BF2S Forums you're a moocher

You can't live by the rules of one society and use the terminology of another.

Social programs build inefficiency into the system. Capitalist solutions to problems aren't as effective as they would be in the absence of those social safety nets. For example, if you lose your job in a purely capitalist nation the solution is to get another. If you lose your job in the U.S. however, it will take some amount of time x longer to find a job than it would in the capitalist nation. If you were begging for food in the capitalist system during your time unemployed, you're a moocher. If you lose your job in America and go on food stamps through the duration of x, well then you're just operating in the environment you live in. To immediately denounce accepting the "benefits" of such a society without acknowledging their inextricably linked detrimental effects on the ability of someone to find another job is ignorant.

Now if someone continued with food stamps then yes they would be a moocher. Of course it's impossible to make this distinction with certainty because it's impossible to determine what x is, but it's not unreasonable to assume the difference is weeks or even months. I'm sure quite a few people lose their work, go on food stamps out of necessity, and find work again within that time period.

Kmarion wrote:

lowing wrote:

Narupug wrote:

So lowing if you ever hit hard times, got laid off or whatever, you wouldn't get foodstamps, unemployment, or any of those other government programs?

I have been laid off and what I got was another fuckin job. GIve it a shot.


Also unemployment is not a handout, it is insurance that you purchase.

Don't you have to demonstrate that you are actively looking for employment if you receive foodstamps? Have you been laid off in THIS economy? There are millions fighting over a few jobs.

laid off in 2005 recalled in 2009, I was working at all points in between for different companies. Does that count as "this economy"?

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

You can't live by the rules of one society and use the terminology of another.

Social programs build inefficiency into the system. Capitalist solutions to problems aren't as effective as they would be in the absence of those social safety nets. For example, if you lose your job in a purely capitalist nation the solution is to get another. If you lose your job in the U.S. however, it will take some amount of time x longer to find a job than it would in the capitalist nation. If you were begging for food in the capitalist system during your time unemployed, you're a moocher. If you lose your job in America and go on food stamps through the duration of x, well then you're just operating in the environment you live in. To immediately denounce accepting the "benefits" of such a society without acknowledging their inextricably linked detrimental effects on the ability of someone to find another job is ignorant.

Now if someone continued with food stamps then yes they would be a moocher. Of course it's impossible to make this distinction with certainty because it's impossible to determine what x is, but it's not unreasonable to assume the difference is weeks or even months. I'm sure quite a few people lose their work, go on food stamps out of necessity, and find work again within that time period.

Look up the definition of a mooch and tell me where all of your criteria apply.

Regardless as to how smart you are, what you did in the past, or how successful you were at it. If you take something for nothing you are mooching. Period. If you wnat to discuss how long one intends on mooching fine. But you are a mooch regardless

lowing wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

You can't live by the rules of one society and use the terminology of another.

Social programs build inefficiency into the system. Capitalist solutions to problems aren't as effective as they would be in the absence of those social safety nets. For example, if you lose your job in a purely capitalist nation the solution is to get another. If you lose your job in the U.S. however, it will take some amount of time x longer to find a job than it would in the capitalist nation. If you were begging for food in the capitalist system during your time unemployed, you're a moocher. If you lose your job in America and go on food stamps through the duration of x, well then you're just operating in the environment you live in. To immediately denounce accepting the "benefits" of such a society without acknowledging their inextricably linked detrimental effects on the ability of someone to find another job is ignorant.

Now if someone continued with food stamps then yes they would be a moocher. Of course it's impossible to make this distinction with certainty because it's impossible to determine what x is, but it's not unreasonable to assume the difference is weeks or even months. I'm sure quite a few people lose their work, go on food stamps out of necessity, and find work again within that time period.

Look up the definition of a mooch and tell me where all of your criteria apply.

Regardless as to how smart you are, what you did in the past, or how successful you were at it. If you take something for nothing you are mooching. Period. If you wnat to discuss how long one intends on mooching fine. But you are a mooch regardless

What? What criteria?

If you're taking advantage of social programs during x you aren't taking something without consequence. You are paying for it with the wages you would be earning if the nation was 100% capitalist.

You were lucky. Whether you realize it or not. There are millions of qualified people hunting, everyday.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

No it doesn't. The unemployment rate was almost half of what it is now.

And that number doesn't even report on those that have 'given up' on looking for employment.

True. But I wouldn't consider the people that have given up as competition.

I did not say that "My skill, my marketability" had nothing to do with it. You have a habit of adding words to make your argument. There are people with all of that and still have not been successful (believe it or not). Today it takes more than skill and marketability. It takes good fortune. Try to think outside of your little bubble.

Kmarion wrote:

I did not say that "My skill, my marketability" had nothing to do with it. You have a habit of adding words to make your argument. There are people with all of that and still have not been successful (believe it or not). Today it takes more than skill and marketability. It takes good fortune. Try to think outside of your little bubble.

I am sorry, where did I mis-interpret "you were lucky"?

Also there is no one out of work in my industry that can't find a job. The jobs are out there. The difference is some CHOOSE not to move, some CHOOSE not to work at the wage offered, some CHOOSE to go back to school and seek a different career and there are some who CHOOSE just not to go back to work. but there are very few who are seeking work in this industry and can't find it.

If there are no jobs out there, then there would not be recruiters calling me and e-mailing me for employment. Also searth the net, plenty of work out there for those willing to make some adjustments. If it was good enough for me to do it is damn sure good enough for anyone else.

ruisleipa wrote:

lowing wrote:

Regardless as to how smart you are, what you did in the past, or how successful you were at it. If you take something for nothing you are mooching. Period. If you wnat to discuss how long one intends on mooching fine. But you are a mooch regardless

but assuming you have worked in the past you have paid taxes which entitles you to benfits including food stamps should you become unemployed, ergo not everyone on food stamps is a 'moocher' since they're not taking it for nothing - they've paid for it.

'mooching' is such a stupid word.

Well if you want ot go there, I will add that my taxes are paying for infrastructure that the non-tax payers are using for free. MOOCHING.

No! working entitles you to unemployment benefits when you are out of work. It does not entitle you to my paycheck

lowing wrote:

MOOCHING.

writing in capital letters doesn't make it a better word. I'm not dissing you, I'm just saying... It must be a US word cos where I'm from mooching means hanging around and relaxing, like 'I'm just mooching at home'.

lowing wrote:

Well if you want ot go there, I will add that my taxes are paying for infrastructure that the non-tax payers are using for free.

So everyone who has paid taxes should only be entitled to services equivalent to exactly the same amount of taxes they have paid? And do you think you have used up your tax payments yet by using roads, for example? Or the police? Or any other services your taxes go towards?

If someone has paid taxes before and is currently out of work then they HAVE paid for the servcies so they're entitled to use them. your argument would only apply to anyone who has never worked or paid any taxes at all.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

lowing wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

What? What criteria?

If you're taking advantage of social programs during x you aren't taking something without consequence. You are paying for it with the wages you would be earning if the nation was 100% capitalist.

No you are taking away from some one that has earned by force, for your own personal gain.

lol don't even talk to me about taking by force for personal gain. There is a very good chance I am your biggest ally here. You're not even meeting me halfway though...I don't think you read what I said.

Taking what is yours is not stealing. Think of your taxes like a complex number. The real part is what you write on the check that you send to the government. The imaginary part is the cost of living in this society, (wages earned in capitalist country - wages earned in USA). The imaginary part is what you use to pay for social programs during x. It's imaginary, it's impossible to measure it directly, but it is most certainly there and must be accounted for.

No! taxes are meant pay for infrastructure, not redistribution to the 'entitled" class. If you dirve on the road, expect sevices from a fire department or the police. This is what you paidfor. you do not pay to have taxes for redistribution

ruisleipa wrote:

lowing wrote:

MOOCHING.

writing in capital letters doesn't make it a better word. I'm not dissing you, I'm just saying... It must be a US word cos where I'm from mooching means hanging around and relaxing, like 'I'm just mooching at home'.

lowing wrote:

Well if you want ot go there, I will add that my taxes are paying for infrastructure that the non-tax payers are using for free.

So everyone who has paid taxes should only be entitled to services equivalent to exactly the same amount of taxes they have paid? And do you think you have used up your tax payments yet by using roads, for example? Or the police? Or any other services your taxes go towards?

If someone has paid taxes before and is currently out of work then they HAVE paid for the servcies so they're entitled to use them. your argument would only apply to anyone who has never worked or paid any taxes at all.

Welfare is not a function of govt. Charity is a function of the private sector. Unemployment is an earned benefit, it is paid into. Welfare is not paid into it is money stolen from other for redistribution. It is money taken by force from one person to give to another for nothing in retrun.

lowing wrote:

Welfare is not a function of govt. Charity is a function of the private sector. Unemployment is an earned benefit, it is paid into. Welfare is not paid into it is money stolen from other for redistribution. It is money taken by force from one person to give to another for nothing in retrun.

It's not taken by force though is it? And it's not personally taken from one person and given to another. It's part of the social system you subscribe to by living in your country.

Also what's the difference between unemployment benefit and welfare benefit? They're both part of the same system, again - one that tax payers pay into so that should they become unemployed or destitute they have a safety net to fall back on. Of course welfare is a function of government, it doesn't make sense to say otherwise. It just IS. Or do you mean it shouldn't be?