Not everybody who gets government assistance is a 'bum, deadbeat, or parasite.' It doesn't help our cause to speak as if they all are. There truly are people who warrant charity being in need at no fault of their own; it's just that we shouldn't be using an armed monopolist government agency to dispense said "charity" by means of coercion.
Regarding the need for government charity forcing tax payers to provide that charity, you REALLY need to read “Not Yours to Give” from Col. Davy Crockett.
http://www.davycrockettstory.org/
Charity is not government’s role. Charity is the Church’s roll. It comes from us, from the community, from the families. Government charity is largely mis-allocated. Church/community/family is not mis-allocated, and it even sometimes comes with strings attached and requires those receiving charity to change their behavior, behave responsibly, or give back in some manner.
Government charity does not. Government charity is a handout, and we see it doesn’t work - it doesn’t encourage responsibility, just a larger lust for more and more charity from the government.
Government should not be in the charity business. We want off the rails many decades ago in this regard.
Not Yours To Give
Or maybe I should have just pointed you here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2212572/posts
Read it all please.
The fact is, Republican taxpayers feed money at gunpoint to Democrat politicians so they can use that money to buy the votes of their government-addicted base. If government “shuts down”, then it is reasonable to assume the Democrat politicians are in no position to buy votes.
Anyway, it’s hilarious how, when the government “shuts down”, there always seems to be a way to keep “essential services” running. It makes me want government to shut down forever, with only “essential services” continuing. Privatize everything else.
He talked about “the base” of their party, he wasn’t painting everyone with that brush.
The aspect of generalizations being applied across the board 100% confuses the issues and is totally misused in these arguments.
There are people that require safety nets. That’s probably tenths of a percent. Then there are the base of bums, deadbeats, and parasites. Big Difference.
I don't disagree with your statement, but this line of thinking doesn't help matters either. Charity isn't something the government should be involved with, that is the providence of family, friends, churches, etc. Charity isn't taking money from one group and giving it to another.
How-——————noble of you. The poster was talking about bums, deadbeats and parasites who steal trillions of dollars annually via fraudulent claims.
Of course there are truly needy people out there. The challenge is to find ways to help them in the short term and get them working in the longer term. Inherent in this task is to return responsibility for them to the communities in which they reside. This promotes accountability. If those communities are dysfunctional then these people need to be relocated to places where there is work. If they refuse they get no money. Certtainly they could displace the illegals working in this country. It really is as simple as that.
Compassion is not rewarding slothful, albeit criminal, behavior. Compassion is getting these people to work, dontcha think?
Not everybody who gets government assistance is a ‘bum, deadbeat, or parasite.’ It doesn’t help our cause to speak as if they all are. There truly are people who warrant charity being in need at no fault of their own; it’s just that we shouldn’t be using an armed monopolist government agency to dispense said “charity” by means of coercion.
You are correct. Point in case. My family. My wife gets child support from her ex. We got a letter last week that says the state will still collect it from his check, but WILL NOT send it to us during the shut down. This is all done electronically. Employer zaps it to the state with a computer, states computer deducts their “service” fee (2 bucks I think it is) and zaps it to our checking account. Unless someone turned the zap it out software this computer could hum along on it’s own as long as the lights are on.
My wife is Type 1, We are self employed. After trying everything to get a private policy and being turned down by everyone we went with the states high risk insurance plan (that we pay though the nose for)
That coverage was suppose to end during the shut down too.
There are MANY things Dayton could have done to keep things going. including signaling he would sign a continuing resolution keeping funding levels at the same as they where. Dayton wanted this shut down so people would notice. Dayton owns it. It’s up to the GPO to make sure the voters know it.
I don’t disagree with you except that those who are truly in need should not allow militants, socialists et al to do their bidding. In other words, the truly needy should oppose public unions, patronage, etc. the same way we do. But that usually isn’t the case.
By the same token, disabled persons and organizations are fond of talking about dignity, independence, etc. yet they allow themselves to be used as stage props by shameless politicians during every campaign. The best way to demonstrate such rugged individualism is to stay far away from these dog and pony shows.