You did rely on the government though.

I collected food stamps and lived in a homeless shelter for a month. I've paid back more in my share in taxes bro

Please read the whole post. It included rich/.... one of the things that can be replaced with rich was hard working. Which I assume you are since you went from homeless to not depending on government for help (doesn't mean you are hard working, but dece shot you are).

From what I have taken in his past few posts I think this is exactly what these "handouts" are for. To allow people a limited amount of time to find a job and take care of themselves.

I survived DESPITE government assistance. Not because of it. The govn't wants to latch onto people with problems and keep them dependent and in the system for life. That's what they do, the proof is in the pudding.

During this process of picking yourself up by your bootstraps did you: drive on any roads, use any form of education, eat any food, find employment, use the market, feel secure in your ability to engage in mutually beneficial transactions with other citizens?

If you did not do any of those things, then yeah bro you did it without the government. But in reality you did not.

Thanks for paying back into the system so that others can get back on their feet when they fall down. The social safety net is a wonderful thing, even if you don't want it to be.

Again, this is patently false.

It's a pit of quicksand brother. I was one of the lucky ones

Case Closed (et al),

just skip the preliminaries and go straight to the trump card, he drives on government roads and stuff he gets from other people travels over them, ergo everything else is irrelevant, no complaint is valid.

I think you meant to say "**** you, got mine", although in a twist of stupidity you haven't gotten anything.

That's very true. My mom was in a similar situation, but with 3 kids. Thank goodness for the social safety net. Guys like you and I really benefit from it.

It's more than just the roads. It's the education, food control, military protection, police protection, fire fighters, social workers, parks and recreations etc etc etc. The concept of the social safety net is awesome because even libertarians can use it when they are hard on their luck.

Enough of trying to help Suzzer save face, how about the thread gets back on topic?

Yeah, that's cool, but the beauty of it is that it poisons the well (so to speak, I'm abusing the term a bit but let's go with it) since it gets into everything and touches everyone eventually, and lets suzzer eject from conversations with a "YOU DROVE ON THE ROAD, YOU LOSE YOUR OBJECTION CARD" when things get uncomfortable for him.

You can always object and claim all the X Y Z positions you want. But the claim that bkholdem is some type of John Galt who is an island unto himself is laughable chest pounding from conservatives/libertarians who don't want to accept reality. The reality is that the government is the best way to create a social safety net. The reality is that private donations will never replace the ****ty social net that exists today. The reality is that we can continue to improve our social safety net to include everyone's health care by using a blue print from any number of countries that are providing for their citizens better than the United States.

The reality is that 89% of americans donate to some form of charity despite all the taxes they incur. The reality is that gov't is quite inefficient at providing any type of safety net when compared to private charity. The sum difference is that take out gov't and charity will do a much better job for less money.

I'm pretty sure I asked this of you before - but where do you have any sort of evidence of this? It literally makes zero sense to believe this.

1) Cite
2) That's nice, but it still does not mean that the amount donated will cover the same amount a government safety net can.

yada yada

whether he's john galt or not has no bearing on the complaints he has itt

Strictly against it.
I am currently insured.

Oh, I thought we were all on the same page w/r/t bk's original complaints. They make no sense and the best solution to his problem would be an expansion of government provided health insurance.

Sorry, but both of these points are completely false.

I'm swearing off arguing with any of the lous, (except seattlelou) mikes, or anyone whose user name starts with a B. It just aint worth it.

Show work. Now.

You say it makes no sense to believe this. I say it makes no sense to NOT believe it. What would be enough evidence for you to concede "ok, I now agree, without government there will be a good safety net?"

Who should get to decide how much of a safety net will be provided? The people being protected or the people footing the bill?

As a formerly homeless person who could have went on the government dole, but chose to bust my ass to learn how to develop life skills in my 20's (skills that others learn in their childhood because they were raised in average homes rather than abusive ones) and don't want to subsidize the healthcare of others who are making twice as much as me, especially when I'm basically poor myself.

Aside from the financial hardships I simply believe that this is another example of government incompetence to have the healthcare system in MA set up this way. It seems ridiculously obvious that, assuming you are for such government subsidies, that they should be based on income or ability to pay without having one set of criteria for people who are self-employed and work for companies with less than 50 employees, and another set of criteria for those that work for companies with more than 50 employees. That is just totally whack. I'm paying for someones healtcare who is self employed and makes twice as much as me and am also paying for my own. This makes absolutely NO sense.

If I was well off I wouldnt' really care, I would be against it in theory, but it wouldn't really bother me. But being poor myself this is just pouring more salt on open sores.

Let's assume that I don't accept your premise that Government is inherently less efficient than a large group of non-profit organizations.

What evidence do you have? Regardless of if it is enough to convince me, I'd be interested in seeing it.

For instance - could you show me the relationship between governments cutting taxes and increased charitable givings? The relationship between different incomes and amount given to charity?

Some study or model that tries to determine how far away the current non-governmental safety nets are from providing the necessary services?