Replies

And I would rather have that type of liberal as a citizen...then those who are "free riders" at the expense of the middle class.

Your cousin's thinkings only represent one of the problem with liberalism. He's approach is pretty noble on the surface. Here, take 30 - 50 percent of my income. I don't deserve it. But there is another side of the problem that is more insidious. It is those who do not want to work and have purposed to live off the public dole for their lives. Now... I don't have a problem with public assistance for the short term. But, I do have a problem with public assistance for 4 or 5 generations. No one is helped.

The liberals (not your cousin) but those who work behind the scenes to lead this country further and further from her original foundation... are dangerous because they want the 4th or 5th generation welfare recepient... those people owe them now... and soon, the liberals will call in the marker. Free money isn't free money. Everything comes with a price. The welfare recepient doesn't realize it, but his debt is about to be called soon.

And for your cousin, I guess pointing out the problems of those state institutions under attack from illegal aliens (healthcare, welfare, etc) or the troubles in Europe as the social states begin to break down will convince him that a social state is nothing but a debt ready to explode?

"Now... I don't have a problem with public assistance for the short term. But, I do have a problem with public assistance for 4 or 5 generations. No one is helped."

My understanding is that, in the past, before entitlements became a "right," that the "poor" didn't stay poor. Usually, by the next generation, a family would have used the opportunities that a free country and market make available, to rise out of poverty.

However, now, with everyone getting paid good money to stay "poor," families remain below the "poverty line" generation after generation.

"I don't have a problem with public assistance for the short term"

I agree with those who say that the "well off" have a responsibility to help those in need. But I am pretty unconvinced that that responsibility should be fulfilled by the current method. That is, we recieve arbitrary and coercive direction by politicians, specifying exactly how much of our personal resources will be used in what way and for whose benefit and at what time.

"Everything comes with a price. The welfare recepient doesn't realize it, but his debt is about to be called soon."

In what form do you think restitution will be required?