What really riles me is conservatives who are against "socialism" but are themselves beneficiaries

[raccoon]

of government programs, including, but not limited to, Medicare, Social Security, farm subsidies.

Had a sort of discussion with some conservatives yesterday. I'll post about it later.

[Aristus]

1. Just tell 'em Ayn Rand availed herself of Social Security and Medicare

when she became eligible.

So, basically, cons are against 'socialism' for anyone but themselves...

[Purplehazed]

10. And Ron Paul

"Abolish Social Security, but not overnight". (Jan 2008)

[Drale]

2. The entire idea behind conservatism is

"Give me money, fuck you you don't deserve anything"

[Flashmann]

3. against "socialism" but are themselves beneficiaries

If cons couldn't be self contradictory,extremely hypocritical,ridiculously petty and consistently LIE,they wouldn't be able to function at all.

[former9thward]

4. None of those things are socialism.

SS and Medicare are paid for by taxes taken out from your paychecks throughout your working life. Farm subsidies are corporate welfare, basically crony capitalism.

[Cirque du So-What]

5. 'Keep government out of my Medicare! You damned Socialists!'

Possibly the most idiotic sign ever made.

[PatSeg]

6. And many of them are oblivious to the hypocrisy

THEY earned their benefits, but those people over there are lazy parasitic socialists.

[unblock]

7. i'll draw a distinction between hypocrisy and living within a system to which one objects.

i don't really have a problem with warren buffett actually paying taxes at a lower rate than his secretary while publicly advocating higher taxes for himself. i don't think it's up to the (comparatively) decent people to cover for the waltons and the kochs and so on. the higher taxes should be for all the rich people, and i don't really have a problem with buffett taking advantage of the current tax structure in the meanwhile. he's be a real saint if he volunteered to pay more than current law required, but i won't hold it against him if he doesn't.

similarly, i don't have a huge problem with people thinking the government shouldn't provide farm subsidies and then taking them when they qualify for them. if they're paying taxes into the system, they can take benefits out, even if they'd prefer not to have either these government programs or the taxes that support them.


where the hypocrisy comes in is when they rail on those who accept benefits as "takers" or "leeches" or otherwise unworthy of assistance; or when they advocate fiercely for the specific government programs from which they benefit and rail against all the others.

of course, personally, i'm a huge advocate of most government support programs, so i disagree with anyone who objects to the programs, but on the merits of the program, not because they might participate in it themselves. i don't have a problem with people taking social security after having paid into the system all their working lives, even while they say the wish the entire arrangement didn't exist. i'll call them cold and heartless and selfish, but not hypocritical.

[get the red out]

8. It's racism

Them getting benefits is deserved but there might be some "undesirable" getting the same and THAT IS NOT COOL! That's a lot of it, and the fact that they are not educated enough to understand words like "socialism" and scared to Google it or their Gods, Rush Limbaugh and/or Fox News might not let them in heaven one day if they do.

[raccoon]

9. +1000. nt

[Purplehazed]

11. While talking with...

a proclaimed libertarian, he said he got his home loan through ACORN "for his wife"

[rbrnmw]

12. What they mean is have babies

So we can starve them to death