Freeloading on the Taxpayer's Dime

15 December 2003 | Andy Obermann

[Stephen Ritter]

"Now you use that as an excuse to join the plunder in order to make your self whole."

Plunder? In order to make myself whole?

If I was going to "plunder" someone, I'd make sure that my plunder was more than $155 per month (our ENTIRE monthly grocery budget). Can YOU live and eat on 155 bucks a month.

I'm already a "whole" person, friend. I've accepted Jesus Christ as my Saviour, and I have the unconditional love of a good woman. Is it your contention that those who have been struck by disability are no longer complete human beings?

If it is, and you are someday disabled yourself, I hope for your sake that we've grown as a people beyond such sentiments ...

[Stephen Ritter]

"What are you smoking? "

Nothing. Never did. Never will. Don't even drink.

"You have no, none, zero right to anyone else's money. (BTW, what you're asserting has a name - socialism) I'm sorry for your predicament, but frankly, its irrelevant."

Sorry, fella, but until the laws are taken off the books, I DO have a right to this money. Soooo, change the laws. You seem to good at grousing and marginalizing other people. Are you equally good at public speaking and raising a campaign chest?

And as for me being a socialist ... well, them's fightin' words. I FOUGHT against socialism in the jungles of Vietnam, among other places. To imply that I'm a socialist is pure trash talk, and an insult.

[Old Professer]

I'd rather she bought birth-control pills with it.

[ampat]

I despise politics and politicans more. I do vote for the right people, but they always seem to be the lesser of all evils.I do write my congressman--and both Senators. I do exercise my freedoms, such as posting on FR.

[Protagoras]

You were complaining that you "contributed" to the system and were going to get back out what you could. I didn't make that up. I merely said you perceived it different than I.

Taking property from one person and giving it to someone else to whom it does not rightfully belong, is immoral.

Is it your contention that those who have been struck by disability are no longer complete human beings?

Are you still beating your wife? Is it your contention that pedophilia is OK? These are the same despicable straw-men you just used on me. I take it you don't like it any more than I did.

If it is, and you are someday disabled yourself, I hope for your sake that we've grown as a people beyond such sentiments ...

This is pathetic.

[Protagoras]

I do vote for the right people, but they always seem to be the lesser of all evils.

Evil people aren't the right people.

[Lady Eileen]

>>>Welfare programs of any sort—i.e., government doling out benefits to those who haven't earned them—are unconstitutional, unfair and immmoral. Just end them!<<<

Welfare programs are unconstitutional and immoral indeed. Unfortunately, the superficial legality of these programs makes it harder to recognize that they are nothing more than government-sanctioned theft. Frederic Bastiat explained it well:

"Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Thus the beneficiaries are spared the shame and danger that their acts would otherwise involve...

But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them and gives it to the other persons to whom it doesn't belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish that law without delay...

No legal plunder; this is the principle of justice, peace, order, stability, harmony and logic."

-- The Law, 1850

[Spiff]

Would it be right for someone to take money at gunpoint from their neighbors to pay for the groceries they cannot afford? How is it right to employ the government as their agent to take money at virtual gunpoint to pay for their groceries?

[Dr. Zzyzx]

Reader's Digest one time wrote that with the money the U.S. has spent on welfare, they could have purchased all the Fortune 500 companies and every acre of farm land in America. Don't know if it's true, but it sounds plausible.

I'm for giving the folks that need help bags of flour, beans and powdered milk. It'll keep 'em fed until they're back on their feet, but not be so enticing that they'd like to stay that on the dole.

[Protagoras]

Spot on. You must be an anarchist.

[Jotmo]

And NO ONE the H*** is going to tell me what to eat.

Sounds an awful lot like "Give me your money, and don't you dare question how I spend it!"

That my not be your intention, but in essence that's what your saying.

One of the multitude of problems with the government controlled welfare system is just this issue. If I give charity to someone personally, and then see him blowing it on cigarettes and junk food, I'm free not to give to him again. (This actually happened to me once.) When the government does it, I have to give no matter what they do.

So are you saying there are to be no restrictions on how you spend "your" money on food. Really? What about liquor? Cigarettes? That OK?

[Straight Vermonter]

That's right. No representation without taxation. To co-opt a phrase from our forefathers.

[AbsoluteJustice]

"it is not the governments role to dictate to anyone what they can and cannot consume."

When it is my dime government sure as hell can dictate what they can buy. It isn't his/her money they are throwing up there to buy food it is my dime, the hardworking taxpayer.

[Jotmo]

If I was going to "plunder" someone, I'd make sure that my plunder was more than $155 per month (our ENTIRE monthly grocery budget). Can YOU live and eat on 155 bucks a month.

Now you're griping that you don't get ENOUGH of our money???.

You are unbelievable!

[Jotmo]

I feed a family of 6 with $300 a month.

You have NOTHING to gripe about!

[Jotmo]

I'm truly sorry for your situation as I would be for anyone.

But your attitude sucks!

[freedox]

"And NO ONE the H*** is going to tell me what to eat."

Just out of curiosity, are the taxpayers also paying for your health care?

[Stephen Ritter]

I'm interested in your use of the handle "Protagoras".

Protagoras was one of a group of Fifth Century BC philosophers. Primarily, he was a sophist, where we get the term "sophisticated".

Protagoras is known primarily for three claims (1) that man is the measure of all things (which is often interpreted as a sort of radical relativism) (2) that he could make the "worse (or weaker) argument appear the better (or stronger)" and (3) that one could not tell if the gods existed or not.

Protagoras' philosophy has primarily been used as one of the basis for the notion of modern relativism, which holds that all things are relative to the individual. It was also a foundation-stone of existentialism. In essense, it is at the heart of modern liberalism. Were you not aware of this?

Perhaps your use of this screen-name explains much of your attitude and thoughts.

Your use of the term "Pathetic" in your post doesn't even deserve a response ...

[Stephen Ritter]

"But your attitude sucks!"

Dittos, my friend ...

[Protagoras]

Protagoras was known by many as the "Father of debate" because he taught that there were two sides to every question.

And perhaps your inability to understand why your post to me was pathetic explains your attitudes and thoughts. Certainly your pitiful attempt to change the subject to my screen name is telling.