36 votes

Should Ron Paul Supporters Apply for Food Stamps?

(edit)

With the recent 'controversy' over Dr. Paul receiving and accepting his Social Security Insurance payments, I've 'bumped' this thread back into the conversation:

QUESTION:

Should Ron Paul supporters apply for food stamps, housing assistance, energy assistance, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera???

(Previous content referencing Atlas Shrugged has been submitted as a comment below)

http://www.dailypaul.com/237450/should-ron-paul-supporters-a...




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Keep not reading. Wouldn't want to learn anything!

"I didn't read any of your new posts."

They are still serving their main purpose (discrediting your comments and providing some truth to anyone who reads this thread).

"As far as citation. Here is a simple one that just quickly shows your 95% figure to be pure fantasy."

Ha! I already provided that link because it supports my claims.

"In addition, only the spending part of the chart has some credibility. The revenue side is garbage because it ignores taxation through inflation, and numerous other revenue sources. If the government spent it, it means they stole it somehow, so the spending side is all that is relevant."

First of all, I already stated that all spending is supported by "tax revenue" (using the term as it is officially used and how it is typically used even on these forums) + new debt. (I have no information which would indicate your claimed "numerous other revenue sources" amount to any significant amount relative to the aforementioned tax revenue + new debt.) I also already stated the fact that all spending is a tax (i.e., both tax revenue and new debt are taxes). So on that front you are not saying anything new.

Second, you can't invalidate my statement that entitlements are 95+% of tax revenue by trying to redefine "tax revenue" to mean something other than what it means. You can't even make a reasonable claim that it was a misleading statement because I explicitly spelled out the differences between tax revenue and total tax (as described in my previous paragraph).

Third, and most importantly, "they stole it somehow, so the spending side is all that is relevant" is not correct. For anyone who cares a lick about justice, that is not all that is relevant. And that is because the tax is not just on the present, but also on the future. I.e., as I already stated quite a few comments back, earlier generations are (effectively, via government) taxing later generations. Or perhaps you would like to explain how the $15+ trillion in officially recognized debt and the $100+ trillion in unfunded liabilities is in no way shape or form a tax on the future.

Previous content from topic

In the book Atlas Shrugged, the great minds of America realize that they are being used for their minds and ability as a source of wealth for all the others to feast upon.

As a way to end this socialistic cannibalism they decide to withdraw their bodies and minds from society to...

They do this in order to starve the parasite culture to death so they can build a new society.

QUESTION:

Should Ron Paul supporters apply for food stamps, housing assistance, energy assistance, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera???

The point is that socialism always kills itself because the number of takers always outnumbers the number of providers eventually. The characters in Atlas Shrugged sought to kill the Socialism beast by withdrawing the host. Could the beast not also be killed by overwhelming it?

Turning to medical analogies - a stitch in time saves nine, ripping the bandaid off quickly hurts less in the long run, get it done and over with already.

So, should we try to fix this system, or should we destroy it completely, then bulid a new one?

Your serious answers are appreciated as I've been struggling with this question for about 8 years - please share.

Pandas: The Silent Killer?
next 'Nightline'

wolfe's picture

Let me ask you this...

In regards to your #3 statements:

If a mugger steals $20 from 10 different people, including you.

He now has $200 and buys a TV for $150.

You encounter this mugger on his way home with the TV.

You physically confront the man, but when you open his wallet to take your money back, you notice that your specific $20 bill is missing. Are you immoral in some way wrong for taking $20 back from him, despite the fact that he wasn't in possession of your specific $20 bill?

Of course not. Your third argument is you just trying to sound morally superior.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

.

.

Pandas: The Silent Killer?
next 'Nightline'

Your example is flawed.

It is perfectly morally valid to steal back from the person who stole from you. That is not what SS does. SS is you (or the government on your behalf) stealing from someone who never stole from you.

To fix your broken example:

Say person X robs you at gunpoint and steals $100 bucks. Is it now moral for you to turn around and rob some entirely unrelated person Y for $100 bucks? No.

wolfe's picture

The government is the thief...

Not the other victims.

And there is no condoning future theft, only reclaiming lost wealth from previous theft... Refer to my post on 70% wealth lost.

I think part of the problem might be the fact that you buy into this notion of "wealth redistribution". That's what the Dem's call it, that's what the Rep's call it. Interesting that they both use the same term, but argue from different sides.

There is no such thing as wealth redistribution. There is only theft. No class of individuals in the US actually benefit from any of this theft. All are victims.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

More nonsense.

"The government is the thief... Not the other victims."

Right, every person in this country is just a victim. No one votes to preserve and grow SS, or medicare, or public schools, or food-stamps or any of the other socialist theft programs. No one! The programs FDR, LBJ and others introduced were absolutely unwanted by every last voter! Waaah, waaah! (/sarc)

"And there is no condoning future theft"

That's what you keep telling yourself. Wake up!

"only reclaiming lost wealth from previous theft..."

No, you can't do that. It's impossible.

Tell me, how do you reclaim "lost wealth from previous theft". By magic? The government took your wealth and spent it. They turned it into bombs and blew them up in Iraq and Afghanistan. So how do you propose to "get that wealth back".

What you are really proposing (but do not wish to admit) is that the government should (on your behalf) go and steal some more.

"Refer to my post on 70% wealth lost."

I am well aware of how much government steals on behalf of others. I was (including inflation) facing even worse than 70%.

"There is no such thing as wealth redistribution. There is only theft."

The wealth redistribution is achieved via theft. Almost all taxation is done for the purpose of wealth (and power) redistribution - which includes things like corporate subsidies. Claiming there is no wealth redistribution is pretty far out there.

"No class of individuals in the US actually benefit from any of this theft."

Wrong. The political class benefits. The corporations with effective lobbyists (the "connected class") benefit. And perhaps more importantly, a good many individual voters think they benefit, and therefore continue to support the theft. "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Frédéric Bastiat

"All are victims."

Perhaps most, not really all. But most are also perpetrators. The two categories are in no way mutually exclusive.

wolfe's picture

Incorrect.

What I would prefer is that the government go bankrupt trying to repay the theft lawfully, but unsuccessfully. Which is in fact what the original poster was proposing.

As I said, reparations do not condone nor make you responsible for future wrongful acts.

The government is the only beneficiary of the theft, in various ways. Even when they return some of the money, it comes at a greater price.

As far as those who vote for and support the theft. They are of course wrong to support the thief, however, that doesn't mean that they are not also victims.

Supporting ANY taxation, or government thievery is wrong.

Reclaiming your money from the government is not.

They are two separate and distinct issues.

As far as my "radical" statement that there is no "wealth redistribution"... Well let's look at that. If everyone has 70% stolen from them, and one class of individuals, let's say the working poor, manage to claim food stamps and get back, let's say 2% of that lost wealth. Then they are still in the hole by 68%. No one benefits, it is not wealth redistribution. It is theft, and purchased loyalty to the state if you happen to get some back.

"Wealth redistribution" would be taking $10 from Sam, and giving it to Paul. Not what happens. What happens is the government takes $10 from Sam, $4 from Paul, then hands Paul $2 if he is willing to bow before the state.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

Be careful what you wish for.

"What I would prefer is that the government go bankrupt trying to repay the theft lawfully, but unsuccessfully."

You have to be careful with the word "lawfully" in this context. The government considers any amount of taxation perfectly "lawful".

You seem to claim it's your right to be repaid the theft with one hand, but with the other you are now saying you wish for the government to be unsuccessful in paying back the theft. Do you think you will get paid back and it is just others who won't? Or are you ceding your "right"? Why must you cede your right only with systemic collapse? Why can't you (and the rest) cede these non-rights without collapse?

What if the government doesn't crash? For example, it seems obvious to me that the government would "default" (whether via payout-reductions and/or inflation) on SS and medicare long before actually defaulting on US treasuries. Since you think it's your right to be repaid the theft, will you be happy being repaid in massively devalued dollars? Will you be happy with your retirement age being raised to 80? (And if you would be, then why do we have to push things to collapse to at least start reducing the programs and therefore the theft that funds them?)

If the government does crash, won't the old "never let a crises go to waste" axiom kick in? Won't those in power use it as an opportunity to grab even more power?

And aren't you just saying that instead of stealing from tax payers, we should steal from treasury holders? (Do you even realize how many people have their retirement savings tied up in treasuries?)

"As I said, reparations do not condone nor make you responsible for future wrongful acts."

Only if you successfully plead insanity/stupidity/ignorance. In reality demanding a one-trick pony like the government to give you money results in them executing their one trick.

"The government is the only beneficiary of the theft, in various ways."

You are extremely naive if you really believe that's true. You need to take a look at "crony capitalism". Many have been major beneficiaries of the theft.

"Even when they return some of the money, it comes at a greater price."

But it does not come back in the same proportions it went in. So even if government wastes 10% of the money that flows through it, if someone manages to get back 50% more at the expense of someone else getting back 50% less, then they still come out with 90%*150% = 135% of what they "paid in".

"As far as those who vote for and support the theft. They are of course wrong to support the thief, however, that doesn't mean that they are not also victims."

What it does mean is that they are victims not of anyone else, but of their own stupidity/ignorance. Unfortunately they also victimize the rest of us as well.

And frankly I'm really tempted to argue that "yes, it does mean they are not also victims". If someone commits a murder/suicide, do you say they were the victim because they shot themself in the head?

"Supporting ANY taxation, or government thievery is wrong. Reclaiming your money from the government is not."

And that summarizes the inconsistency of your position. (You still have not shown how the government can pay back any wealth without stealing it from someone else. It's like grabbing the handle of the knife and thrusting it forward and claiming you're not responsible for killing the guy you just stabbed through the heart because you didn't push the blade, you only pushed the handle. Predictable cause and effect along with free-will implies responsibility.)

"They are two separate and distinct issues."

No, they are not. The government can't give you what it doesn't have. It has to take it from someone else first.

As for your completely counter-factual claim of no wealth-redistribution, see here: "The very first Social Security recipient, Ida Mae Fuller of Vermont, paid just $44 in Social Security taxes, but the long-lived Mrs. Fuller collected $20,993 in benefits."

It's a personal choice

It's your tax money, so you have a right to the benefits they are providing.

But if you can't stomach taking a hand-out that was also payed with other peoples' tax money, I wouldn't say boo.

Good luck figuring where you stand on it. Personally, I feel like it's too much of a pain (to deal with when I could be working more) and a crutch (it messes with my normal budget habits) and I prefer to avoid it.

Quid Pro Quo (This For That)

I have money forcefully extracted from me (taxes). If I need assistance, I will take it.

"A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man" -Jebediah Springfield

Take what's yours,

leave the rest.

Pandas: The Silent Killer?
next 'Nightline'

Defeat the central government, stop buy government bonds!

Don't people realize that investing in U.S. government bonds is to invest against yourself? If anything invest your money in municipal bonds if some project strikes your interest.
It makes absolutely no sense to complain about big government and then turn around and invest in government bonds. People need to cut off the life support of the beast that is defeating our liberties.
Here is an article promoting government bonds.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/markets/prepare-for-l...
"Buyers of Treasury bonds are usually not the small investor, rather large banks, mutual and pension funds, insurance companies and central banks of other countries. The fact that the most sophisticated investors are buying Treasury bonds reflects the sense of anxiety percolating in the financial markets."
Liberty minded people need to fight back!
If your bank invests in government bonds, withdraw your money, if you have mutual and pension funds invested in government bonds send a letter to management and threaten to cash out unless they dump government bonds, the same goes for insurance companies and others. It is difficult to prevent central banks of other countries from investing in U.S. government bonds, but i am sure a movement could be started to convince citizens of other countries to do so. I certainly don't want our central bank investing in other countries currencies. Bring down this giant by starving it.
http://www.dailypaul.com/237529/educate-people-to-not-invest...
grant

Interesting thought when the

Interesting thought when the biggest buyer of our government debt is China.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

The Fed and other government agencies own over 5 times as much

or our debt as China, according to this article.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/biggest-holders-of-us-gov-t-de...

No

Ron Paul supporters need to be the pillar of their communities. We want to be in positions where people look up to us, so they listen to us when we speak about liberty.

The system will collapse if that is meant to be, but in a nation of 230 million you will not be the straw that breaks the camels back.

Live a just life according to our principles.

Tu ne cede malis.

2014 Liberty Candidate Webpage:
http://candidates4liberty.com/home.html

2014 Liberty Candidate Thread:
http://www.dailypaul.com/287246/2014-liberty-candidate-thread

Even Fish and Game

Figured out years ago that it does not work to feed wildlife because they become dependent and will no longer hunt for themselves. Common sense and there is absolutely no difference here. It is human nature to not apply anymore effort than necessary to feed themselves.

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

completely off topic

But your post got me thinking about something.... i live in ohio. Most of the lakes around me are "stocked" lakes for fishing. My concern is why do they need to be "stocked"? Is the water quality bad? Are fish not reproducing fast enough bc so many people are fishing? Are the lakes near you stocked as well? Sorry to be so off topic but your post made something click in my brain lol. I have had an uneasy feeling about them stocking the lakes bc one week you can go fishing and it's almost too easy then the next week we may not catch anything. Your post made it click that they are screwing with nature and now I am curious if this is going on elsewhere.

I just tried to comment on another post, got a 403 access code

The comment was regarding food stamps by udonews, he said he was threw with RP because of his stance on food stamps. This was my comment:

Maybe if we quit paying huge farm corporations to not grow food we would have more food and the price of food would be less. Maybe if the ethanol subsidy was eliminated there would be more corn for food and not fuel. Maybe with less regulations people could produce their own food, a few chickens for eggs and broilers, check out urban farms and growing power http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vs7BG4lH3m4&feature=related. Back in the day everyone had a "victory" garden, thanks to food stamps we don't see those anymore. Maybe if people were involved in their own small scale sustainable garden plots there would be less damage to the environment with pesticides and petroleum based fertilizers. Maybe if people weren't so dependent on government they would be more independent and not vote for socialist candidates.

I also got a 403....

on same thread-don't know why. I did not break any rules that I'm aware of.

When that happens to multiple people, usually

the thread has been pulled for one reason or another.. In his case, he probably got pegged as a troll.

2 weeks on DP and already dropping Dr.Paul.. MMMmm Kay

Edit: For trumped up reasons I'll add.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

metalhed19's picture

I would take them. If you

I would take them. If you dont someone else will. Think of it as a return on some of the taxes you have paid over the years. It could be worse, it could be spent on "foreign aid"

*Wisconsin Constitution* Article I, Section 25 "The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security,defense,hunting,recreation or any other law-abiding purpose"

for centuries....

People had goats, chickens, vegetable gardens, etc... in their yard to survive. Sorry but there is no substitute for personal resposibility!

Loose Moose

ahhh the good old days

unfortunately goats, chickens and even front yard vegetable gardens are illegal in vast swaths of america today.

Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
My ฿itcoin: 17khsA7MvBJAGAPkhrFJdQZPYKgxAeXkBY
http://www.dailypaul.com/303151/bitcoin-has-gone-on-an-insan...

Andrew Wordes (the chicken man) was driven to suicide

In this case, while not even illegal YET, we can thank the U.N. and Agenda 21 & its sister org ICLEI for his city driving him to a state of utter despair. ICLEI = International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, a.k.a. "Local Governments for Sustainability." His town of Roswell, Georgia is an ICLEI member, the inspiration for its "2030 Plan," in which Wordes' property was in a planned green zone.
http://www.naturalnews.com/035524_Andrew_Wordes_Roswell_chic...
Check out what four years of harassment did to this animal lover.
- Wordes Before. https://encrypted-tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTTWU89c...
- Wordes After. He died just days before his 53rd birthday.
https://encrypted-tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTJfNoSA...

Vote for Ron Paul - who wants to end such U.N. alliances!

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

Thanks to the realtors that own local politics

It was easy to convince people that government control personal property during the bubble. Politician took the money and passed the regulations.

Now the bubbles are bursting, we are left with a house if we can keep it. During the 1930s depression people raised chickens and kept cows in the City of Detroit.

Today they get food stamps instead, so that the all proceeds and profits go to the mega corporations.

Free includes debt-free!

Another possible factor Paul?

Over all as a culture and society priorities have changed. It seems that now aesthetics are a priority over Practicality and Productivity in everything we do. Pretty paint on a car is more important than if it even runs.

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

Yes my project hurt the eyes of my neighbors

So the Township confiscated $600 to teach me a lesson, I guess.

I was told that I could move it to the Industrial Park. When I went to talk to owners there, I was told the the Township regularly charged higher fines. and cops were always after his trucks for some petty "violation".

I suppose you are right, people want to live in paradise but don't want anyone to be able to earn it for themselves unless they work for one of monopolies that government gets kickbacks from.

Free includes debt-free!

And of course they have an ordinance...

against privacy fences they cannot see through. There is no such thing as private property anymore, They want to see your very water wasteful pretty green lawn,No blame for the lawn, it is forced on to you my friend. In most municipalities there are "Yellow lawn" laws. Paul,you may or may not have a lawn, but this is what it has come to in priorities in this country. No common sense left at all.

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

Parasites on the top and the bottom

I always tell people to take any assistance they need - we are far beyond the point where the system can be saved by people acting as responsible individuals - it is going to implode on its own. you can't have a country as out of whack as our own with half of the citizenry not paying federal taxes while giving out billions in entitlements and expect to keep it fiscally afloat (not to mention wars and other massive wastes).

there is no left or right, only system and anti-system.