posted on Jan, 24 2010 @ 06:19 PM
I'll have to side with brainwrek on this one.
What many people don't understand, is that there is a difference between welfare, and unemployment.
Unemployment: If you lose your job (laid off. not fired or quit), the government gives you a chance to bounce back. As well they should, they rape
taxes from you anyway, you might as well get a portion of that back.
Welfare: You don't have to have worked, or want to work. You just need to be poor and have no assets amounting to a certain amount: And then you get
free housing, food, transportation, etc. All without lifting a finger. While some may say, 'well what about singer mothers with 5 children to take
care of?' To that I say...."If you're in a period of your life where you can't even work for yourself, then don't have kids! Having children is a
conscious choice, and your childrens' suffering is your own fault and you should be ashamed at creating a life that will only know suffering!"
Sure their are special cases like mentally ill/handicapped, etc. But there are plenty of wealthy people who choose to help the less fortunate. And
there is nothing wrong with that...in fact I encourage it. But it is their choice, and should not be forced upon the backs of middle class Americans
to foot the bill, when some of those on welfare actually live better than an honest single mother living off of a lower income. Also bear in mind, the
more the Govt. taxes these philanthropists, the less money they have to give, and the less they want to give.
Not saying I agree or disagree with the governor on his point of view. Just wanted to make sure that he was more than likely talking about the the
welfare state, not unemployment that you actually pay into with your taxes yourself.