Originally posted by Dynamike
reply to post by Hefficide
If you think that's bad you should listen to what I say. I am pro-evolution which means I dont want to pay a cent towards helping other unless they
are close friends or family. I would let them all go without food and shelter.
You are entitled to want or not want. This is why we live in a Republic, where we vote for things. So that the best interests and needs of the whole,
outweigh the demands and wants of the few.
Originally posted by Dynamike
But that is besides the point. One thing I noticed about the general reactions to proposals such as this, is the reaction you gave. But allow me to
put this into perspective. If you chose to get money from someone and they said, "Ok but only if you follow these directions." What part about it is
wrong? His proposal is not a form of control, it is the rules of an option.
Regardless of what you agree with, the problem is still going to be there. The issue we have is that we spend far far far too much money on government
aid. 800 billion a year? Thats what we spent on the war in Afghanistan over the last 10 years combined.
These are talking points. Here is fact:
Source
You'll notice that just the "interest" and "other spending" tally up to more than the "welfare". And that military spending is 2% higher. It is a
habit of certain interests to lump all necessary costs to run a society, sans military, into one "catch all" and then use that as their base
conversation point. It's very misleading.
Oh, and that 12% welfare slice of the pie? It includes unemployment as well.
Originally posted by Dynamike
I know first hand what it is like to be in a household where the government supplies everything and it sickens me. I went to a house this week where a
mother of three boys who ranged in ages from 6 to 16 received "disability" checks of about $700 a month each for each child, all because they had ADD.
She received government housing about $900 a month. Food EBT about $800 a month. Free cell phone with monthly minutes. Welfare check. College tuition.
And guess what? She and her son got caught selling drugs from her house for more money.
The issue is that no government should have people who are dependent on them. No one should enable lazy drug dealers.
So many things come to mind. Exactly why would you:
A) Associate with criminals?
B) Know
exactly what benefits they receive, including the amounts?
C) Be qualified to assess the validity of any doctors diagnoses ( or misdiagnoses ) about the children?
D) Not report these things if you were aware?
That ignores me taking time to, yet again, dispel the myth that her "free cell phone" is sponsored by taxes. It is NOT paid for by the tax payers. It
is a scam that the phone companies themselves operate - and they make a killing on it. The taxpayers do not fund the program.
I suspect the story might be anecdotal or apocryphal? Or a little hyperbolic? Even if not; Punishing everyone from a social class for the behavior of
the few? Historically speaking, this approach doesn't work out very well.
Whatever the case, the future is nowhere near as dismal as the right seeks to make it seem:
Source
For the record, I stopped drinking the Kool Aid when I was a kid. Now I stick to my tea.
~Heff
edit on 10/19/12 by Hefficide because: clarity
