Our chapter at Marquette University had a great time recruiting new members at O-Fest the other day!

Photo: Our chapter at Marquette University had a great time recruiting new members at O-Fest yesterday! #BigGovSucks

freddyoakland:

theturningpointusa:

freddyoakland:

not enough discussions about people who have money who are wasteful and undeserving.

However, if it’s their own money, does it really matter how frugal or wasteful they really are? 

if people on state assistance can be called “lazy” or be told how to spend their money wisely, why shouldn’t the same be said for someone who didn’t earn the money they have?
clearly working hard isn’t the only reason why many people get rich and clearly drugs/laziness isn’t the only reason people don’t have enough money to support themselves.
if the whole point of being able to spend your money the way you want is through hard work to receive the money, who is anyone to discuss anyone else’s finances?

There is certainly a stigma on those who receive assistance from the state. Most of that stigma comes from the idea that there are some of those receiving assistance that have no goals of allowing for the hand up that these programs were intended to do. We here at Turning Point USA have quite often seen many people that have no problem with state assistance programs provided that the people on them only use them as a temporary means to alleviate their unfortunate situation. The reason being is that the money going into these programs is taxpayer money, not private money. This would mean any programs, especially cash programs such as TANF in Illinois or SNAP federally, use money that we pay in taxes and transfers them to families that qualify for assistance i.e. not their money. This would bring us the issue of those who have money but did not earn it. The question of inheritance or “marrying in,” as some would call it, is a different issue entirely, but is how most people who did not earn their money become fairly wealthy. How often does this happen? Well, in 2013, forbes compiled a list of over 1,400 billionaires. In 2014, this number grew to 1,645. Of the 2013 number, businessinsider took a look at how many inherited the wealth, which turns out to only be a handful. When comparing the differences, we note that even though the handful of billionaires that inherited their money did not work for it, in the same way those on state assistance aren’t necessarily working for their money but merely meeting prerequisites, those who have inheritance are using money that has been willed to them (or legally gone to them) and is their own while those on state assistance are using public funds, which is not their own money but someone else.
Your last point could be on key point. Should we discuss the matter of someone else’s finances whether it’s from state assistance, personally earned wealth, or inheritance? We’d like our followers to chime in and tell us what they think.Note: Buisness Insider’s list does not include all billionaires that earned through inheritance. 

freddyoakland:

theturningpointusa:

freddyoakland:

not enough discussions about people who have money who are wasteful and undeserving.

However, if it’s their own money, does it really matter how frugal or wasteful they really are? 

if people on state assistance can be called “lazy” or be told how to spend their money wisely, why shouldn’t the same be said for someone who didn’t earn the money they have?

clearly working hard isn’t the only reason why many people get rich and clearly drugs/laziness isn’t the only reason people don’t have enough money to support themselves.

if the whole point of being able to spend your money the way you want is through hard work to receive the money, who is anyone to discuss anyone else’s finances?

There is certainly a stigma on those who receive assistance from the state. Most of that stigma comes from the idea that there are some of those receiving assistance that have no goals of allowing for the hand up that these programs were intended to do. We here at Turning Point USA have quite often seen many people that have no problem with state assistance programs provided that the people on them only use them as a temporary means to alleviate their unfortunate situation. The reason being is that the money going into these programs is taxpayer money, not private money. This would mean any programs, especially cash programs such as TANF in Illinois or SNAP federally, use money that we pay in taxes and transfers them to families that qualify for assistance i.e. not their money. 

This would bring us the issue of those who have money but did not earn it. The question of inheritance or “marrying in,” as some would call it, is a different issue entirely, but is how most people who did not earn their money become fairly wealthy. How often does this happen? Well, in 2013, forbes compiled a list of over 1,400 billionaires. In 2014, this number grew to 1,645. Of the 2013 number, businessinsider took a look at how many inherited the wealth, which turns out to only be a handful. 

When comparing the differences, we note that even though the handful of billionaires that inherited their money did not work for it, in the same way those on state assistance aren’t necessarily working for their money but merely meeting prerequisites, those who have inheritance are using money that has been willed to them (or legally gone to them) and is their own while those on state assistance are using public funds, which is not their own money but someone else.

Your last point could be on key point. Should we discuss the matter of someone else’s finances whether it’s from state assistance, personally earned wealth, or inheritance?

We’d like our followers to chime in and tell us what they think.

Note: Buisness Insider’s list does not include all billionaires that earned through inheritance. 

"

“If a man says socialism, or planning, he always has in view his own brand of socialism, his own plan. Thus planning does not in fact mean preparedness to cooperate peacefully. It means conflict. …”

“On the unhampered market there prevails an irresistible tendency to employ every factor of production for the best possible satisfaction of the most urgent needs of the consumers. If the government interferes with this process, it can only impair satisfaction; it can never improve it.”

"
— Ludwig von Mises

This is quite interesting. We’d like to hear your thoughts. 

freddyoakland:

not enough discussions about people who have money who are wasteful and undeserving.

However, if it’s their own money, does it really matter how frugal or wasteful they really are? 

freddyoakland:

not enough discussions about people who have money who are wasteful and undeserving.

However, if it’s their own money, does it really matter how frugal or wasteful they really are? 

(Source: theturningpointusa)

gnash666:

theturningpointusa:

Big Government Sucks campaign is growing and getting national attention! 

Its not too late to get involved or request kits! 

www.biggovernmentsucks.net 

Check out the interview from yesterday


#BigGovSucks 

Rebublicunts hate Big Government…unless its Big Welfare for Big Companies or Military Industrial Wars for Satanic Antichrist Israel.

Our organization is against corporate welfare and have no official opinion on Israel.  

apriorsectorinternalsecurity:

freedominwickedness:

sovereignright:

Another bottom line from Milton……

No, the essential notion of every society is force. The difference between societies is how they define the rules for who has the ability to use force against who, and for what reasons.

Also if capitalism were entirely free of violence the enclosure acts wouldn’t have happened

The enactment of legislation is not violence, though some schools of thought liken it with force. In either case, the inclosure acts occured during Europe’s mercantilist period. Mercantilism, with socialism, are societies that require violence in order to support the wealth of the nation or their leaders. 

apriorsectorinternalsecurity:

freedominwickedness:

sovereignright:

Another bottom line from Milton……

No, the essential notion of every society is force. The difference between societies is how they define the rules for who has the ability to use force against who, and for what reasons.

Also if capitalism were entirely free of violence the enclosure acts wouldn’t have happened

The enactment of legislation is not violence, though some schools of thought liken it with force. In either case, the inclosure acts occured during Europe’s mercantilist period. Mercantilism, with socialism, are societies that require violence in order to support the wealth of the nation or their leaders. 

(Source: theturningpointusa)

Big Government Sucks campaign is growing and getting national attention! 

Its not too late to get involved or request kits! 

www.biggovernmentsucks.net 

Check out the interview from yesterday


#BigGovSucks