Dirt poor?

[Troubleshooter]

Originally posted by lumberjim
i get a rotissere chicken for lunch almost every day. I eat the whole thing, too. $5.99 and it keeps me full until I get home around 10, and then i just snack.....cost effective protien.

Impressive.

And I thought my hamburger po boy was bad. Two half pound patties on a foot long piece of french bread. A platter of fries and a bottomless glass of sweet iced tea.

[OnyxCougar]

Griff, you don't happen to play MUD's, do you?

[Griff]

Nope. I was a D&D guy back in the day though. Are MUD's similar?

[OnyxCougar]

Sometimes. Just wondering because there is a Griff on a MUD I used to play, his character was a very large, very respected cat/man, who's favorite occupation was hunting down and sleeping next to all the comfy spots in the game. He was very wise. Just thought I'd ask.

[Radar]

*everyone join in* How is it stolen?

Tax is theft. If you don't pay it, men with guns come to lock you up or shoot you if you resist. It's robbery.

And if you don't accept the money, you're not contributing to the theft and you're not accepting stolen property. I know a few libertarian hypocrites who make me sick. They will accept such money and say they're just getting their own money back, but by taking it, they are perpetuating the robbery. And when you take the money it's not only your own.

I seriously wasn't "baiting". I was making a statement for myself. But since you asked (and you'll be sorry you did) I've taken a little while to type of an excerpt from Robert J Ringer's Book "Restoring the American Dream"

Robert J. Ringer put it this way...

When at all possible, neither ask for nor accept government favors, handouts, or benefits of any kind. While the realities of monopoly and coercion leave you no choice but to use some government services (roads, libraries, postal system, etc), you should demonstrate your independence, individuality, and self-esteem by refusing to participate in the theft of other people's property wherever possible. Nothing can be more devastating to vote-conscious politicians than to have their free-lunch offers refused.

Remember, in the final analysis it is the voters who are responsible for deficit-spending and inflation, because it is their Expediency Factors, which encourage to take politically expedient actions. The government problem is therefore perpetuated by the fact that most citizens continue to clamor for their "share" - and more.

If you would rather be part of the solution than part of the problem, you should ask only one thing of government: to be left alone! Every individual who stops asking for and accepting handouts lessens government's motivation to steal.

The question that comes to mind of course, is who will take the first step? Who will be the first to give up his free ride, while millions of others are still benefiting from the theft? The answer is you. If just ever person who reads this book would state his feelings to friends and acquaintances, it could cause a substantial ripple.

The cycle must be broken: politicians make politically expedient promises to get elected, violate the rights of citizens in order to carry out those promises, borrow money (which cannot be repaid) and inflate the currency (to pay for promises that cannot be covered by direct taxation and borrowing) - all of which help to destroy incentive and demoralize the public. The public in turn calls for government controls on business in response to politicians who mislead them as to the real source of their problems. The final effect of all this is to destroy production and employment.

The first step toward breaking this cycle is for you, the expediency-minded voter, to stop being fooled by short-term benefits designed only to capture votes. Start thinking long term, which means being concerned about economic collapse and loss of freedom.

Forget about what has been stolen from you in the past and what is being stolen from you right now. If one were to insist that government reimburse him for every dollar it has taken from him, he could use that as an excuse to keep accepting government benefits forever. It is true that you will have to stand by and watch others get the benefit of your stolen dollars, but if individualism and self-responsibility can be popularized once more, that situation could improve each year. The point is there has to be a first step; otherwise we shall all take the last step - together - in the near future.

You may feel that this is totally unfair, and, in theory, you are absolutely right. Perhaps, for example, you have paid heavily to enable others to receive Social Security payments and you are looking forward to an early retirement loaded with "free" benefits. But the point I am trying to make - indeed, a central point of this book - is this: If our something-for-nothing fantasy does not soon end, there may not be any benefits for you when your time comes; indeed, there may not be a retirement for you at all!

If the economy continues on its present course, it must self-destruct, meaning not only that you will still be working long after the time you had planned to retire, but that you will be working at a job that government chooses for you, during the working hours it dictates to you, and for the wages it decides to pay you.

Everyone who receives a government check of any kind - which includes most Americans - is contributing to the destruction of America. This includes welfare checks, subsidy checks, government payroll checks, and any other kind of government check.

This is what I believe every citizen today should ask himself: Is my pension, my welfare check, my subsidy, my government salary - is my piece of the government pie - worth it to me if it means my children will live in a police state, a police state brought on by the financial collapse of America? Is it worth it to me if such a collapse and ensuing totalitarian rule occurs during my own lifetime?

If you now work for the government, the biggest contribution you can make to America is to quit your job and find work in the private sector. If you are responsible and conscientious, the marketplace is full of opportunities for you. And when you put your efforts into private industry, you will be producing wealth - i.e., products and services that people want, not services people are forced to take.

Likewise, if you are in a financial position to do so, notify the government that you wish to forfeit Social Security and all other benefits which may be due you. Every action of this kind helps to contribute to the solution, without the need to become involved in any group movement.

Speaking for myself, I don't want any favors or benefits of any kind from government, no matter how much government takes from me by force. I do not want Social Security; I do not want subsidies; and I certainly do not want government "protecting me" from myself, whether such presumptuous "protection" involves foods, medications, or safety devices. I decline government "help" in all these areas, maintaining a staunch conviction that I am quite capable of making all decisions regarding my own well-being.


We must all grow up. We must all become wary of anyone - especially the politician - who implies that people can live without producing. Government favors, services and handouts of all kinds involve theft, and the proceeds of such theft must be refused whenever and wherever circumstances permit us to do so. Intellectually, the morality of theft must be refuted at all times.

[richlevy]

Originally posted by glatt


Yeah. Well, maybe I just don't remember how bad it was and am all nostalgic and stuff.

But I really never felt bad back then for having no money. Maybe I wasn't poor enough to feel it.

Off topic, glatt, I was going to ask if you were Jewish since 'glatt' is a Yiddish term used to define some of the rules for kosher.

What is Glatt Kosher?

[Elspode]

Originally posted by Radar


When at all possible, neither ask for nor accept government favors, handouts, or benefits of any kind. While the realities of monopoly and coercion leave you no choice but to use some government services (roads, libraries, postal system, etc), you should demonstrate your independence, individuality, and self-esteem by refusing to participate in the theft of other people's property wherever possible. [/i]

Interesting concept, but it leaves me wondering how my disabled son would survive. He is cognitively incapable of sustaining anything more than the most meager job. Without his Social Security disability check, he would be forced to live on about $400 a month.

So what *is* the solution for care and feeding of the infirm amongst us in a nation with no taxation?

[Radar]

So what *is* the solution for care and feeding of the infirm amongst us in a nation with no taxation?

Without taxation, you would have MORE assistance for your child. People give less to charities because they actually believe government programs are helping people. If government today ended all of these programs and people could keep all of what they earn, non-profit charities would get donations through the roof. Government keeps 85 cents of every dollar collected for overhead as opposed to 12-15 cents of every dollar for non-profits. Even if only 1/3 of the money was collected that is currently being collected in taxes, the sick, elderly, and and needy would get much more help than they already do. And the people helping them would be those who genuinely care about them rather than glorified DMV workers.

[zippyt]

Without taxation, you would have MORE assistance for your child. People give less to charities because they actually believe government programs are helping people.

Let me just say for Splode and the rest of the world ,
BULL FUCKING SHIT !!!!!!

Poeple give to chariteys because they can wright it off on their taxes , and THAT is the only reason most folks contribute .

Now i have no problem helping out some body that NEEDS help , its the low lifes that live off charity of others because they can that gripes my ass !!!!!!

[glatt]

Originally posted by richlevy


Off topic, glatt, I was going to ask if you were Jewish since 'glatt' is a Yiddish term used to define some of the rules for kosher.

What is Glatt Kosher?

Nope. Not Jewish. Glatt was a nickname I picked up in college. It's German for "smooth." I studied German, and was anything but smooth in college. It just kind of stuck.

None of my current friends know me as Glatt, but I figure it's a good name to use as a user ID.

[jaguar]

Radar's political ideology is usually delivered by small fairies in a chariot drawn by unicorns, don't feed the trolls.

[Radar]

No, what I'm proposing is a real world solution to real world problems. Americans are the most generous people on earth. Every time there is a disaster somewhere, Americans pull together to help out. The problem is many can't afford to help out because their money is being stolen from them.

People don't give to charity only because they will get tax breaks. The Maximum tax break you can get from charity no matter how many millions you donate is $1,500 per year. And to say they only give it for tax breaks is not only a distorted and pessimistic view of people, it's also entirely inaccurate. We haven't always had income taxes, but we've always had charity. Bill Gates has given 3 BILLION DOLLARS to charity. Are you honestly stupid enough to say he did it for a tax break?

Private charities would only need to collect a fraction of what the government collects to provide MORE benefits to those in need and it would be voluntary so there wouldn't be any resentment. That's not an opinion, it's a fact. Private charities are run by people who genuinely care about those in need as opposed by those glorified DMV workers who look at needy people with contempt.

With illegal government programs funded by theft gone, the outpouring of voluntary assistance for the needy would be overwhelming. Ask yourself this question. "If every single government social program disappeared today and you got to keep every penny you had earned, would you use some of it to help the needy members of your family, friends, or community?" The vast majority of people say "Yes". But those who support government theft discussed think that they are the only people who would. Or that it's somehow impossible to do it privately, which is of course ridiculous and without merit.

If only 50% (far more than 50% do answer yes) of the people who were asked the question I previously asked said they would donate to charity knowing there were no government programs, the people in need would see their benefits more than triple.

Perhaps those who support government theft think they are the only people with a conscience? Or they believe people are inheriently uncaring and bad? In either case, they are completely wrong and are living in reality. Instead they live in a nightmare and I pity them.

Some Libertarians have proposed that as long as we DO have income taxes, that we should institute a dollar-for-dollar tax break for every dollar donated to a non-profit charity that provides services people would otherwise get from the government. For instance shelters, work re-training, medical care, education, etc. This means each tax payer would have a choice to send their money to Washington D.C. where it could be sent to other countries or they can choose to send a poor American child to a private school, to get medicine to sick people, to help elderly people and poor people get electricity and food, etc. Which choice would you make?

[limey]

So, Radar, how would say, road building be financed? And are you saying that education should all be private, with parents paying schools directly for their childrens' education.
Curious mind wants to know (sorry folks).

[Radar]

Without a single penny collected from income taxes, 100% of the Constitutional parts of government could be paid for with the tariffs and excise taxes already collected (though I would make them a flat rate for all countries for a more balanced and free trade). That includes roads, a post office, a judiciary, congress, president, defensive military, etc.

And yes, even in a fairly low income family, when people got to keep all of their own money, they would be able to afford to pay private schools (superior education) directly for their children's education. The average price currently per student is double in public schools what it is in private schools and the private school education is better. Teachers in private schools also earn more so the schools attract the best teachers. The price of private school would drop even further as more private schools opened up and competition in a free market brings new and better ways of teaching at lower prices.

The very poor people who still couldn't afford it would rely on donations to private charities as mentioned in my other post. Even when income taxes were ended, corporations would still pay taxes because they are paying for the priviledge of doing protected business. Many corporations would rather use that tax money to send needy children to school than to give it to uncle sam.

[kerosene]

What would be the contingency plan if people did not donate enough money? Wouldn't this require people to pay toward charities at least the same amount that they pay now in taxes in order to maintain these programs at their current levels? Theoretically, the cost for these programs would be similar, so wouldn't the amount the country would need from each person be similar? How would we make up for the gap left when some people take advantage of their right not to pay taxes?

I think it is a creative idea, Radar. I think the theory works, but I have doubt that the real world implementation would be so ideal.