Quote:
Originally Posted by Skerlnik
I guess my bottom line is that while welfare spending is certainly currently broken and in dire need to reform, these are still Americans we're talking about, here. No matter what system weput into place, there will ALWAYS be poor people who didn't make it in our competitive system. It makes sense to encourage (monetarily and otherwise) people to get into the game, and be upwardly mobile.
|
So what if they don't make it: we have no obligation to ensure that they succeed and you have no damn right to dictate that my money must be taken from me to support a bunch of freeloaders.
Quote:
|
Ultimately, social spending is a cost we have to bear. The alternative (cutting people loose to sink or swim all alone) is probably far worse.....more crime, more desperation, more hopelessness, etc.
|
FEDERAL social spending is unconstitutional, damn it! The federal government has no right to engage in these wealth redistribution schemes.
Quote:
|
I'd be willing to argue about perhaps the degree and form of said assisitance, but I simply won't bother to argue about its existence altogether. I don't willingly throw fellow Americans under the bus. (Iraqis, yes. Talk about welfare!)
|
Are there no charities, are there no state and local governments? Let THEM provide for the poor.
__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.
"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.
"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."
The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.
"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."
|