want to work can talk to their friends on their Obamaphone.


Redistribution of wealth is a different subject. 

On a macro level public services (roads, police, fire) are paid for with wealth that was taken from the population already. It is like taking water from the deep end of a pool and pouring it into the shallow end. Nothing is gained, just displaced inefficiently. I should of quoted the poster on the other page that was saying that "everyone gets something from the state". I say that is not true because they took it from you to begin with.

----------


## Aeroneous

> Redistribution of wealth is a different subject. 
> 
> On a macro level public services (roads, police, fire) are paid for with wealth that was taken from the population already. It is like taking water from the deep end of a pool and pouring it into the shallow end. Nothing is gained, just displaced inefficiently. I should of quoted the poster on the other page that was saying that "everyone gets something from the state". I say that is not true because they took it from you to begin with.


True.  Like many other areas in economics though, micro elements will often screw up the best laid macro intentions.

----------


## 2young2vote

I took a student loan from the state for $3750.  I'm not even sure why I took it.  I have the cash to pay for it this very instant if I need to.  I am very fortunate that that is the only debt I currently have until i buy a house.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Redistribution of wealth is a different subject. 
> 
> On a macro level public services (roads, police, fire) are paid for with wealth that was taken from the population already. It is like taking water from the deep end of a pool and pouring it into the shallow end. Nothing is gained, just displaced inefficiently. I should of quoted the poster on the other page that was saying that "everyone gets something from the state". I say that is not true because they took it from you to begin with.


This ^^^ is important and it bears repeating. Saying that "everyone gets something from the State" (as if you've identified some significant, profound or insightful truth) completely ignores a critical fact, and amounts to a useless half-truth (at best). The critical fact is that the State has NOTHING to GIVE TO "everyone" unless & until it first TAKES what it gives FROM "everyone". The State is NOT a source or creator of anything. It is just a "middle man" who warps & distorts the allocations of goods & services (while "skimming off" a nice big chunk for itself and its cronies/lackeys).

----------


## klamath

That is a falacy of thought. The state CAN create wealth, whether it *should* is a different argument. If the state takes a million tax payers dollars and builds a road giving business a road to transport goods and the saving from that transport is over a million dollars it is wealth created. If the state builds a hydro electric dam for fifty million dollars and it produces a hundred million in electric power it has created wealth. A state can create wealth however not necessary efficiently. There is vertually nobody not receiving benefits from governemenst in this country. But at the same time there is vertually nobody not receiving hinderance from government as well.

----------


## jbauer

> This ^^^ is important and it bears repeating. Saying that "everyone gets something from the State" (as if you've identified some significant, profound or insightful truth) completely ignores a critical fact, and amounts to a useless half-truth (at best). The critical fact is that the State has NOTHING to GIVE TO "everyone" unless & until it first TAKES what it gives FROM "everyone". The State is NOT a source or creator of anything. It is just a "middle man" who warps & distorts the allocations of goods & services (while "skimming off" a nice big chunk for itself and its cronies/lackeys).


Couldn't the same be said for every single transaction that has ever occured in human history?  I'm not advocating for more government by a long shot but no one does something for nothing.  Even a trade of even value between you and me creates value above and beyond the initial trade.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I took a student loan from the state for $3750.  I'm not even sure why I took it.  I have the cash to pay for it this very instant if I need to.  I am very fortunate that that is the only debt I currently have *until i buy a house.*


 Don't do it!  Mobile home (manufactured home) all the way!  You do *not* need to go into debt for housing.

----------


## jbauer

> You're not. 
> 
> The public-works fallacy is the same as the broken-window fallacy. *Just because the State is providing you services does not mean you are benefiting from these services.* If you compare the costs (the unseen) to the benefits (the seen) of public works you realize that the State is a net burden on your existence and the only way to liberate yourself from the State is to reclaim your rightful property in anyway you can.


Thats true, there are many "services" that you or I are not benefiting from but there certainly are services we are.  We "get" something from the taxes we pay.  Even if its less effective and more costly then it could be provided otherwise.  Heck we even get things from the taxes we don't pay.  We all are indebt to our foreign borrowers.  At some point those debts become real.  Now whether we choose to pay for them is another thread.

----------


## otherone

> If so... would you mind telling us what it is (pension, benefits, SS, Medicaid/care, or whatever) - and how do you feel about receiving these benefits in light of the current economic situation (govt. is broke).


Like the Child Tax Credit, or mortgage interest deduction?  I get neither, thanks.

----------


## jbauer

> Don't do it!  Mobile home (manufactured home) all the way!  You do *not* need to go into debt for housing.


You don't need housing either.  You could sleep on a bench somewhere.  Debt for housing is probably one of the more justifyible debt one could take on.

----------


## Adrock

> That is a falacy of thought. The state CAN create wealth, whether it *should* is a different argument. If the state takes a million tax payers dollars and builds a road giving business a road to transport goods and the saving from that transport is over a million dollars it is wealth created. If the state builds a hydro electric dam for fifty million dollars and it produces a hundred million in electric power it has created wealth. A state can create wealth however not necessary efficiently. There is vertually nobody not receiving benefits from governemenst in this country. But at the same time there is vertually nobody not receiving hinderance from government as well.


Wealth is created when capital is concentrated to create something of worth to a society. This worth is judged by the society by if they buy the product. While you have the state concentrating capital and producing something, you do not have society ever actually placing a value on it through the marketplace. A like example that comes to mind is if the government builds a factory that produces widgets but no one wants to buy them. There is no wealth creation by the state because it cannot sense or respond to what the society deems valuable.

----------


## jbauer

> Wealth is created when capital is concentrated to create something of worth to a society. This worth is judged by the society by if they buy the product. While you have the state concentrating capital and producing something, you do not have society ever actually placing a value on it through the marketplace. A like example that comes to mind is if the government builds a factory that produces widgets but no one wants to buy them. There is no wealth creation by the state because it cannot sense or respond to what the society deems valuable.


There's all kinds of value in things "created" by the state.  They just don't come to market in the normal sense as a widget.  But communites and buinsess do place "values" on things not brought to the market by the private sector all the time.

----------


## Adrock

> Couldn't the same be said for every single transaction that has ever occured in human history?  I'm not advocating for more government by a long shot but no one does something for nothing.  Even a trade of even value between you and me creates value above and beyond the initial trade.


Two people having an informed and free interaction is superior. Both individuals are going the naturally act in their own self interest. It is this self interest that increases efficiency, sets the potential for wealth to be created, and puts a value on the item or service being traded. This value is key on determining if wealth is created.

Even the most honest and competent bureaucrat will always lack the element of self interest in a transaction. This is why government is always inefficient at best and cannot create wealth.

----------


## Adrock

> There's all kinds of value in things "created" by the state.  They just don't come to market in the normal sense as a widget.  But communites and buinsess do place "values" on things not brought to the market by the private sector all the time.


How are they placing value outside of the marketplace? How is the value measured? How do you know wealth is created and it is not just a distortion of the wealth originally extracted to begin with?

----------


## Rothbardian Girl

To me, it isn't really a moral failing to accept aid from the government, given that the whole idea around the welfare system (and even student loans to some extent) is to break both your legs in the form of taxes, inflation, etc. and then hand you crutches. I think the only caveat is that you have an understanding of your plight and work to change it. I myself receive some federal student loans, and my mom is currently receiving unemployment. I don't see any point in starving yourself just to live by principle. There are so many things that contribute to our poverty today that are really out of our control as of now.

----------


## Adrock

> Thats true, there are many "services" that you or I are not benefiting from but there certainly are services we are.  We "get" something from the taxes we pay.  Even if its less effective and more costly then it could be provided otherwise.  Heck we even get things from the taxes we don't pay.  We all are indebt to our foreign borrowers.  At some point those debts become real.  Now whether we choose to pay for them is another thread.


The "something" we get in return is the wealth originally taken from the population in another form.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Originally Posted by jbauer
> Public good or not. Everyone benefits in some form or fashion from our government existing even if those "dollars" could be better allocated or used by an individual. Every dollar you pay into taxes doesn't just poof into nothing (although most do).
> 			
> 		
> 
> /facepalm   SMH... You have some reading to do.  Pages 3-32 here:http://mises.org/books/economicsethics.pdf " ("Fallacies of the Public Goods Theory and the Production of Security", Hoppe.)


 Actually, jbauer is absolutely right, HB.  The state does do things which benefit us.  I benefit from the state's fascist electricity production and distribution system.  You almost certainly do too.  Electricity is a good, beneficial thing.  The state happens to provide it.

jbauer is not drawing any pro-state conclusion from this, and neither am I.  We are just stating what is clearly true.  It is relevant to this discussion because we are thinking about whether it is OK for libertarians to accept state money handouts, use state services, and receive other benefits from the state.  If we are going to seriously ask ourselves this question, we should take into consideration the extreme pervasiveness of state benefits, in all corners of life, and thus the fact that refusing to accept any almost amounts to a mandate for suicide.




> Saying that "everyone gets something from the State" (as if you've identified some significant, profound or insightful truth) completely ignores a critical fact, and amounts to a useless half-truth (at best). The critical fact is that the State has NOTHING to GIVE TO "everyone" unless & until it first TAKES what it gives FROM "everyone".


 It is a truthIt is not uselessIt is not a half-truth
If we are discussing whether it is morally reprehensible to get something from the state (and we are), then it is relevant that, in fact, everyone is doing this morally reprehensible thing.  It is highly significant/insightful/useful to note the universality of the act, and go from there.  Let me note it again:

We cannot avoid accepting benefits from the state.  Or at minimum it would be very difficult and impractical.  The state has wrapped its tangly tentacles into all kinds of basic and indispensable functions of modern life.  Water, electricity, food -- these are fundamental goods which one cannot obtain in any reasonably convenient fashion if one is keeping to a principled stand of not accepting state benefits.

If we were discussing whether the state is terrific or not, sure, then it would be important to note that obviously the state smashes stuff and destroys our lives about a quadrillion times more than it benefits us.  Very true.  But that's not what this thread was discussing.

Would anyone here say that walking on the state-funded sidewalk is immoral?  If so, why?  If not, and if you simultaneously think that receiving welfare payments from the state is immoral, what is the philosophical difference in the two acts which makes one moral and the other immoral?

Did anyone read Walter Block's thoughts on the matter?  I find them clear and logical.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block175.html

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> You don't need housing either.  You could sleep on a bench somewhere.  Debt for housing is probably one of the more justifyible debt one could take on.


 I have nothing against housing.  But stick-built site-built houses are tremendously overpriced.  If you can get the same benefits, for ten times less, why not?

But, I'm glad you and so many others equate mobile home living to sleeping on a bench somewhere.  If you ever stopped, the prices would go up from their current ridiculously low levels.  But that will never happen, and we merry few -- the lucky, the clear-thinking, the trailer trash -- will continue to get a much, much better deal than you.

----------


## jbauer

> Two people having an informed and free interaction is superior. Both individuals are going the naturally act in their own self interest. It is this self interest that increases efficiency, sets the potential for wealth to be created, and puts a value on the item or service being traded. This value is key on determining if wealth is created.
> 
> Even the most honest and competent bureaucrat will always lack the element of self interest in a transaction. This is why government is always inefficient at best and cannot create wealth.


Efficiency/cost effectiveness has nothing to do with the conversation.  I've already admitted and I'm sure most would that the government does a crappy job on that front.  The argument was made that government doesn't provide value.

----------


## jbauer

> The "something" we get in return is the wealth originally taken from the population in another form.


No doubt.  But the thread is about whether it is moral to accept payments/services from the state.  Not whether its moral for the state to take it in the first place.  My argument is that we all in one from or fasion utilize things provided with our tax dollars to the population.

----------


## jbauer

> I have nothing against housing.  But stick-built site-built houses are tremendously overpriced.  If you can get the same benefits, for ten times less, why not?
> 
> But, I'm glad you and so many others equate mobile home living to sleeping on a bench somewhere.  If you ever stopped, the prices would go up from their current ridiculously low levels.  But that will never happen, and we merry few -- the lucky, the clear-thinking, the trailer trash -- will continue to get a much, much better deal than you.


One of my ex-employees worked for clayton homes.  She sold prefab houses.  She was always talking in the $55/sqft range plus site prep.  Atleast around here you're probably looking at the very low 100s for stick built (site prep included).  Insurance is harder to get on prefab, they don't retain value like stick built (alteast here) and its much much much harder to get a loan (atleast here) because the banks look at it as a riskier loan.  Pick your poison I guess.

----------


## Adrock

> Efficiency/cost effectiveness has nothing to do with the conversation.  I've already admitted and I'm sure most would that the government does a crappy job on that front.  The argument was made that government doesn't provide value.


I used efficiency and tied it to acting in one's self interest to relate it to something you understood already. The same lack of self interest that does not allow the government to act efficiently is the same self interest that a society possesses in order to put worth onto a product. If the government cannot sense this, it cannot possibly create wealth (or add value). The only value provided is from the wealth it originally took from the population.

----------


## Adrock

> No doubt.  But the thread is about whether it is moral to accept payments/services from the state.  Not whether its moral for the state to take it in the first place.  My argument is that we all in one from or fasion utilize things provided with our tax dollars to the population.


I agree that we all use the public services the government provides. My argument is that it is moral since everything the government provides originates from us anyways.

----------


## libertygrl

> So what exactly are you sugesting people that are now too old to return to the workforce do? You seem to be passing a lot of judgement?


Unfortunatey, I've noticed a lot of that over the years on these forums and it pisses me off.  Some people are under the misguided impression that ALL seniors like my parents (who were blue collar workers) are wealthy and playing golf all day in Palm Beach.

 The truth is, my parents are on a fixed income. They worked hard all of their lives and put into S.S.  At one point my father worked 2 jobs to support his family.   Maybe if there wasn't a tax on personal income, we wouldn't need S.S. because people would have been able to kept more of the fruit of their labor.  So please, let's drop the judgemental attitudes.  Thanks....

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> She was always talking in the $55/sqft range plus site prep.  Atleast around here you're probably looking at the very low 100s for stick built (site prep included).


 That's for _new_.




> they don't retain value like stick built


 Exactly.  That's precisely the advantage to them.  They get very cheap, very fast.  The 1,000 sq. ft. site-built home from the 1970s will have appreciated to $200,000, whereas the 1,000 sq. ft. mobile home from the 1970s with better build quality will have gone down to $2,000.




> its much much much harder to get a loan (atleast here) because the banks look at it as a riskier loan.


 Again, precisely my point!  Why get a loan for $2,000?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I agree that we all use the public services the government provides. My argument is that it is moral since everything the government provides originates from us anyways.


 More precisely, it is moral because the wealth originated from _someone_, from whom it was stolen.  It doesn't have to have come from _us_ or _you_.  The mere fact that it was stolen, that the state is a thief, writes the moral equation.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> So what exactly are you sugesting people that are now too old to return to the workforce do? You seem to be passing a lot of judgement?


 Of course they should do whatever they wish.  But the state should not be sending them checks.  That is evil, wrong, destructive, and reprehensible, and must end immediately.

Our nationalist socialist pension system is evil.  It is a black stain on our national character.  As slavery, it must be abolished.  *Now.*

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Maybe if there wasn't a tax on personal income, we wouldn't need S.S. because people would have been able to kept more of the fruit of their labor.


 We do not need the SS for the same reason we do not need an archipelago of concentration camps gassing unpopular people to death.  We don't need it because it is evil.

----------


## jbauer

> I agree that we all use the public services the government provides. My argument is that it is moral since everything the government provides originates from us anyways.


We're agreeing on the same things.  I think it is moral as well.  My comments started in this thread when a bunch of liberitarians started saying they didn't take anythign from the government.  My initial point was that everyone gets something from the government.

----------


## jbauer

> That's for _new_.
> 
>  Exactly.  That's precisely the advantage to them.  They get very cheap, very fast.  The 1,000 sq. ft. site-built home from the 1970s will have appreciated to $200,000, whereas the 1,000 sq. ft. mobile home from the 1970s with better build quality will have gone down to $2,000.
> 
>  Again, precisely my point!  Why get a loan for $2,000?


There's a reason moblie homes deperciate where as stick built home appreciate.  You get what you pay for I guess.  If you're comfortable in a 1970s trailer by all means its a quite cheap way to live.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> That is a falacy of thought. The state CAN create wealth, whether it *should*  is a different argument. If the state takes a million tax payers  dollars and builds a road giving business a road to transport goods and  the saving from that transport is over a million dollars it is wealth  created. If the state builds a hydro electric dam for fifty million  dollars and it produces a hundred million in electric power it has  created wealth. A state can create wealth however not necessary  efficiently. There is vertually nobody not receiving benefits from  governemenst in this country. But at the same time there is vertually  nobody not receiving hinderance from government as well.


It is not fallacious. The State CANNOT create wealth. Period. It can  make things, certainly (or dictate that things be made).  But those  things come at the expense of the genuinely wealth-producing "win-win"  voluntary exchanges that would have been made if State had not  interfered. In your hydro-electric dam example, you ignore the fact that  the alleged "profit" from the dam (the difference between the cost of  its construction and the value of the electricity it produces)  necessarily comes at the expense of the "win-win" exchanges that would  have occurred if the fifty-milllion dollars in value required for the  State to build the dam had been left in the hands of that money's  various producers.

All State transactions are "win-loss" in nature. But only "win-win"  transactions can create wealth. Therefore, the State cannot create  wealth. At best, it is a matter of "one step forward, two steps back".

(See post #116 below for further elaboration.)

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Couldn't the same be said for every single  transaction that has ever occured in human history?  I'm not advocating  for more government by a long shot but no one does something for  nothing.  Even a trade of even value between you and me creates value  above and beyond the initial trade.


No, the same thing could NOT be said. Wealth-producing transactions are  ALWAYS "win-win" scenarios - otherwise, they would NOT be  wealth-producing. When I buy a loaf of bread from a grocer for a  dollar*, I "win" because I wanted that loaf of bread more than I wanted  that dollar. I am wealthier after the transaction than I was before it.  The grocer ALSO "wins" because he wanted that dollar more than he wanted  that loaf of bread. The grocer is wealthier after the transaction than  he was before it. We both end up wealthier after the exhange. (* For  stricter technical accuracy, the "dollars" I refer to here should  not  be thought of as modern Federal Reserve notes, but should be  understood  to be backed by some commodity - such as gold).

This is NOT the case in State-forced transactions - such as the  building, maintenance and operation of "public" roads or hydro-electric  dams or what-have-you. State-forced transactions are "win-loss." Some of  the parties to such transactions may indeed end up wealthier (such as  politically well-connected contractors & engineering firms,  lobbyists, etc.), but some of the parties (such as taxpayers) are going  to end up poorer - regardless of the fact that they are going end up "getting something out of it"  (such as electricity). The "something" that they end up getting  (whatever it may be) is not worth as much as what they would otherwise  have gotten had they not been forced to participate in the transaction.  It is NOT something they regard as being more valuable or desirable than  what they were forced to give up in "exchange" for it (as evidenced by  the fact that they had to be coercively taxed, for example).




> Thats true, there are many "services" that you or I  are not benefiting from but there certainly are services we are.  We  "get" something from the taxes we pay.  Even if its less effective and  more costly then it could be provided otherwise.  Heck we even get  things from the taxes we don't pay.  We all are indebt to our foreign  borrowers.  At some point those debts become real.  Now whether we  choose to pay for them is another thread.


See above. The things that we get from the taxes that we pay are - by  our own judgements - not worth as much as what we are forced to pay for  them (else we would not have "needed" to have been forced). Such things  are not the product of "win-win" exchanges, and thus do not constitute a  creation of wealth - even if we regard what we end up getting as being  desirable or valuable to some degree, 




> There's all kinds of value in things "created" by  the state.  They just don't come to market in the normal sense as a  widget.  But communites and buinsess do place "values" on things not  brought to the market by the private sector all the time.


But you are only looking at GROSS physical outcomes. The problem is that  - on NET - more wealth has to be destroyed than is "created" in order for the State to provide  you with those things.

As I noted in my previous post, it is at best matter of "one step forward, two steps back".

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Actually, jbauer is absolutely right, HB.   The state does do things which benefit us.  I benefit from the state's  fascist electricity production and distribution system.  You almost  certainly do too.  Electricity is a good, beneficial thing.  The state  happens to provide it.


If the government breaks your legs and then gives you a pair of  crutches, it has indeed provided you with something (crutches ...or  electricity, or whatever).

But it has NOT benefitted you. You may  have a nice pair of crutches, sure - but you are still worse off than  you would have been if you had just been left alone to begin with.

You  have gained something (crutches). You have lost something (the  effective use of your legs). And wealth has been destroyed - NOT created.




> jbauer is not drawing any pro-state  conclusion from this, and neither am I.   We are just stating what is  clearly true.


I have not accused him of doing so, nor do I think that that is his motive (or yours - I already know better ).




> It is relevant to this discussion because  we are thinking about whether it is OK for libertarians to accept state  money handouts, use state services, and receive other benefits from the  state.  If we are going to seriously ask ourselves this question, we  should take into consideration the extreme pervasiveness of state  benefits, in all corners of life, and thus the fact that refusing to  accept any almost amounts to a mandate for suicide.
> 
> It is a truthIt is not uselessIt is not a half-truth
> If  we are discussing whether it is morally reprehensible to get something  from the state (and we are), then it is relevant that, in fact, everyone  is doing this morally reprehensible thing.  It is highly  significant/insightful/useful to note the universality of the act, and  go from there.


I have said absolutely nothing about the morality of accepting  government "benefits" (whether they be in the form of services, physical  goods or money transfers). The State has gotten its hooks so deeply  into every aspect of society (and most notably when it comes to the  economy) that it is simply impossible to avoid entangling oneself with  such things to a very large degree. I therefore offer no normative  judgements on such matters. By all means, walk on the sidewalks. Drive  on the roads. Use the electricity. Etc., etc. That's fine. We  unfortunately do not live under circumstances that allow us any choice  in these matters.

But to say that the State "creates" IS a half-truth, and it IS useless.  To arrive at the full and useful truth, one MUST acknowledge the fact  that the State's so-called "creations" are made possible *only* by its  (even greater) *destructions*.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> If the government breaks your legs and then gives you a pair of  crutches, it has indeed provided you with something (crutches ...or  electricity, or whatever).
> 
> But it has NOT benefitted you. You may  have a nice pair of crutches, sure - but you are still worse off than  you would have been if it had just left you alone to begin with.


 I look at it as a binary act, which can be separated into two separate actions.  Action 1, breaking my legs, does not benefit me (unless I had wanted my legs broken).  Action 2 does benefit me (assuming I wanted crutches).




> You have gained something (crutches). You have lost something (the  effective use of your legs). Wealth has been destroyed - NOT created.


 Right.  The state supposedly creating wealth was not the true statement I was defending.  The true statement was "everyone gets something from the State".  Even that may not be completely true.  There may be people somewhere who have avoided any contact with any state, or who have managed to only be abused and never helped in any way.  But I think it is basically true.




> I have said absolutely nothing about the morality of accepting  government "benefits" (whether they be in the form of services, physical  goods or money transfers). The State has gotten its hooks so deeply  into every aspect of society (and most notably when it comes to the  economy) that it is simply impossible to avoid entangling oneself with  such things to a very large degree. I therefore offer no normative  judgements on such matters. By all means, walk on the sidewalks. Drive  on the roads. Use the electricity. Etc., etc. That's fine. We  unfortunately do not live under circumstances that allow us any choice  in these matters.


 Well, we do have a choice as to whether or not we apply for and accept AFDC, food stamps, veterans benefits, the SS blood money, etc.  So should we take that choice and receive the money?

I am with Walter Block that it is not only "fine" under libertarian theory to accept these, but positively good.  It is "a mitzvah" as he puts it.  By doing so, you are relieving thieves of some of their wealth and putting it back into the voluntary market.  You are a one-man privatization crew, removing stuff from the "public" (yuck) sector and putting it back into the private sector.

I am in the strange position, however, of thinking it a good thing to actively accept gov't handouts, and not doing so myself, because it is not worth dealing with these people and becoming part of the system and the bureaucracy and the paperwork, etc.  Handouts often come with strings attached.  TANSTAAFL.  If I have to look at these bureau-pathic freaks' faces, much less speak to them, that is a price too high.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> I look at it as a binary act, which can be separated into two separate actions.  Action 1, breaking my legs, does not benefit me (unless I had wanted my legs broken).  Action 2 does benefit me (assuming I wanted crutches).


They are indeed two separate acts. But both of them actually occur, and Action 1 (the destructive act - leg-breaking, taxation, etc.) more than negates Action 2 (the benefit - crutches, electricity, roads, etc.). So you always end up with a net loss.




> Right.  The state supposedly creating wealth was not the true statement I was defending.  The true statement was "everyone gets something from the State".  Even that may not be completely true.  There may be people somewhere who have avoided any contact with any state, or who have managed to only be abused and never helped in any way.  But I think it is basically true.


In that case, we are in complete agreement. The "useless half-truth" that I was referring to was the notion that the State creates wealth (i.e., produces an increase in prosperity).

I have no problem at all with the statement "everyone gets something from the State" (as long as you don't try to use this as a basis for claiming that the State is a wealth-creator).




> Well, we do have a choice as to whether or not we apply for and accept AFDC, food stamps, veterans benefits, the SS blood money, etc.


Even in those matters, our range of choices can be proscribed or delimited as a consequence of government interference in things.

How many people living on or availing themselves of food stamps, Social Security, etc. find themselves in that position because the State has taxed & regulated them into it?




> So should we take that choice and receive the money?


This is an entirely subjective matter, to be answered by each on the basis of current circumstances, personal taste & temperament, etc.




> I am with Walter Block that it is not only "fine" under libertarian theory to accept these, but positively good.  It is "a mitzvah" as he puts it.  By doing so, you are relieving thieves of some of their wealth and putting it back into the voluntary market.  You are a one-man privatization crew, removing stuff from the "public" (yuck) sector and putting it back into the private sector.
> 
> I am in the strange position, however, of thinking it a good thing to actively accept gov't handouts, and not doing so myself, because it is not worth dealing with these people and becoming part of the system and the bureaucracy and the paperwork, etc.  Handouts often come with strings attached.  TANSTAAFL.  If I have to look at these bureau-pathic freaks' faces, much less speak to them, that is a price too high.


Same here. I could easily qualify for unemployment benefits (as I am currently jobless & living on savings). Food stamps, too, probably. I have not availed myself of either (for the same reasons you mentioned). But I've got no particular problem with those who have.

The State has made our bed. Some will choose to lie in it, some will choose to sit on the edge of it, and some will try to remain as far away from it as possible. But the State is to blame for it all.

To be a "receiver of stolen goods" is made possible only by the fact that there is a stealer of those goods in the first place. Even if the former is a sin, it is a far less heinous one than the latter.

Given this, I make no condemnations of anyone involved - except the State itself (& its cronies/lackeys, who are responsible for creating & perpetuating these situations).

----------


## Steven Douglas

> I look at it as a binary act, which can be separated into two separate actions.  Action 1, breaking my legs, does not benefit me (unless I had wanted my legs broken).  Action 2 does benefit me (assuming I wanted crutches).


The two actions could be considered as credits and debits, with a net loss for some and a net gain for others.  So it's more like the state breaks my legs, then adds insult to injury when it steals five pair of crutches from me to give to you, me, and three others who might want a pair. 




> I am with Walter Block that it is not only "fine" under libertarian theory to accept these, but positively good. It is "a mitzvah" as he puts it. By doing so, you are relieving thieves of some of their wealth and putting it back into the voluntary market. You are a one-man privatization crew, removing stuff from the "public" (yuck) sector and putting it back into the private sector.


From that standpoint there really is no such thing as a "public sector" when you think about it.  It's all private when it boils right down to it, with everyone made a private thief, wittingly or unwittingly, by extension.  As for "positively good", it depends on how you define that, but it's an oxymoron nonetheless, as those are mutually exclusive terms ("good" is absolutely and strictly normative, not positive).

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> The two actions could be considered as credits and debits, with a net loss for some and a net gain for others.  So it's more like the state breaks my legs, then adds insult to injury when it steals five pair of crutches from me to give to you, me, and three others who might want a pair.


 While I agree this would be a good analogy, I do not understand what you mean by credits and debits and overall do not understand what you are trying to say.




> From that standpoint there really is no such thing as a "public sector" when you think about it.  It's all private when it boils right down to it, with everyone made a private thief, wittingly or unwittingly, by extension.  As for "positively good", it depends on how you define that, but it's an oxymoron nonetheless, as those are mutually exclusive terms ("good" is absolutely and strictly normative, not positive).


 And I _really_ don't understand what you mean in this paragraph.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> While I agree this would be a good analogy, I do not understand what you mean by credits and debits and overall do not understand what you are trying to say.


All I meant was that while we can separate two things (what is taken, what is given), there is no separation in the fact that it has a net effect on each individual.  But what if you broaden that out to two individuals:

Just you, me, and the government.  The government takes nothing from you.  As a Very Efficient Government, it takes everything from me, and gives 90% of that to you. 

The net effect on me?  I'm dead broke. 
The net effect on you? You have 90% of what was taken from me.  

The fact that it's "in the private sector" means nothing to me, as that is an abstraction. It's not in MY private sector.  In reality it's in YOUR private sector...which is really just the public sector by extension.  




> And I _really_ don't understand what you mean in this paragraph.


It's all in how we throw terms around, like "private sector" and "public sector", as if they were two separate economies, with well defined borders.  What does that mean anyway?  A Welfare Department Procurement Specialist doesn't shop exclusively in some public sector-only shopping mall. If he goes shopping with confiscated tax funds at a Walmart, or buys some stuff directly from you even, is that private sector or public sector?  

I think both terms are useless without qualification. It's all money laundering when it comes right down to it.  Does it really make a difference whether a public sector employee spends stolen funds directly into the private economy (buys a bunch of stuff from your store with taxpayer money), or delivers those stolen funds to a private agent (a private recipient) who only happens to allocate it differently?  Someone in the private sector benefits either way.  And could wealth be created in that process? Yes, but no new wealth, as it's just redistribution. Opportunity costs dictate that it had to be at the expense of a) savings, or b) all other possible transactions that did not occur as a result of the theft.  

It doesn't matter whether an allocation was made by the original person stolen from, the public sector thief, or the recipient of loot from a public sector thief.  In all cases it would result in private sector redistribution of some kind, with different allocations made in each and every instance.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

The public sector is the state.  It is that sector of human existence which is part of the organization we call the state.

The private sector is everything and everyone not part of the state, and we generally exclude criminal activity as well.  So it covers all voluntary non-state human action.

Is a state employee part of the state?  Yes.  Walter Block, for example, is part of the state.  Could we just as well say that the handout recipient is part of the state, at least when acting in their capacity as receptacle for funds?  Perhaps.  And so in that sense angelatc is part of the state.  I _think_ that's what you're getting at.  You are saying angelatc is part of the public sector, not the private sector.  But she will (likely) spend the money into private companies, and after that it's in the private sector.

In the current state of affairs, there is no absolutely clear line between private sector and public sector, it's true.  Some companies are virtual extensions of the state, like Boeing or Lockheed-Martin.  Many more do a large amount of business with the state.  Very few actively avoid dealing with the state.  Outside of Elko, Nevada, how many restaurants refuse to serve federal agents?  Precious few.  Virtually all businesses are also tax collectors.  Tax collection is a state function.  

So I agree that we're all wrapped up in the state somehow, or more accurately that the state has wrapped its tendrils of aggression all over us.  Is there any conclusion in particular you were drawing from this?

----------


## Steven Douglas

> So I agree that we're all wrapped up in the state somehow, or more accurately that the state has wrapped its tendrils of aggression all over us.  Is there any conclusion in particular you were drawing from this?


I was only questioning Block's assertion that accepting public money is "positively good".  I don't have any judgments toward those who do get their kneecaps broken by the state and end up applying for crutches, but I don't necessarily consider it a 'good' thing, and the rationale you gave didn't resonate with me at all.  




> Well, we do have a choice as to whether or not we apply for and accept AFDC, food stamps, veterans benefits, the SS blood money, etc.  So should we take that choice and receive the money?
> 
> I am with Walter Block that *it is not only "fine" under libertarian theory to accept these, but positively good*.  It is "a mitzvah" as he puts it.  By doing so, you are relieving thieves of some of their wealth and putting it back into the voluntary market.  You are a one-man privatization crew, *removing stuff from the "public" (yuck) sector and putting it back into the private sector.*


My point was that the public sector doesn't produce anything that didn't originate from the private sector anyway, so the idea that private individuals are somehow doing a service by tapping into public funds to "privatize" them is something I don't see.  Again, that would be like someone stealing from me, and handing it to another. I can't see myself saying, "Well at least someone in the private sector got it, and not them."  




> Is a state employee part of the state?  Yes.  Walter Block, for example, is part of the state.  Could we just as well say that the handout recipient is part of the state, at least when acting in their capacity as receptacle for funds?  Perhaps.  And so in that sense angelatc is part of the state.  I _think_ that's what you're getting at.  You are saying angelatc is part of the public sector, not the private sector.  But she will (likely) spend the money into private companies, and after that it's in the private sector.
> 
> In the current state of affairs, there is no absolutely clear line between private sector and public sector, it's true.


The line I see is similar to the line I apply to the thin-air banking system. It's all about First Users.  Take out a loan, and you are a direct facilitator of the Fed System, while anyone you trade with, but who did not take out a loan, is not. 

Likewise, if you take funds directly from the state, you are directly part of the state, and a facilitator of the state by extension.  Those funds are laundered directly by you. In the case of food stamps, medicare, etc., the beneficiary is directly part of the state, and whoever takes funds from them is the First User (because they actively applied to accept food stamps, medicare, etc.,).  In that respect Ron Paul was not a facilitator of the state, because he never accepted medicare, but if he ever took out a loan, he was a facilitator of the Fed Banking system. 

Again, no judgments or condemnation of anyone who feels compelled to imbibe in either, especially when their survival depends on it. I fault the system that $#@!ed everything up at its core, not those who get caught in its tentacles and are forced to play to survive.  But that is the distinction for me, and I don't see any 'good' in it. 




> Virtually all businesses are also tax collectors.  Tax collection is a state function.


In my view, state tax collection by businesses is no different than people who are conscripted into military service against their [erstwhile] will. Businesses may collect taxes under threat, duress or coercion by the state--and through fear of loss of life, liberty or property if they don't, but that does not make them part of the state in my mind. That's all because they aren't given a choice.  If they were given a choice, and chose to do that, they'd be complicit, and very much part of the state.

----------


## osan

N/M

----------


## klamath

> Wealth is created when capital is concentrated to create something of worth to a society. This worth is judged by the society by if they buy the product. While you have the state concentrating capital and producing something, you do not have society ever actually placing a value on it through the marketplace. A like example that comes to mind is if the government builds a factory that produces widgets but no one wants to buy them. There is no wealth creation by the state because it cannot sense or respond to what the society deems valuable.


However if they build a product that people do want to buy and buy in quantities beyond the capital investment they have created wealth. Electric power produced in a government built hydroelectric dam is sold on the market place and it is creating wealth.

----------


## oyarde

While I do not recieve govt benefits , I will gladly accept back all they have taken from me in "social security ", lump sum , Monday afternoon works .....

----------


## cbc58

I just can't comprehend the position of some here who think that taking from other taxpayers will make the system implode faster and then everything can reset.  What do you think it's going to be like when that happens... a better situation?  We may move to a Russia type scenario where the govt./military controls everything and you are surfs working for oligarchs.   People will be begging the govt to take care of them.   

Alot of people promoting liberty and freedom, less govt. and self-reliance -- but doing just the opposite.  Digging your own grave.

----------


## Warrior_of_Freedom

I've gotten like 5k in grants, but that doesn't nearly makeup all the money paid into taxes. It was more like a tax refund.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> We may move to a Russia type scenario where the govt./military controls everything and you are surfs working for oligarchs.   People will be begging the govt to take care of them.


We ALREADY live in a "scenario where the govt./military controls everything" and people are "begging the govt to take care of them".

As for being "serfs working for oligarchs" - Russians pay a flat 13% income tax. We American serfs wish we had it so good!

Russia is no longer a whipping boy that can be trotted out whenever we need a bogeyman with which to favorably contrast America.

----------


## jbauer

so Occam's Banana,

Would it be true that you do not believe in trickle down economics?  In response to the broken leg post. (don't feel like quoting a long response)

----------


## furface

cbc58, I commend you for bringing up a very politically incorrect topic.  However, when you get right down to it, it's very difficult to find anybody in our economy that doesn't depend on government pushing money around to places it wouldn't naturally go. 

There are of course people who supply other people with goods that they would naturally purchase for a price that is close to its natural value. 

Certainly not anything like a government teacher, cops, firefighters, government bureaucrats, or any modern day soldier or military personnel.  These occupations have a natural monetary exchange value of close to zero.  Not that they aren't fundamentally valuable, but they tend to be things that people will volunteer for when necessary.  Since natural markets aren't determining their value, we massively over pay for them and get them in a form that nobody really wants, save for a small minority of powerful government union members.

I recently had to spend a few hours listening to a firefighter tell me about how she has sacrificed her entire life only to be handed a paltry 80k per year pension at age 55.  I didn't even bother questioning her on her enormous scope of delusions.  She was driving me somewhere where I needed to go and didn't want to get kicked out of her car.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> so Occam's Banana,
> 
> Would it be true that you do not believe in trickle down economics?  In response to the broken leg post. (don't feel like quoting a long response)


That depends on what you mean by "believe in" - and on how you define "trickle-down economics".

----------


## jbauer

> That depends on what you mean by "believe in" - and on how you define "trickle-down economics".


In the way Ronald Regan says it works.  Take money pump it into a system (legitimately or illegitimately) and watch the economy grow.  I can't stress it enough that I don't want more government action for those who haven't kept up with the 14 pages.  One would have to think that the government putting artificial capital into a system like we've been doing since 2008 has caused better economic conditions then we would have seen over the past 4  years?....of course we'll pay for that someday.

----------


## cbc58

we are looking at a triple-whammy if they ever do get around to downsizing govt.  

reduce the numbers of govt. employees and you cut expenses but you also cut tax revenue they are supposedly paying in - plus they will go on govt. programs like unemployment, possibly food food stamps, and you just know the clueless legislators are going to offer early retirement bonuses.  this will be even more of a burden on working Americans and they will pass the cost along in direct and indirect taxes and cost increases. 

the entire economy is fake and one big shell game meant to give the illusion that there is prosperity and productivity.  it's just the opposite.

----------


## tod evans

> the entire economy is fake and one big shell game meant to give the illusion that there is prosperity and productivity.  it's just the opposite.


I know lots of folks aren't going to agree with me on this but if you're not building or growing stuff you're living off others labor...

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I know lots of folks aren't going to agree with me on this but if you're not building or growing stuff you're living off others labor...


 Well, it depends what you mean, exactly.  Was Steve Jobs "building stuff" or "living off others' labor"?

----------


## Occam's Banana

> reduce the numbers of govt. employees and you cut expenses but you also cut tax revenue they are supposedly paying in


This does not qualify as a "whammy" as you put it - not even for the government side of things. Reducing government employment would actually increase the amount of money government has available- not reduce it.

Federal employees are paid with federal revenues. State employees are paid with state revenues. Hence, on net they do not pay income taxes with respect to their employer. They get more out than they pay in.

Sure, they may fill out forms and "send in a check" to the federal or state government they work for. But they get much, much more than that in the salaries (and benefits) they receive from the federal or state government for which they work.

The difference between what they pay in and what they get out is always a net positive (for them). That difference must be paid for by everyone else who isn't a government employee.

In fact, "government employment" is about as perfect an example as you could come up with for what I was talking about earlier in this thread. It necessarily destroys more than it "creates" and is therefore not a good or beneficial thing.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> In the way Ronald Regan says it works.  Take money pump it into a system (legitimately or illegitimately) and watch the economy grow.  I can't stress it enough that I don't want more government action for those who haven't kept up with the 14 pages.  One would have to think that the government putting artificial capital into a system like we've been doing since 2008 has caused better economic conditions then we would have seen over the past 4  years?....of course we'll pay for that someday.


Given that definition of "trickle-down" economics (TDE), then no, I do not "believe" in it.

My own understanding of what TDE is (or is supposed to be) is pretty much limited to the Lafferian notion that by reducing or eliminating things like capital gains taxes or income taxes on the upper brackets, more tax revenues would be gained than lost. Reducing such taxes is supposed to free up money in the private sector which then (1) generates more-than-offsetting tax revenues for the State, and (2) generates economic activity that will "trickle down" to the middle and lower classes in the form of jobs, entrepeneurial funding, etc.. (Whether my understanding of TDE is accurate here, I am not certain. I've seen TDE used & invoked in a variety of ways, often very vague, which is why I asked what you meant by it.)

Given that taxation is economically destructive, and given the above description of TDE, then yes, I do "believe" in it - quite regardless of whether points (1) and/or (2) mentioned above are true or not. But by the same token, I could be said to "believe" in any policy that reduces or eliminates taxes (on any group at any level and to any degree) - just so long as there is no "offsetting" expropriation of private goods, services or money by the State.

----------


## cbc58

> This does not qualify as a "whammy" as you put it - not even for the government side of things. Reducing government employment would actually increase the amount of money government has available- not reduce it.


It's a whammy.  Reducing govt. employment (federal) is going to highlight the glaringly obvious fact that the govt. has been booking tax revenue that they themselves are paying out.  Big circle jerk and accounting shell game.  So while they will be reducing expenses, the other accounting column of income tax revenue goes down, plus we'll get on the hook for retirement payouts, unemployment, etc., etc.   And since we are flat-busted-broke and running trillion dollar deficits, there will not be more money available -- only less expense to pay.

----------


## SpreadOfLiberty

Nothing wrong with working for the government and getting payed on pension. They are an employer and you are getting money for your work.

----------


## tod evans

> Nothing wrong with working for the government and getting payed on pension. They are an employer and you are getting money for your work.


When a government must borrow to fund its own operation it no longer represents the people, if you choose to take part in just such a government as an "employee" then you are making a conscious effort to financially harm the very populace you are a part of.

----------

