Is It Hippocritical For Tea Partiers To Collect Welfare?

Originally posted by CynicalDrivel
1. Because the TP member wants FS to be run by their state, not by the centralized government.

They want welfare to be run by their state? This doesn't make any sense. You have a tea partier taking out welfare, which is in part federally funded, and they're doing this to make a political point that it should be a states issue?

By the way, states have every opportunity to go off and do this welfare thing themselves, infact, they'll take a load off the government. Maybe certain state officials can go ahead and cut ofutfederally funded welfare and medicare, we'll see how that goes from there.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


actually anyone on medicare is having that fee automatically deducted from their social security checks

last time i checked could be wrong medicare is only provided to those who are on ss.and for those who dont theres that other insurance welfare called medicaid

and i support the privatization of social security and medicare cut out the government and they dont have to go beg them for their own money then welfare wouldnt be needed.

its all about power and control cant see why anyone wouldnt want control over their own cash and get to decide when they get it instead of some government official.

pretty sure thats a teaparty stance and the stance of their detractors is americans are too stupid to take care of their own business

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

actually anyone on medicare is having that fee automatically deducted from their social security checks

Exactly, they earned over the years of work. GOP candidates like Ron paul, and tea partiers as a political movement, have always seen these programmes as unconstutional and socialist. They want to privatize it.

You cannot privatize medicare because no private insurer is willing to take in all those seniors. This drives a large gaping hole into the ideology that tea partiers and libertarians the likes of Ron Paul advocate for. It's so easy to call those taking these programmes as lazy, communist, but when it involves you or somebody of the same ilk, group, it's a different story. It's so easy to call for privatization, without seeing the results.

last time i checked could be wrong medicare is only provided to those who are on ss.and for those who dont theres that other insurance welfare called medicaid

Exactly, these are socialist programmes, and yet tea partiers, in all their infinite wisdom in public, advocating against it, are taking from it. It's hypocritical, and I'm not surprised you don't see it that way. its an inconvenient truth to your ideological beliefs. Folks worked for it, they deserve it, and without these programmes, millions would be left out in the cold.

To the man seeking assistance, I wish him the best, regardless of what an utter hypocrite he and is political sympathizers are. I don't think I'd like my worst political enemy to suffer through this economic crises, we all need help at some point in time.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


socialist yeah considering how social security works and how medicare works

paying 6% all their working life and then pass 6% to their employer to the government and then only they the government decides who gets it and who doesnt.

the simple fact is ss is a scam which people defend to the death and they are defending corruption at its height.

people get out of ss more than they ever pay into it and further compounded by people who have never worked a day in their lives into that system

theres your socialism theirs your welfare something for nothing.

and medicare agian 1 government check paid to you when agian you are receiving far more in pay that was ever paid into it is paying for those medical costs which arent being paid by you they are being paid by other people.

the big 3 is the epitomy of corruption it is and its wrong.

which is the biggest reason they fight privatization they dont want people to see the truth they will never yeild that power and control.

corrupt programs a corrupt government and corrupt people defending it

reply to post by neo96


So to sum it up, medicare and social security are socialist, yes, and social security is a scam, yes, and you've said nothing to my response as to whether these programmes are unconstitutional, so I'll assume it's a yes as well. But it's not hypocritical that this tea partier (assuming the story is true) is dependent and benefitting from these programmes?

Right.

reply to post by Southern Guardian
SG, when a person calls themselves a member of a party or affiliation, it means that they agree with what that party represents. I call myself a Tea Party member because I agree with what they represent. I don't call myself a member of the GOP because I agree with them less. I don't call myself a liberal because I agree with them less as well.
If a Ninja-Monkey Party developes that is even more in line with what I agree with, then I will call myself a Ninja-Monkey Member and drop the Tea Party.
To judge someone and impart what a party stands for in a generalization is unfair to the individual. And lazy on the part of the person doing the judging.

beez
(future Ninja-Monkey )

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

SG, when a person calls themselves a member of a party or affiliation, it means that they agree with what that party represents. I call myself a Tea Party member because I agree with what they represent.

As far as I am aware, tea partiers oppose any federal government involvement in issues of healthcare and welfare. There's no vagueness or generalization to it, hence the reason why tea partiers opposed any measure for a public option by the federal government in 2009. As far as I see it, if you well and truly believe in this, you would not be taking advantage of these programmes, it's not hard to understand. Reagan himself was a staunch opponent against medicare, referred to it on numerous occasions as unconstitutional, but he never touched it during his administration. In the end, there's no true belief in the ability of the free market over such issues, as evident from the responses of those on the rightwing in this thread.

To judge someone and impart what a party stands for in a generalization is unfair to the individual.

If you choose to participate in the movement that advocates against any federal goverment involvement in healthcare or welfare, it is more than fair to call you out over benefitting from these very programmes as well. If you believe that the federal government has a legitimate involvement in the healthcare of individuals then I have to ask what the heck are you doing in the tea parties?

Do you believe that medicare is unconstitutional and it should be privatized? Maybe you can clarify your position on healthcare and welfare here for us, since you claim I generalized your position here.

reply to post by Southern Guardian
I could give you my opinion, but in no way would it reflect the opinions of anyone else.

Anytime the government develops a project, you can be assured that it will become corrupt, slow and innefficient. Privatiing healthcare would lead to competition and a lowering of prices, so yes, I would agree that privatizing medicare would be a benefit. Not only to the end user, but to the tax payers as well.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

I could give you my opinion, but in no way would it reflect the opinions of anyone else.

Anytime the government develops a project, you can be assured that it will become corrupt, slow and innefficient. Privatiing healthcare would lead to competition and a lowering of prices, so yes, I would agree that privatizing medicare would be a benefit. Not only to the end user, but to the tax payers as well.

Thankyou for your response Beezzer.

I don't personally believe you can fully privatize healthcare for the fact that healthcare companies are in the business of maximizing profits. Insuring the elderly is not profitable as with the poor for private insurers, hence the fact medicare and medicaid have never been successfully privatized. Lowering taxes and regulations won't be something to change the attitudes of private medical institutions to cover a wider range of people for the simple fact that if they're maximize profit further, they have no reason to bring down coverage, and no reason to cover the more riskier elderly and less profitable poor. Medicare can't be privatized, Reagan knew this as did Bush senior, junior, Ford and even Nixon.

As for you personally believing privatization is the best solution, I won't hold this against you. Although I doubt you merely hold this as view, I'm sure you're of the opinion that these programmes are unconstitutional and should be abolished, unless I'm wrong? This is where the tea parties in general stand? Private healthcare in my opinion is the better option, but it's only really an option if it's available and affordable. I do have a problem with people who participate in a movement consisting of many who demonize people dependent on government assistance. A movement that believes such programmes as medicare to be unconstitutional, only for those who are irrisponsible, and then turn around make excuses for when one of their own needs it.

This tea partier described by the OP, the one who is seeking government assistance, I don't blame him one bit for his choice. The last thing I want is to see is him on the streets, and his family to suffer as well. He needs the assistance, and he probably worked to earn it for a considerable period of time. I do believe him to be hypocritical and distructive to others in the same position as him however. I believe this because of his participation in a movement that has, through various segments, consistently demonized those in very same in need of assistance.

actually, I believe most of the welfare programs ARE run by the states.....
which is why some states can be more generous than others....
the gov't gives the states the money, as long as the at least provide a minimum amount of assistance, but those states are free to expand on it, and well....have a considerable amount of freedom how they run the programs.
where do you go apply for food stamps??
a federal agency, or a state/county agency??

Of course it is, just like it's hypocritical of Bachmann to get subsidies, or members of congress voting AGAINST healthcare while they get it for free...

reply to post by Southern Guardian
Medicare is financed through payroll taxes.
If that money was either kept by the individual or placed in a medicare account, then the money would be made avaliable for those that might need it.

Some people might say that this is irresponsible because people might spend the money on other things, or run out altogether.
But that is the risk of living in a free society. A safety net might save someone if they fell. But having one, eliminates the responsibility of the individual.

We need to get that level of responsibility back.

reply to post by beezzer


Healthcare is already privatized! Even with Obamacare, it's private healthcare companies who get the $$$.

Which makes it baffling when the TP and other organizations call it "socialism" or "communism"

Yes, it's Hippocritical.

They have vowed to do no harm.

Or maybe the Hippos have eaten plutonium. It's hard to say.

reply to post by beezzer


Please let me ask you an honest question.
Do you want to live in a society where the streets are littered with the dead and dying because they had bad luck, were a victim, or even just made poor choices in life?

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by beezzer

 

Healthcare is already privatized! Even with Obamacare, it's private healthcare companies who get the $$$.

Which makes it baffling when the TP and other organizations call it "socialism" or "communism"

I'm confused. (normal condition with me)
You believe that healthcare is privatized even with government controlling/manipulating/governing/mandating
healthcare?

Originally posted by FallenWun
reply to post by beezzer

 

Please let me ask you an honest question.
Do you want to live in a society where the streets are littered with the dead and dying because they had bad luck, were a victim, or even just made poor choices in life?

No. I want to live in a society where people are control of their life and not governed by D.C. mandates.

You honestly believe that people can't take care of themselves?
Are you that much in favour of a nanny-state that you would freely give up any idea of freedom?
There are plenty of socialist countries out there in the world for you to reside. Why do you want to change the one country that values freedom and liberty over federal control?

Originally posted by thisisnotaname
I was at the welfare office and I overheard a social worker get into to it with a client who started hating on Obama and mentioned they were a tea party member. The worker was all "oh how can you be a tea party member and blame Obama when you're in here asking for food stamps etc."

Was he right? Either way I felt it was poor customer service.

What do you think?

edit on 20-9-2011 by thisisnotaname because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-9-2011 by thisisnotaname because: (no reason given)

Yes, very hypocritical.

Now, since this was "food stamps" and not welfare, then it isn't quite so bad, but they should have been humble and thankful for the help, instead of combative to a person just trying to do their job.

I am a Tea Partier, and I did get food stamps many years ago, but I was working full-time at the time.

I will say that people at government offices such as child support or food stamps have insanely poor customer service. It is ridiculous. I once went into a child support office to pick up a coworker for lunch, and I got screamed at by the front desk lady to take a number and sit down, I refused and I once again asked for the manager, she screamed some more, and I just smiled. Eventually my buddy came out, and the front desk lady realized I was quite a bit up the chain from her in the child support realm, and she looked ashen. I thought she would choke trying to apologize, but I didn't let her, I just nodded and walked away whispering to my buddy. She didn't work there a whole lot longer after that, but it doesn't much matter, because the next one that came in was probably just as bad.

reply to post by beezzer


just as soon as the bankers and real estate industry are forced to take responsibility to the mess that they've made!!!

why is it that medicare is always dragged through the dirt, but medicaid (go though the past news reports and look to see just how many times funds were taken from medicare to pay for medicaid and the child health programs!!!


I am over 50, my husband and me have been paying the taxes for medicare, medicaid, social security, food stamps, hud, afdc, and whatever other program that I haven't thought of!!
we've not only worked to raise our own family, but also provided half the support of someone's else's while they faked bad backs, popped baby after baby out, went to college instead of worked, ect....
supported wars we didn't want or believe we should be fighting, paid to build crap we didn't have any interest in, and on and on....
just where in the world do you think we ever had any extra money to stash away for a rainy day!!!
maybe I should have cut down my schedules meals to two meals every week, instead of every other day???

ya, someone needs to take responsibility!!!
and it's not those entering retirement age, or 70 and 80, or 90 year olds who've paid into the system all their lives!!

we can start with working on getting the employers to take resposnbility for their employees,......get them to pay a decent wage, then maybe we won't have to be propping up so many of our neighbors!!!

reply to post by thisisnotaname


first, never be critical of hippos, cus they will stomp you.

second, we pay taxes like everyone else, and we have no say as to how that money is used. now, if you make all taxes optional, THEN it would be hypocritical. if someone is down on their luck, that's what welfare programs are for, trouble is, when people start getting free handouts, they don't want to work.

both obama, the republicans, and the democrats are responsible. they may fly the flag of their respected parties, but they don't hold to the ideas at all.

there has to be a reform and a cut off date, because i've seen way more abuse of welfare programs than honest use. people seem to think the government has an unlimited supply of money.