Ironically, your "compassion" is what's keeping the poor in their current state. If you write a bigger check to the government, you at least wouldn't be a hypocrite. Be the change you wish to see. If you want higher taxes, pay more money. They won't stop you.
My compassion for wanting them to have health care? Yes, I can see now how denying someone care that doesn't bankrupt them for lung cancer will make them rich beyond their wildest dreams, but only if they are selling the morphine they get for the pain.
When you give people things they can earn themselves you only enslave them. It's a simple lesson, but one an entire side of the political spectrum has yet to learn. So, are you going to be a hypocrite or are you going to voluntarily pay more in taxes?
I give to Habitat for Humanity. A hand up, not a hand out. I know you were just giving me a little grief, but let's be clear: I'm fully in favor of a social safety net. The difference is that I want it to be a bare minimum--food, clothing, shelter--and I want people to work for any welfare they receive. That may mean cleaning gov't offices, planting trees, cleaning streets, etc. There's a dignity in work that too many people never realize.
Yeah, I was bustin your balls a little. Habitat for Humanity is a great organization. I've done a lot of volunteering with them and seen the good they. H4H revitalized a whole neighborhood in my hometown. It was arguably the worst part of town and H4H completely turned it around with a few houses and a thrift shop. The next year people were buying land and building houses in the area for the first time in a generation. I agree, but I would add health care and education to that list. It's too bad that we as a society look down on manual labor jobs. My teachers often said "If you don't study, you'll end up as a janitor or working at McDonald's." The dignity of work has definitely been lost on my generation.
Why is it so hard for you to add health care to food, clothing, shelter? Something that doesn't break them financially for the rest of their lives? And what about disabled people. Not hey I'm a little slow but hey I'm physically unable to do anything...?
I already pay voluntarily more in taxes through govt. programs that I give extra money to. Again, I'll ask you the same question I ask all the other opposed to these measures - so how do I go about getting back, say, 50% of the money I put into the defense dept? Because I certainly don't think we need all of that.
If someone gets sick, and they truly need help, I have no problem paying for it. I wrote a paragraph, not a policy prescription. The problem is that government assistance is like heroin; you get a little taste and you lie, cheat and steal to get more. There are so many people who receive government assistance that shouldn't it's a tragedy. We have raised successive generations of people addicted to it, and we've crippled them. They don't believe they can succeed on their own. They believe they're owed something. They don't understand how gratifying an honest day's work can be. Worse yet, there is an entire party dedicated to continuing to enable this behavior, because it's their most reliable voting bloc. I invite you to read "Rosa Lee" by Leon Dash. His policy prescriptions are off, but it describes the plight of the welfare class better than any book I've ever read. As for disabled people, you'd be surprised what they can do. There are all sorts of government work we could give them that wouldn't be physically taxing. Answering phones, for example. People aren't built to sit around and do nothing. Why do you think drug addiction, alcoholism and obesity are more prevalent in the welfare class than any other? They're anestheticizing themselves to fill the day. Tie work to welfare and you've gone a long way to making life better for a group of people being used for political ends.
I don't disagree that there are some people who are addicted to government handouts. I don't, however, think it's quite as prevalent a picture as you make it out to be. I find that too often people go, something to the effect of, "Well, there's going to be 4% fraud / waste, so let's just eliminate the whole thing before all those scammers cheat the system!". It's the old measurement of what is the worst effect your decision could have - on one hand you have some cheats, some people who are not motivated to succeed, etc. on the other hand you have people starving and dying in the streets and you've reverted back to medieval Europe. I think there is room for reform in welfare. I just disagree strongly that it has anything at all to do with health care. You can't feed off of health care to sustain yourself unless you start faking illnesses 24/7 for the rest of your life. And I'm sure either the doctors can spot that or those people can enlist in the free mental care and be discharged. You will always have SOME fraud/waste..public or private. BTW, I receive unemployment, aka government assistance. I don't recall the last time I've lied, stolen, or cheated to get more. In fact, I hate being on it. Maybe I'm the exception that proves the rule, maybe I just need more hits?
You assume that everyone is like you. They aren't. I, for one, am built to sit around and do nothing. I've never had the opportunity, but I am confident I'd be quite good at it if I had the chance. barfo
Are you saying that Obama has created a huge welfare state? Or that now that we've got a democrat in the white house I no longer need to put forth effort politically? Both, I think, are false. barfo
With taxes the way they are... USA population 300M, maybe 310M USA workforce 120M minus the jobs Obama's policies have cost us Makes 180M people WHO DON'T WORK AT ALL. They can't all be disabled and children.
And elderly. You forgot the old farts. And stay-at-home moms. With the population 99% conservative as you suggest, there must be a lot of those. And then there are those who work but don't pay taxes and so they aren't counted as employed. barfo
They're counted as employed. The point being that 120M pay the way of those 180M. We're quite charitable to our own, as well as the rest of the world (see foreign aid budget).
Which are counted as employed? The elderly, the stay-at-home moms, or the cash-economy workers? barfo
Cash economy workers. In 1900, 95% of the people worked (in agriculture). Elderly and young included. In 2090, 95% of the people will work gathering "green" energy.
