The Food-Stamp Crime Wave

[bobbyw24]

The number of food-stamp recipients has soared to 44 million from 26 million in 2007. Not surprisingly, fraud and abuse are rampant.

By JAMES BOVARD

Millionaires are now legally entitled to collect food stamps as long as they have little or no monthly income. Thirty-five states have abolished asset tests for most food-stamp recipients. These and similar "paperwork reduction" reforms advocated by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) are turning the food-stamp program into a magnet for abuses and absurdities.

The Obama administration is far more enthusiastic about boosting food-stamp enrollment than about preventing fraud. Thanks in part to vigorous federally funded campaigns by nonprofit groups, the government's AmericaCorps service program, and other organizations urging people to accept government handouts, the number of food-stamp recipients has soared to 44 million from 26 million in 2007, and costs have more than doubled to $77 billion from $33 billion.

The USDA's Food and Nutrition Service now has only 40 inspectors to oversee almost 200,000 merchants that accept food stamps nationwide. The Government Accountability Office reported last summer that retailers who traffic illegally in food stamps by redeeming stamps for cash or alcohol or other prohibited items "are less likely to face criminal penalties or prosecution" than in earlier years.

Lax attitudes toward fraud are spurring swindles across the nation:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304657804576401412033504294.html?m od=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

[acptulsa]

And billionaires are still paid not to grow food on their private 'dude ranch' playgrounds...

[newyearsrevolution08]

I hope more people sign up for food stamps and free money aide. The sooner those systems collapse the better. I say go and try and sign up, if they take you then I suppose you qualify. These shitty free money programs are there to be taken advantage of and to pretend they aren't is laughable.

Everyone I have seen going to get aide still has a better car than I do and a damn smart phone lol, go figure!!

I say SIGN UP

lets collapse this place IF they don't want to give us our country back. If they want free aide, entitlements and everything else under the sun then I say LETS DO IT!

[Acala]

Guess who gets paid to administer the food stamp program? Banks. Ahahahahahahahaha! Sometimes I feel like I'm from another planet.

[Kludge]

Anyone with no legal income qualifies (many people working part-time will qualify, too -- not sure on the income limit anymore). Assets don't count. Irregular income doesn't count anymore, either. If you don't receive scheduled pay, you qualify. Ten cars, paid-off $200k house, $50k in the bank, no regular legal income? You qualify.

-And as I've written about earlier, the Welfare in this country has become so absurd it provides not only a livable income, but one in which my family of three would actually see annual profit from after all expenses, excluding all other sources of irregular income.

--And of course, the Welfare $ from food stamps doesn't even come close to the Welfare $ from simply filing taxes with no income.

[idirtify]

I hope more people sign up for food stamps and free money aide. The sooner those systems collapse the better. I say go and try and sign up, if they take you then I suppose you qualify. These shitty free money programs are there to be taken advantage of and to pretend they aren't is laughable.

Everyone I have seen going to get aide still has a better car than I do and a damn smart phone lol, go figure!!

I say SIGN UP

lets collapse this place IF they don't want to give us our country back. If they want free aide, entitlements and everything else under the sun then I say LETS DO IT!

The idea of collapsing the system by taking welfare handouts is fallacious at its core. Government doesn’t operate like a business. In fact, it operates inversely. The more money it wastes, the more it gets. You aren’t threatening the system by jumping on the welfare bandwagon; you are only taxing (pun intended) your fellow citizens.

[Kludge]

The idea of collapsing the system by taking welfare handouts is fallacious at its core. Government doesn’t operate like a business. In fact, it operates inversely. The more money it wastes, the more it gets. You aren’t threatening the system by jumping on the welfare bandwagon; you are only taxing (pun intended) your fellow citizens.
By that logic, any talk of the USG collapsing from the Welfare/Warfare state is absurd and Bin Laden was incorrect to claim he would defeat the USG by causing them to over-reach their military and spend money they don't have. Taxpayers are funding the government. By removing taxpayers and replacing them with Welfare Monkeys or at least legally unemployed people, we eventually create a situation where it's mathmatically impossible for taxpayers to actually fund the government's programs. We're fairly close to that point now.

Less taxpayers, less government possible. More parasites, less government possible.

[Kelly.]

The idea of collapsing the system by taking welfare handouts is fallacious at its core. Government doesn’t operate like a business. In fact, it operates inversely. The more money it wastes, the more it gets. You aren’t threatening the system by jumping on the welfare bandwagon; you are only taxing (pun intended) your fellow citizens.

i would prefer to call it "trying to recoup monies stolen from me via taxation"
also the federal government doesnt care how much it brings in, it continues to grow spending, so i think newyearsrevolution08 is spot on.

[tsai3904]

http://www.lotterypost.com/news/231681


A Michigan man who won $2 million in a state lottery game continues to collect food stamps 11 months after striking it rich.

And there's nothing the state can do about it, at least for now.

Leroy Fick, 59, of Auburn won $2 million in the state lottery TV show "Make Me Rich!" last June. But the state's Department of Human Services determined he was still eligible for food stamps, Fick's attorney, John Wilson of Midland, said Tuesday.

Eligibility for food stamps is based on gross income and follows federal guidelines; lottery winnings are considered liquid assets and don't count as income. As long as Fick's gross income stays below the eligibility requirement for food stamps, he can receive them, even if he has a million dollars in the bank.

[oyarde]

If you did away with the food stamps , returned that money to citizens , there would be food at all of the voluntary food banks in the local community for those in need.

[newyearsrevolution08]

Just like the issue with securing the borders with fences, screaming at those who are so called "lowly" enough to accept food stamps is as laughable as building fences THINKING that would actually PROTECT anything.

Get rid of the free aide for BOTH those who are legal AND those who are (so called) illegal and you will either make it or die unless someone is WILLING to give you a handout whether that be a neighbor, church, private org etc.

Until then, if you qualify for the aide I say SIGN UP and enjoy America as it sits right now. I am not saying frauding the already fraud-filled welfare system BUT see what it takes to qualify and it will FUCKING SHOCK YOU!!!! Too easy and no you should NOT get a damn credit card style card to be able to PULL CASH OUT.

If there is to be FREE shit for people lets make it food and housing and NOT money and debit cards. Too easy so I say take from the government that THINKS that they are supposed to be providing us all of this b.s. anyways.

[Seraphim]

Rep x 1000



The idea of collapsing the system by taking welfare handouts is fallacious at its core. Government doesn’t operate like a business. In fact, it operates inversely. The more money it wastes, the more it gets. You aren’t threatening the system by jumping on the welfare bandwagon; you are only taxing (pun intended) your fellow citizens.

[newyearsrevolution08]

Rep x 1000

I don't buy that one bit.

How would it add a tax to our fellow man when the welfare b.s. doesn't account for a fraction of the spending our so called taxes even go into. Are you serious?

Also before this gets into a cheesy debate I just want to say, I am not FOR welfare states in any fashion BUT rather for showing how sad it is to qualify for it and if you qualify HOW is that doing anything against your fellow man. That IS how it is setup now so wouldn't it make sense that NO ONE should be on it? If that is the case and we have a ton of people qualifying then MAYBE they might put in stricter qualifications and make it not so easy to qualify?

make sense?

unless we can actually REMOVE that department.... until then why not work the system how it is?

[acptulsa]

I don't buy that one bit.

How would it add a tax to our fellow man when the welfare b.s. doesn't account for a fraction of the spending our so called taxes even go into. Are you serious?

You're arguing against your own case that we should do this to crash the system.

And I do believe that people have a right to be pissed about this, just as we have a right to be pissed about TARP. Welfare for the wealthy is asinine.

[newyearsrevolution08]

I edited my post above as you were writing so check that post above.

I know my point and am not argueing against it lol.

[oyarde]

The idea of collapsing the system by taking welfare handouts is fallacious at its core. Government doesn’t operate like a business. In fact, it operates inversely. The more money it wastes, the more it gets. You aren’t threatening the system by jumping on the welfare bandwagon; you are only taxing (pun intended) your fellow citizens.

I think so too ...

[acptulsa]

I edited my post above as you were writing so check that post above.

I know my point and am not argueing against it lol.

And I'm certainly not saying you're wrong, either. After all, when they crash the dollar to pay the debt we will all be suffering through the effects...

[newyearsrevolution08]

I think so too ...

This USED to make sense but that print more money isn't working as well anymore.... Do you really see them passing a bill to allow billions to go to welfare because it is expanding? Come on.....

I would have bought this arguement a few years ago but now we can't just print our way out of all our situations anymore.

[oyarde]

All of the social welfare programs will always be filled with huge fraud as long as they exist . The fraud in medicare/medicaid is so huge , they do not even know how much ..... estimates vary by billions, solution: no program , no fraud . return the money to those it was stolen from and they will take care of those truly in need , voluntarily. Next problem please ...

[newyearsrevolution08]

I guess that could sum it up as far as social programs as a whole.

[Seraphim]

Most of your thoughts from the above post are rationalizations.

I agree - let's crash the system. It's going to happen anyway. The choice is whether it is due to our actions or those of the ruling elite.

Draining the welfare state is COUNTER PRODUCTIVE. It is stealing from your own people and PERPETUATES the problems.

CRASH THE FIAT SYSTEM. That is 1000000000x more productive then your solution.


I edited my post above as you were writing so check that post above.

I know my point and am not argueing against it lol.

[heavenlyboy34]

I wouldn't say that people who don't need welfare should try to get on it. However, people who do qualify would be within reason to exploit the crummey system for what it's worth. Think of it as getting back some of the money stolen by the regime-the same reason RP tries to get money for his district. It's terrible that the welfare state exists at all, but I don't believe it is un-libertarian to get into these programs for the right reasons. The debate is similar to the public road debate. It sucks that we have socialist roads, but it doesn't make us hypocrites for using them (even though we oppose them). Crashing the system would be a nice benefit, too. :)

[oyarde]

I guess that could sum it up as far as social programs as a whole.

yes

[Rael]

i would prefer to call it "trying to recoup monies stolen from me via taxation"


bingo!

[oyarde]

bingo!

Made me chuckle too...

[newyearsrevolution08]

Made me chuckle too...

hell why not lol

its ours SO we are ENTITLED to it right? LOL

come on ron paul, lets take her back so we rebuild our republic to what she once was.

[idirtify]

The kind of participation in the corrupt system that some are advocating here, supposedly in order to crash it, violates so many principles of individual liberty that I don’t know where to begin. The whole concept is preposterous. There may be no finer example of good intentions paving the road to hell.

I’ll TRY to cover the basic inconsistencies of this “principle”, but I’m sure I will be incomplete. How will you (those here who are using this excuse to jump on the welfare bandwagon) ever credibly oppose socialism again? Every time I see you posting a complaint about socialist policies, I’ll ask why you are complaining – since (according to you) socialism is the best way to crash socialist systems. At what point in the devolution of a free-market system do you credibly claim you are only on the dole in order to crash it; at the first development of socialist policy? If so, then every other/future participant in said system should be excused as having the same good intentions as you. I mean how can you ever legitimately complain about socialists again; since they too might only be participating in order to “crash the system”? In fact, how can you make any complaint against any type of system abuse ever again, since your own philosophy states that it is a good thing; that the solution for abuse is more abuse?

Look, if you really think you can improve a corrupt political system by participating in the worst parts of it, you can never credibly/consistently make another post critical of abusive parts of a system on RPF again. But wait…you do – OFTEN. Why is that? Hmm. Believe me, I don’t have to look far to find where advocates of this foolish concept have contradicted themselves. For example, Newyearsrevolution08 complains about the US bombing Iran here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?300259-Iran-Ramping-Up-Space-Program-Pledges-to-Launch-Monkey-by-End-of-Summer.&p=3362539#post3362539
Yes, NYR often seems to want to reduce the military. But why? Military adventurism is surely helping to “crash the system” and Newyearsrevolution08 thinks anything that might crash the system is a good thing. And NYR also seems to want to reduce handouts and free aid to immigrants (and “everyone”). But why? Isn’t this “free aid” what NYR is advocating here as a solution? I haven’t looked any farther, but I am confident I could go on for a very long time listing inconsistencies from those here who advocate this kind of participation to “crash the system”. So let’s see if any of my opponents here are confident enough to continue; confident that they aren’t making a huge contradiction.

The enemy of principle is contradiction.

So how about it? Kludge, Newyearsrevolution, Rael, Kelly? Who’s first?

[Kludge]

Parts of the government which kill and otherwise destroy need to be removed as soon as possible. Engaging in politics has never totally stopped unnecessary government force -- It started with Washington. Violence is a symptom of government which cannot be cured except through its entire dismantling with a provided alternative through civil and mutually beneficial actions with one another, an alternative provided in agorist-dominant communities as Bitcoin.

You'd like to talk about credibility? Every person paying taxes is funding murder, the destruction of families through other means as the drug war, CPS, insane immigration laws - etc -- Every taxpayer is funding their own repression and the oppression of others. No taxpayer has any credibility to talk about stopping USG violence.

[idirtify]

By that logic, any talk of the USG collapsing from the Welfare/Warfare state is absurd and Bin Laden was incorrect to claim he would defeat the USG by causing them to over-reach their military and spend money they don't have. Taxpayers are funding the government. By removing taxpayers and replacing them with Welfare Monkeys or at least legally unemployed people, we eventually create a situation where it's mathmatically impossible for taxpayers to actually fund the government's programs. We're fairly close to that point now.

Less taxpayers, less government possible. More parasites, less government possible.



Parts of the government which kill and otherwise destroy need to be removed as soon as possible. Engaging in politics has never totally stopped unnecessary government force -- It started with Washington. Violence is a symptom of government which cannot be cured except through its entire dismantling with a provided alternative through civil and mutually beneficial actions with one another, an alternative provided in agorist-dominant communities as Bitcoin.

You'd like to talk about credibility? Every person paying taxes is funding murder, the destruction of families through other means as the drug war, CPS, insane immigration laws - etc -- Every taxpayer is funding their own repression and the oppression of others. No taxpayer has any credibility to talk about stopping USG violence.


Let’s count your inconsistencies.

1. You are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Your method for starving the government “creates” nothing but a whole host of horrible situations for which governments are normally to blame; including the destruction of production, goods and services, the economy, prosperity, health, etc.
2. You blame taxpayers (people who work) for funding government oppression, even though the taxes are taken by force. And you don’t blame the people who choose to profit from this kind of government oppression.
3. You describe the people who choose to profit from government oppression as “legal” even though your method for increasing numbers of people on welfare is based on massive fraud (lying about ability to work).
4. You blame taxpayers for engaging in politics, but not those who choose to profit from government oppression (who could not possibly be more “engaged”).
5. Your solution is to get many people on welfare to crash the system by cost overruns, yet you do not extend that logic to other government costs/moneys. Do you also advise that the US should expand its military/wars and everyone should join up?
6. Your solution for a corrupt government is to increase the corruption. Or stated inversely: You want to crash the system by contributing to the things that are crashing the system.
7. Elsewhere you recently complained that a government action “costs the government scarce resources to do this”. Considering the method you advocate here, that complaint makes no sense. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?270631-Police-Pa.-couple-hid-5-children-from-society&p=3359185#post3359185 Post 24. (Finding this took about 3 minutes. I’m sure there are more like it.)

Look, we all agree on your intent. But your method is the ultimate ends-justifies-the-means road-to-hell. Hopefully these inconsistencies will compel you to reassess it.

[newyearsrevolution08]

All I am saying is that if you qualify then why not sign up? If it is as easy as people state it is to qualify then why not? How is that going against ANYTHING within our current government as well as how things are currently setup.

As far as joining the military as far as using that in the same breath as the welfare system, that is an apples and oranges debate to say the least. Signing up for something legitimately here in the u.s which then overburdends the welfare system itself VERSUS going over and killing or possibly getting killed? How the hell do either of those two even go together in the least.

I love how people take things writing and turn it so far crooked it just makes you laugh. Many here apparently think I said, sneak into the welfare system at any or all costs and spend spend spend, then have others sign up illegally as well and pretty soon WAH HA HA the nation will fall on its knees.....

If you CAN legally do it then why not? Its money that is going somewhere and at least its going HERE and not to some other country. Pretty soon they will either have to remove that department OR expand it.... During a voting season and someone had to pick between "national security" or "welfare handouts" for some reason I see many repubs voting for the national security and worrying about evil men hiding in hills trying to destroy us with box cutters.

whats wrong with SHOWING how wrong a department or program is simply by joining it legally?

so long winded idirtify?> what say you

btw when you did your so called research on my previous posts...... OF COURSE I am against nation building.. Do you realize what forum we are in? I am for bringing ALL the troops home and NO I am not saying in the least that we need to EXPAND our nation building, that is already being done currently and collapsing itself just fine, or didn't you notice?

[LibForestPaul]

This USED to make sense but that print more money isn't working as well anymore.... Do you really see them passing a bill to allow billions to go to welfare because it is expanding? Come on.....

I would have bought this arguement a few years ago but now we can't just print our way out of all our situations anymore.

Correct, they will take from the middle class to "give" to the poor after a cut goes to the banksters. The middle class will shrivel and die, and this certainly helps move the end game nearer rather than later.

So SIGN UP NOW!!!

[newyearsrevolution08]

Correct, they will take from the middle class to "give" to the poor after a cut goes to the banksters. The middle class will shrivel and die, and this certainly helps move the end game nearer rather than later.

So SIGN UP NOW!!!

they will try and take from the middle class and one thing I have learned is that no one actually stands up UNTIL it actually affects them. Once it affects them they will get up and complain about it and if they don't then hell what can you do....

Some feel they need to feed INTO the government in hopes of getting "something" back in return or for their fellow man (I suppose). I still don't understand that mentality.

[Kludge]

Let’s count your inconsistencies.

1. You are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Your method for starving the government “creates” nothing but a whole host of horrible situations for which governments are normally to blame; including the destruction of production, goods and services, the economy, prosperity, health, etc.
2. You blame taxpayers (people who work) for funding government oppression, even though the taxes are taken by force. And you don’t blame the people who choose to profit from this kind of government oppression.
3. You describe the people who choose to profit from government oppression as “legal” even though your method for increasing numbers of people on welfare is based on massive fraud (lying about ability to work).
4. You blame taxpayers for engaging in politics, but not those who choose to profit from government oppression (who could not possibly be more “engaged”).
5. Your solution is to get many people on welfare to crash the system by cost overruns, yet you do not extend that logic to other government costs/moneys. Do you also advise that the US should expand its military/wars and everyone should join up?
6. Your solution for a corrupt government is to increase the corruption. Or stated inversely: You want to crash the system by contributing to the things that are crashing the system.
7. Elsewhere you recently complained that a government action “costs the government scarce resources to do this”. Considering the method you advocate here, that complaint makes no sense. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?270631-Police-Pa.-couple-hid-5-children-from-society&p=3359185#post3359185 Post 24. (Finding this took about 3 minutes. I’m sure there are more like it.)

Look, we all agree on your intent. But your method is the ultimate ends-justifies-the-means road-to-hell. Hopefully these inconsistencies will compel you to reassess it.
1) Please prove your claim. Agorism is always (AFAIK) the production of goods without gov't intervention, almost always resulting in more efficient production. Welfare not used in Agorist markets (Food Stamps in particular) are recycled right back into the economy. The only ones hurt (and not even necessarily) are the taxpayers who remain loyal enough to the USG to not fight against it in a meaningful manner.
2) Taxpaying is not necessary of work. Simply rolling cigarettes yourself and selling them on the black market is a great way for beginners to be involved in production while dramatically reducing typical cigarette taxation.
3) Welfare has nothing to do with the ability to work. Welfare in the US is given out to people with no or low income. Disability - what you're referring to - is another beast in itself and does not account for a large % of welfare.
4) I don't blame anyone for engaging in politics. It's one egg in a big basket of things to throw at the USG. Those who profit from USG oppression are sometimes good, sometimes bad. Providing a way for gov't to commit violence is obviously a wrong. People defunding the gov't by providing services on the black market - I would argue - are committing a noble act.
5) No. I've already gone over this. Violence, bad. Government requires violence. We do not need violence to economically cripple the USG.
6) My solution for getting rid of the leading source of violence in our world is to use the corruption of gov't to our advantage. That does indeed mean making it more corrupt, but a more corrupt gov't does not necessarily mean a more violent gov't and does indeed make it less likely for gov't to be able to pay for warfare when its immoral welfare systems are being overwhelmed.
7) I'm pointing out the faults of our government. USG welfare programs are absurd, as is their "war on drugs." That does not mean they should not be used to our advantage to end gov't violence.

I think I have successfully refuted every point you've made. To end violence, we must end compulsory government claim on individuals' lives. Ending government by using government is not hypocritical or inconsistent, but one of the only tactics against ending government with a chance of being successful, IMO.

[heavenlyboy34]

I think I have successfully refuted every point you've made. To end violence, we must end compulsory government claim on individuals' lives. Ending government by using government is not hypocritical or inconsistent, but one of the only tactics against ending government with a chance of being successful, IMO.
Does this mean you've given up on anarcho-fascism?

[newyearsrevolution08]

Does this mean you've given up on anarcho-fascism?

are you trying to debate food stamps or just ANYTHING? I mean seriously pick a topic.

[idirtify]

All I am saying is that if you qualify then why not sign up? If it is as easy as people state it is to qualify then why not? How is that going against ANYTHING within our current government as well as how things are currently setup.

As far as joining the military as far as using that in the same breath as the welfare system, that is an apples and oranges debate to say the least. Signing up for something legitimately here in the u.s which then overburdends the welfare system itself VERSUS going over and killing or possibly getting killed? How the hell do either of those two even go together in the least.

I love how people take things writing and turn it so far crooked it just makes you laugh. Many here apparently think I said, sneak into the welfare system at any or all costs and spend spend spend, then have others sign up illegally as well and pretty soon WAH HA HA the nation will fall on its knees.....

If you CAN legally do it then why not? Its money that is going somewhere and at least its going HERE and not to some other country. Pretty soon they will either have to remove that department OR expand it.... During a voting season and someone had to pick between "national security" or "welfare handouts" for some reason I see many repubs voting for the national security and worrying about evil men hiding in hills trying to destroy us with box cutters.

whats wrong with SHOWING how wrong a department or program is simply by joining it legally?

so long winded idirtify?> what say you

btw when you did your so called research on my previous posts...... OF COURSE I am against nation building.. Do you realize what forum we are in? I am for bringing ALL the troops home and NO I am not saying in the least that we need to EXPAND our nation building, that is already being done currently and collapsing itself just fine, or didn't you notice?

Let’s count YOUR inconsistencies.

Previously in this thread you said you wanted to get rid of the free aid. In another thread you said you wanted to “have people make their own way in this country” ( http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?295465-Ron-Paul-Moving-to-the-Left-on-Immigration&p=3352650#post3352650 ). But now you say you want as many people as possible to “sign up for food stamps and free money aide”.

In your first post, you said more people should sign up for “free money aid”, but later you said, “you should NOT…be able to PULL CASH OUT... If there is to be FREE shit for people lets make it food and housing and NOT money”.

In your first post, you said “If they want free aide, entitlements and everything else under the sun then I say LETS DO IT!”, but later you said, “no you should NOT…be able to PULL CASH OUT... If there is to be FREE shit for people lets make it food and housing and NOT money”.

And those are just your intra-thread-post inconsistencies. Deeper inconsistencies with the principle of individual liberty are multiple, many of which I have previously listed. But let’s look at more.

In your first post, you said, “If they want free aide, entitlements and everything else under the sun then I say LETS DO IT!” Even though you now claim you did not mean increasing/joining the military, “everything else under the sun” would (according to your logic) include corporate welfare, bailouts, stimulus packages, corporatism, crony capitalism, Obamacare, and any other socialist programs. So will we now see you going around RPF advocating things like bailouts and crony capitalism and socialized health care and a currency crisis? Will you also be announcing that you will NOT be voting for Ron Paul, but WILL be voting for progressives/liberals/socialist candidates?

[idirtify]

Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34
Does this mean you've given up on anarcho-fascism?

are you trying to debate food stamps or just ANYTHING? I mean seriously pick a topic.

Heavenlyboy is pointing out an inconsistency, which is entirely relevant to the topic.

[idirtify]

1) Please prove your claim. Agorism is always (AFAIK) the production of goods without gov't intervention, almost always resulting in more efficient production. Welfare not used in Agorist markets (Food Stamps in particular) are recycled right back into the economy. The only ones hurt (and not even necessarily) are the taxpayers who remain loyal enough to the USG to not fight against it in a meaningful manner.
2) Taxpaying is not necessary of work. Simply rolling cigarettes yourself and selling them on the black market is a great way for beginners to be involved in production while dramatically reducing typical cigarette taxation.
3) Welfare has nothing to do with the ability to work. Welfare in the US is given out to people with no or low income. Disability - what you're referring to - is another beast in itself and does not account for a large % of welfare.
4) I don't blame anyone for engaging in politics. It's one egg in a big basket of things to throw at the USG. Those who profit from USG oppression are sometimes good, sometimes bad. Providing a way for gov't to commit violence is obviously a wrong. People defunding the gov't by providing services on the black market - I would argue - are committing a noble act.
5) No. I've already gone over this. Violence, bad. Government requires violence. We do not need violence to economically cripple the USG.
6) My solution for getting rid of the leading source of violence in our world is to use the corruption of gov't to our advantage. That does indeed mean making it more corrupt, but a more corrupt gov't does not necessarily mean a more violent gov't and does indeed make it less likely for gov't to be able to pay for warfare when its immoral welfare systems are being overwhelmed.
7) I'm pointing out the faults of our government. USG welfare programs are absurd, as is their "war on drugs." That does not mean they should not be used to our advantage to end gov't violence.

I think I have successfully refuted every point you've made. To end violence, we must end compulsory government claim on individuals' lives. Ending government by using government is not hypocritical or inconsistent, but one of the only tactics against ending government with a chance of being successful, IMO.

1. My claim is that if everyone went on welfare and food stamps, no one would work and all production and distribution would cease (qualified below in #3). It’s comical that you describe workers/taxpayers as “loyal enough to the USG to not fight against it in a meaningful manner”. Since taxes are extorted by force and violence and guns, your position is nothing but blaming the victim. And ironically you don’t blame those who are parasitically dependant on the USG. Far from blaming them, you advocate them. So much for your version of agorism.

2. I might not disagree with that, but black market enterprising is a different topic. I thought you were advocating welfare and food stamps.

3. Point taken. So you aren’t advocating that people lie about their ability to work, only their income level (in order to get on welfare and food stamps). Correct?

4. Again, we aren’t talking about other methods like black market sales. We are talking about the method you advocate(d).

5. OK, like NYR you draw the line a military violence. So I’ll assume you advocate the other entitlement socialist schemes. So I’ll ask you likewise: So will we now see you going around RPF advocating things like more bailouts and more crony capitalism and more socialized health care and more corporate welfare and more stimulus packages and a currency crisis?

6. So you think creating a corrupt system is immoral, but choosing to depend on it and profit from it is not. Do I read you correctly? Do you really think it’s not immoral to choose to take, and profit from, that which has been stolen from others at the point of a gun?

7. We are not debating the faults of the USG. We are debating your proposed method/solution. And if you think welfare programs are absurd, it would be absurd to participate in them; let alone benefit from them. And if you think it will help end gov’t violence, think again. Governments don’t suffer from loss; they profit from it. If they loose money, they simply tax and print more. Evidence being our current USG, which has been operating thusly for generations and have done nothing but grow into the largest and most powerful and possibly the most corrupt mob in history.


Again, we agree on your intent. We are debating your method. Restating the intent does nothing to defend the proposed method. Nor does restating it like “ending government by using government”, since your particular type of that does not work. I mean there are obvious ways to use government to end government which are not hypocritical or inconsistent, but yours isn’t one IMO.

[newyearsrevolution08]

you haven't pointed out anything EXCEPT YOU guys like putting together bullet lists of stuff.

All I see is you being clueless drumming up opinions based off of your views on me which sadly are wrong. You my friend are a hoot to read....

I said IF you qualify SIGN UP!!!!
fucking clueless

[newyearsrevolution08]

Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34
Does this mean you've given up on anarcho-fascism?


Heavenlyboy is pointing out an inconsistency, which is entirely relevant to the topic.

I am speaking of WELFARE being too easy to get and you are fucking talking about me expanding wars? Who is inconsistent? LOL you are laughable at best and at worst well.. I won't go there

by all means keep spreadin your cute attempts at an opinion about me, it is cute... cute... hehe


btw

what is wrong with welfare being FOR FOOD AND HOUSING and NOT for free money they can pull out of any atm? WTF don't you get?

[idirtify]

you haven't pointed out anything EXCEPT YOU guys like putting together bullet lists of stuff.

All I see is you being clueless drumming up opinions based off of your views on me which sadly are wrong. You my friend are a hoot to read....

I said IF you qualify SIGN UP!!!!
fucking clueless



I am speaking of WELFARE being too easy to get and you are fucking talking about me expanding wars? Who is inconsistent? LOL you are laughable at best and at worst well.. I won't go there

by all means keep spreadin your cute attempts at an opinion about me, it is cute... cute... hehe


btw

what is wrong with welfare being FOR FOOD AND HOUSING and NOT for free money they can pull out of any atm? WTF don't you get?

I have no opinion of you, only your posts. That’s an important distinction.

So… your current position is to get on socialist programs only “IF you qualify”. Right? So is it also cool with you if giant banks and corporations QUALIFY (for welfare, bailouts, etc)?

[HOLLYWOOD]

SNAP recipient breakout list: http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/29snapcurrpp.htm

Most states are increasing their Food STamp budgets by 100% for 2011. What does that tell you?

Did you know that ~13.5% of Food Stamp/SNAP/WIC payments to recipients are supplemented with 2009 ARRA Stimulus Funds? That runs out the end of next FY2012... then what?

USDA budget will exceed $100 Billion in welfare food programs by the end of this fiscal year 2011 for the first time. http://www.fns.usda.gov/fns/data.htm

excel spreadsheet of Program Reports, Analysis and Monitoring Branches: http://www.fns.usda.gov/fns/key_data/march-2011.xls

[oyarde]

SNAP recipient breakout list: http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/29snapcurrpp.htm

Most states are increasing their Food STamp budgets by 100% for 2011. What does that tell you?

Did you know that ~13.5% of Food Stamp/SNAP/WIC payments to recipients are supplemented with 2009 ARRA Stimulus Funds? That runs out the end of next FY2012... then what?

USDA budget will exceed $100 Billion in welfare food programs by the end of this fiscal year 2011 for the first time. http://www.fns.usda.gov/fns/data.htm

excel spreadsheet of Program Reports, Analysis and Monitoring Branches: http://www.fns.usda.gov/fns/key_data/march-2011.xls

Imagine if all that money were returned to citizens ......

[Razmear]

sorry, but this "food stamp crime wave" is much lower on my list of priorities than the current crime wave of wars for profit.
When we stop killing people to increase corporate profits at the taxpayers expense, then maybe I'll worry about the family down the street who gets $100/month in food stamps impact on our financial crisis.

[Kelly.]

Imagine if all that money were returned to citizens ......
it is returned to citizens, in the form of welfare.

i think you mean what if it was never taken from its citizens....


i still dont see the problem of signing up for a government program that allows me to recoup some of my stolen tax money. :)

[oyarde]

The amount of fed tax taken out of my last paycheck , last friday could pay my phone bill and feed a family of five for two weeks , easy.

[Kelly.]

The amount of fed tax taken out of my last paycheck , last friday could pay my phone bill and feed a family of five for two weeks , easy.

so why not see if you qualify to get some of that money back from the government?

[oyarde]

it is returned to citizens, in the form of welfare.

i think you mean what if it was never taken from its citizens....


i still dont see the problem of signing up for a government program that allows me to recoup some of my stolen tax money. :)

If was never taken , there would be more to voluntarily give . The people who work at my local food bank are unpaid volunteers , much better than govt employees ....

[oyarde]

so why not see if you qualify to get some of that money back from the government?

I would not qualify , but would not apply if I did . I would rather they restrict spending to article one section eight allowing me to have more to give where I would like.

[Kelly.]

I would not qualify , but would not apply if I did . I would rather they restrict spending to article one section eight allowing me to have more to give where I would like.

but they arent going to do that until forced to, i thought that was completely obvious by now.

so what to do until then?
hope? lulz

[Brian4Liberty]

The best way to shrink government is to not use it. Avoid it as much as possible. Any use of a government service justifies it's existence and expansion.

[Kelly.]

^^^^
i think that only holds true if the government isnt spending more than it brings in.

i would rather use every possible government service i qualify for, and force the topic of where that money is coming from and if its necessary to be discussed then to hope it will change.

[idirtify]

sorry, but this "food stamp crime wave" is much lower on my list of priorities than the current crime wave of wars for profit.
When we stop killing people to increase corporate profits at the taxpayers expense, then maybe I'll worry about the family down the street who gets $100/month in food stamps impact on our financial crisis.

It’s low on your list. Great. So leave here and go to the military threads. There’s always a higher priority, and that’s no reason to dismiss an important topic (hijack a thread).

[heavenlyboy34]

^^^^
i think that only holds true if the government isnt spending more than it brings in.

i would rather use every possible government service i qualify for, and force the topic of where that money is coming from and if its necessary to be discussed then to hope it will change.
qft. Plus, using up a bunch of benefits will hasten the end of the empire.

[idirtify]

^^^^
i think that only holds true if the government isnt spending more than it brings in.

i would rather use every possible government service i qualify for, and force the topic of where that money is coming from and if its necessary to be discussed then to hope it will change.

Kelly,
I noticed you are making the same claims, despite my previous disputes of the logic. But whatever. Let’s test YOUR logic NOW. Your current position is to use every possible socialist government service you qualify for. Is it also your position that big banks and corporations should do the same; take the corporate welfare, bailouts, stimulus money, etc?

[idirtify]

qft. Plus, using up a bunch of benefits will hasten the end of the empire.

I can’t really tell from the sum of your posts in this thread where you stand. Here, you seem to agree with my opponents’ position; to get on welfare to crash the system. Which is it? Sorry if I’m being dense.

[oyarde]

but they arent going to do that until forced to, i thought that was completely obvious by now.

so what to do until then?
hope? lulz

I am going to continue to try and force the issue anyway I can. You do make a valid point about it being obvious things are not leaning in the direction I prefer. However , I must persist .

[oyarde]

Made a donation to the local food bank today . If it had not been for this thread I probably would not have found the time or money. Thank you all.

[oyarde]

And I put up a Ron Paul sign in my front yard yesterday morning . I am on a roll this week :)

[Brian4Liberty]

qft. Plus, using up a bunch of benefits will hasten the end of the empire.

Why do I get a mental image of a bunch of lemming all rushing for a cliff. Each lemming has his own individual justification for going there...

[Kludge]

Does this mean you've given up on anarcho-fascism?

Not at all. Though I've been more quiet about it because I've been much busier, away from computers, and because it's the campaign season (this is RON PAUL forums for political reform through the legal political process, after all) - I believe in Anarcho-Fascism more than ever. Anarcho-Fascism (which I consider to be under the umbrella of Agorism) is a *means* not an end (and ultimately, more a philosophy than a political ideology). Increasing taxes to a rate necessary to support all gov't-resistors would both hurt the USG financially and force them to either end the Warfare state, collapse, or increase tax rates to a point where any person worth their physical body would enter the black market.

The end of Agorism (an ideology which primarily lays out a mean, not giving much of a solution) is a community free of compulsory government. This is the same end Anarcho-Fascism seeks. What comes after that is OUR choice, not the choice of those who wrote "social contracts" hundreds of years ago -- or even tens of years ago. The only real differences between Agorism and Anarcho-Fascism is that An-Fascism suggests we accelerate the pace of the USG collapse by voting in it to implement more absurd regulations and taxes which will convince more and more potential agorists to join our forces -- the other difference is that An-Fascism - despite it's etymology as a political term - very much encourages philosophical changes in individuals. An-Fascism suggests we take personal responsibility, take risks, and use all in our power not to reform compulsory government, but end it.

- And while an-fascism encourages people to abuse the Welfare system, it certainly does not encourage laziness and a lack of productivity. I'm here to say that choosing to work in the private sector with gov't-chartered businesses, contributing to the government - is a conscious decision to support the government. I advocate taking risks -- something which seems oddly foreign in this movement. I advocate getting involved, helping your community, and doing so without contributing to the USG's existence. I am here to say YOU DO NOT NEED GOVERNMENT TO BE PRODUCTIVE - and in many areas, USG taxes and regulations have justified black markets to pop up and supply people with the goods and services they want without paying the USG.

Especially now with Silk Road and Bitcoin, there is no excuse to be paying the USG for being productive. No longer do we as individuals need to tolerate a compulsory government which oppresses us. To contribute to the USG at this point is not oppression -- it's repression. Taxpayers have no valid excuse when so many agorist opportunities exist. It's time we as individuals demand our rights, undermine the USG which claims us as their property, and lead productive lives on the black market.

No more excuses.


P.S. Anyone interested in wtf Anarcho-Fascism is -- I made a post here which is what HB is referencing: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?248112-Anarcho-Fascism-A-dream-A-plan-An-Ideal-We-Can-Believe-In-(quite-explicit)&p=2733206#post2733206

I also made a more easy-to-follow intro on it @ http://www.ronpaulforums.com/entry.php?86-In-Defense-of-quot-Sheep-quot-and-Big-Government-Anarcho-Fascism-Introduction

[oyarde]

sorry, but this "food stamp crime wave" is much lower on my list of priorities than the current crime wave of wars for profit.
When we stop killing people to increase corporate profits at the taxpayers expense, then maybe I'll worry about the family down the street who gets $100/month in food stamps impact on our financial crisis.

That family down the street can have whatever they want out of my new fridge ( except my beer ) to not go apply for food stamps and I will give them a ride to the local food bank , all privately funded.

[idirtify]

Not at all. Though I've been more quiet about it because I've been much busier, away from computers, and because it's the campaign season (this is RON PAUL forums for political reform through the legal political process, after all) - I believe in Anarcho-Fascism more than ever. Anarcho-Fascism (which I consider to be under the umbrella of Agorism) is a *means* not an end (and ultimately, more a philosophy than a political ideology). Increasing taxes to a rate necessary to support all gov't-resistors would both hurt the USG financially and force them to either end the Warfare state, collapse, or increase tax rates to a point where any person worth their physical body would enter the black market.

The end of Agorism (an ideology which primarily lays out a mean, not giving much of a solution) is a community free of compulsory government. This is the same end Anarcho-Fascism seeks. What comes after that is OUR choice, not the choice of those who wrote "social contracts" hundreds of years ago -- or even tens of years ago. The only real differences between Agorism and Anarcho-Fascism is that An-Fascism suggests we accelerate the pace of the USG collapse by voting in it to implement more absurd regulations and taxes which will convince more and more potential agorists to join our forces -- the other difference is that An-Fascism - despite it's etymology as a political term - very much encourages philosophical changes in individuals. An-Fascism suggests we take personal responsibility, take risks, and use all in our power not to reform compulsory government, but end it.

- And while an-fascism encourages people to abuse the Welfare system, it certainly does not encourage laziness and a lack of productivity. I'm here to say that choosing to work in the private sector with gov't-chartered businesses, contributing to the government - is a conscious decision to support the government. I advocate taking risks -- something which seems oddly foreign in this movement. I advocate getting involved, helping your community, and doing so without contributing to the USG's existence. I am here to say YOU DO NOT NEED GOVERNMENT TO BE PRODUCTIVE - and in many areas, USG taxes and regulations have justified black markets to pop up and supply people with the goods and services they want without paying the USG.

Especially now with Silk Road and Bitcoin, there is no excuse to be paying the USG for being productive. No longer do we as individuals need to tolerate a compulsory government which oppresses us. To contribute to the USG at this point is not oppression -- it's repression. Taxpayers have no valid excuse when so many agorist opportunities exist. It's time we as individuals demand our rights, undermine the USG which claims us as their property, and lead productive lives on the black market.

No more excuses.


P.S. Anyone interested in wtf Anarcho-Fascism is -- I made a post here which is what HB is referencing: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?248112-Anarcho-Fascism-A-dream-A-plan-An-Ideal-We-Can-Believe-In-(quite-explicit)&p=2733206#post2733206

I also made a more easy-to-follow intro on it @ http://www.ronpaulforums.com/entry.php?86-In-Defense-of-quot-Sheep-quot-and-Big-Government-Anarcho-Fascism-Introduction

Kludge,

It appears you skipped my previous rebuttal. What about my points? This was just one:
“So will we now see you going around RPF advocating things like more bailouts and more crony capitalism and more socialized health care and more corporate welfare and more stimulus packages and a currency crisis?” You have not only ignored my disputes, but now you exacerbate your philosophy into overt use of initiated violence (and indicating a YES answer to my earlier question). Whereas before you were only advocating the receipt of stolen property from socialist programs, now you are advocating to “accelerate the pace of the USG collapse by voting in it to implement more absurd regulations and taxes”. That makes this part of your an-fascism method even less reasonable, with the logic failing on even MORE levels; one of which is the amount of non-consensual harm/damage/violence it incurs. Do I need to actually SHOW you the gun in your hand? Do I need to actually explain to you how your behavior is not fundamentally dissimilar to that which you claim to oppose? Now I’ll ask you the most fundamental question of all: What gives you the right to initiate violence? Speaking of “excuses”, what’s yours?

[oyarde]

Before I am out for the Holiday , I would like to say this , screw food stamps and anyone who thought it was a good idea to steal from me to provide them :)

[Kludge]

Kludge,

It appears you skipped my previous rebuttal. What about my points? This was just one:
“So will we now see you going around RPF advocating things like more bailouts and more crony capitalism and more socialized health care and more corporate welfare and more stimulus packages and a currency crisis?” You have not only ignored my disputes, but now you exacerbate your philosophy into overt use of initiated violence (and indicating a YES answer to my earlier question). Whereas before you were only advocating the receipt of stolen property from socialist programs, now you are advocating to “accelerate the pace of the USG collapse by voting in it to implement more absurd regulations and taxes”. That makes this part of your an-fascism method even less reasonable, with the logic failing on even MORE levels; one of which is the amount of non-consensual harm/damage/violence it incurs. Do I need to actually SHOW you the gun in your hand? Do I need to actually explain to you how your behavior is not fundamentally dissimilar to that which you claim to oppose? Now I’ll ask you the most fundamental question of all: What gives you the right to initiate violence? Speaking of “excuses”, what’s yours?
I implicitly (and probably explicitly) rebutted that point a few times.

Taxpayers made a choice. Taxpaying is submission to government. It's literally trading freedom for security. You don't need to pay taxes to be productive and earn a living, but it's the easy risk-free route. Like I argued earlier -- it's paying for your own repression, not being oppressed, in stark contrast to real victims of the USG in the Middle East and elsewhere who are no longer living. Conservatives love the victim mentality because it gets them out of the realization that they're helping their enemy more than hurting, and it's out of cowardice they hide behind the excuse that they "have to" pay taxes. The USG does not have to be or do anything. It does not have to pretend to protect the environment, imprison parents for not registering their kids with the gov't, be funded, nor need to exist. It's a choice -- Yes, it's illegal. So is jaywalking, but that doesn't mean you can't do it.

[nicoleeann]

Yes welfare is stealing and yes it's wrong. what amazes me is how many people believe that all of the people who are currently on welfare would be starving to death if we didnt have it. I believe that only about 5% or less of the people who are on welfare would be in need of charity assistance if we did not have welfare. First of all there would be very few people having babies irresponsibly. It would be too embarrassing without welfare and most of the people on welfare are not mental enough to just let kids starve. Second there would be very very few people who could get away with abusing the system when there are private charities. Charities could require drug, cigarette, and alchohol tests-which would eliminate plenty of people. Third people would learn to live without the extravagances that we've come to accept as "needed". Particularly an individual apartment-you can live a little bit cramped for a while-two people in one room is not crazy. Also family and friends would be relied on a lot more-not to mention that they would definitly pressure these people to work harder.
We all know that there would still be some people who just are down on their luck at time-and look around you: there are hundreds of churches in every city who are giving tons of money every week to provide for others. Not to mention that nonreligious people can be extremely generous as well. But seeing the welfare system as it is right now tends to disgust people at the thought of giving their hard earned money away. To think of what some of these people are doing with our money does not make me want to give to a charity.

[YumYum]

Not at all. Though I've been more quiet about it because I've been much busier, away from computers, and because it's the campaign season (this is RON PAUL forums for political reform through the legal political process, after all) - I believe in Anarcho-Fascism more than ever. Anarcho-Fascism (which I consider to be under the umbrella of Agorism) is a *means* not an end (and ultimately, more a philosophy than a political ideology). Increasing taxes to a rate necessary to support all gov't-resistors would both hurt the USG financially and force them to either end the Warfare state, collapse, or increase tax rates to a point where any person worth their physical body would enter the black market.

The end of Agorism (an ideology which primarily lays out a mean, not giving much of a solution) is a community free of compulsory government. This is the same end Anarcho-Fascism seeks. What comes after that is OUR choice, not the choice of those who wrote "social contracts" hundreds of years ago -- or even tens of years ago. The only real differences between Agorism and Anarcho-Fascism is that An-Fascism suggests we accelerate the pace of the USG collapse by voting in it to implement more absurd regulations and taxes which will convince more and more potential agorists to join our forces -- the other difference is that An-Fascism - despite it's etymology as a political term - very much encourages philosophical changes in individuals. An-Fascism suggests we take personal responsibility, take risks, and use all in our power not to reform compulsory government, but end it.

- And while an-fascism encourages people to abuse the Welfare system, it certainly does not encourage laziness and a lack of productivity. I'm here to say that choosing to work in the private sector with gov't-chartered businesses, contributing to the government - is a conscious decision to support the government. I advocate taking risks -- something which seems oddly foreign in this movement. I advocate getting involved, helping your community, and doing so without contributing to the USG's existence. I am here to say YOU DO NOT NEED GOVERNMENT TO BE PRODUCTIVE - and in many areas, USG taxes and regulations have justified black markets to pop up and supply people with the goods and services they want without paying the USG.

Especially now with Silk Road and Bitcoin, there is no excuse to be paying the USG for being productive. No longer do we as individuals need to tolerate a compulsory government which oppresses us. To contribute to the USG at this point is not oppression -- it's repression. Taxpayers have no valid excuse when so many agorist opportunities exist. It's time we as individuals demand our rights, undermine the USG which claims us as their property, and lead productive lives on the black market.

No more excuses.


P.S. Anyone interested in wtf Anarcho-Fascism is -- I made a post here which is what HB is referencing: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?248112-Anarcho-Fascism-A-dream-A-plan-An-Ideal-We-Can-Believe-In-(quite-explicit)&p=2733206#post2733206

I also made a more easy-to-follow intro on it @ http://www.ronpaulforums.com/entry.php?86-In-Defense-of-quot-Sheep-quot-and-Big-Government-Anarcho-Fascism-Introduction

It would seem to me a person could accomplish more as an anarcho-facists by being a liberal Democrat, than by being a Barry Goldwater Republican. If we had more welfare, open borders with amnesty, more wars to make the world safe for democracy, more bailouts; basically more of the same, and not less, the system will collapse a lot sooner. We can either try to empty the water out of the Titanic with a bucket, just before it goes under, or we can add more water to the ship with the same bucket to help it go down quicker. Its obvious which one is easier to do. Besides, who needs the stress?

[idirtify]

I implicitly (and probably explicitly) rebutted that point a few times.

Taxpayers made a choice. Taxpaying is submission to government. It's literally trading freedom for security. You don't need to pay taxes to be productive and earn a living, but it's the easy risk-free route. Like I argued earlier -- it's paying for your own repression, not being oppressed, in stark contrast to real victims of the USG in the Middle East and elsewhere who are no longer living. Conservatives love the victim mentality because it gets them out of the realization that they're helping their enemy more than hurting, and it's out of cowardice they hide behind the excuse that they "have to" pay taxes. The USG does not have to be or do anything. It does not have to pretend to protect the environment, imprison parents for not registering their kids with the gov't, be funded, nor need to exist. It's a choice -- Yes, it's illegal. So is jaywalking, but that doesn't mean you can't do it.

Twisting “extortion at the point of a gun” into “submission to government” and “trading freedom for security” and “helping the enemy” and “cowardice”, when referring to paying taxes, is the pinnacle of blaming the victim; and calling it “victim mentality” certainly doesn’t change that. And your CHOICE of blame is most curious since it is YOU who advocate “voting…to implement more absurd regulations and taxes”; which would naturally include more criminal bailouts and socialist programs. If anything trades freedom for security and helps the enemy it is voting for more government regulation. And since said voting is a true initiation of violence (against giant masses of innocent people), because it is done with absolutely no coercion, I’m afraid it is your action that is far more to blame. So once again: What gives you the right to initiate violence?

[idirtify]

It would seem to me a person could accomplish more as an anarcho-facists by being a liberal Democrat, than by being a Barry Goldwater Republican. If we had more welfare, open borders with amnesty, more wars to make the world safe for democracy, more bailouts; basically more of the same, and not less, the system will collapse a lot sooner. We can either try to empty the water out of the Titanic with a bucket, just before it goes under, or we can add more water to the ship with the same bucket to help it go down quicker. Its obvious which one is easier to do. Besides, who needs the stress?

I have read your post repeatedly and cannot decipher which side of this debate you are on.

[oyarde]

//

[YumYum]

I have read your post repeatedly and cannot decipher which side of this debate you are on.

Do I have to take sides? Kludge, like torchbearer, believe that we should do everything we can to bring this corrupted, broken system down faster by getting more welfare and food stamps. Others think there is hope if Ron Paul is elected. Both sides have valid points, so, I haven't taken any sides, I am just enjoying the discussion and learning all I can. But, I do think the system is doomed, unless we can get the majority of Americans and Congress to accept Ron Paul's message.

[idirtify]

Do I have to take sides? ... Both sides have valid points


No, you don’t have to take sides. Thanks for the clarification.

Even though one might be able to say that the idea behind “crash the system” has “valid points”, the METHOD is not valid. To say otherwise is to confuse intent with method. The analogies are numerous. For example, there are lots of “valid points” (good intentions) behind the idea of drug prohibition. Since there are often problems associated with drug use, one might say that the idea of controlling drug availability is valid. But the method of prohibiting drugs is not valid; because it is MORE problematic than the problem for which it claims to be a solution. Since a “solution” cannot by definition cause MORE problems than the original problem, it is not valid. The same fundamentals/principles can be applied to the “crash the system” method; which would be far worse, because it would vote to INCREASE drug prohibition – and ALL gov regulatory schemes.

Now if you want to maintain that the “crash the system” METHOD has validity, you HAVE taken sides – and you will not only need to address the points of my argument but you will have to answer the standing question about the justification for initiating violence.

[oyarde]

Do I have to take sides? Kludge, like torchbearer, believe that we should do everything we can to bring this corrupted, broken system down faster by getting more welfare and food stamps. Others think there is hope if Ron Paul is elected. Both sides have valid points, so, I haven't taken any sides, I am just enjoying the discussion and learning all I can. But, I do think the system is doomed, unless we can get the majority of Americans and Congress to accept Ron Paul's message.

These programs need to be gradually phased out completely , taxes cut to reflect the money not spent . The generousity of others would do better than the govt.

[muzzled dogg]

dont vote ron paul
dont audit the fed

CRASH THE SYSTEMZ!!!!!!!!

[oyarde]

Well , I am off to work , but for whatever it is worth , the govt . does not need to be involved in taxing and spending for food . Leave people the money they earn and the truly needy and hungry will be feed with a much lower , voluntary cost and little fraud.

[idirtify]

dont vote ron paul
dont audit the fed

CRASH THE SYSTEMZ!!!!!!!!

I'm sure you forgot this -> :)