The left always misunderstands or misinterprets what is being said. Not everyone that is rich, worked hard to get there, and not everyone on welfare, is lazy. Some people just do not understand that concept. They also have trouble with "The more you provide for someone, the more dependent that person becomes."
Saying the poor need to ''help themselves'' directly implies everyone on welfare is already to lazy to do it already. The more you provide the more dependent someone becomes? Sure, but welfare doesn't provide much more then the bare minimun you need not to starve and a place to live. No extra money for fun or unexpected expenses.
[quoteAnother thing that seems to be difficult to comprehend, is that the socialist/communist mantra of "From each, according to his abilities, to each, according to his needs." does not, and never has worked. Just look at Venezuela. The late, unlamented socialist Hugo Chavez amassed 2 billion dollars worth of oil money, and yet, there are more poor people in Venezuela, than there were when he came to power 14 years ago. So much for "spreading the wealth."[/quote]
Can't say i never claimed we needed such a model. Take a look on another ''Socialist'' (with big quotation marks) way of doing things. Those in Scandinavia where it bloody works and the avarage man is much better off then anywhere in the world.
Chris, you don't live here. You probably have never even visited. You know nothing about the US, other than what you read in the schoolbooks, newspapers, or see on TV and the internet, and most of that is heavily slanted toward the left. Live here for 5-10 years, and then your comments might carry more credibility.
So? Every country has poor people and every civilised country has some sort of welfare system. I don't need to be an expert on America to claim that the poor that want to leech off of wellfare are in the vast minority.
We need taxes? How much? 5% of income? 10 or 20%? 50%? What? Did it escape your notice, that when liberal icon John F. Kennedy reduced taxes in 1961, government revenue increased? Or when conservative icon Ronald Reagan did the same thing in the 80's, the same thing happened? A wise man once said that giving more money to the government, is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenaged boys.
Not really rellevant to the point i was making. Social security can't be run on charity because you would never be able to set up a good system. The last time people seriously attempted to let charity replace a social safety nett was the industrial revolution, and it sucked!
And actually, welfare in this country is quite generous. There are those that "game the system" to make more sitting home and playing games on the internet, then they would if they went to work at a job paying $12 an hour.
Yes and like i said those are the minority. The majority is out looking for a job. Some suceed and some fail.
I am more than willing to help those that try to help themselves. I am not willing to help those that sit on their asses, and sponge off society. I am also willing to help those that are down on their luck. But not forever. I thought that much was clear in my first comment.
Well thats to bad because you can't sherrypick where your taxes go to. You pay taxes for social security and it helps people. Its not your place to decide
which people.