That last sentence is telling. The first part is your version of what a "socialist" would say, were he to be telling the "truth." But that last sentence, "It's exactly the same"--that's all you.
You put socialism and truth in quotations. Why is that?
And, it is in fact the same, only the wording is changed. I dont dictate the truth.
So. Giving money "to poor people who are addicted to drugs" is EXACTLY THE SAME, in YOUR words, as "raising taxes to help the poor children."
Wrong. You take my words out of context. The end result is the same. The wording is different.
If you raise taxes to give money to the poor - it what form is it mostly distributed?
You know very well what form.
In the form of "welfare."
It is only distributed by a welfare program when the government is in charge of it.
You further reveal the hollowness of your own arguments by claiming in your last post, that you do NOT say it is always the fault of the poor, for being poor. Oh yes?
Oh yes. Self destructive behavior plays a major role, but so do other causes; like being widowed or orphaned. Ive mentioned this before.
Let me quote you again:
"I did say that people can work themselves out of being poor."
They can? If that's true, if people who wish to work themselves out of being poor, "can," do so, then those who do NOT work their way out of being poor - must therefore CHOOSE NOT TO DO SO.
Correct. Would you work for money when you were given it based on your 'need'?
Is that not so? By your own, black and white logic, is that not the case? I'll make it easy on you. Let's exclude, say, the disabled. In your little social-darwinistic heart, perhaps even you have room for them, though you did not exclude them from your statement.
BUT everyone else, who is physically capable of working, who CAN choose to work--has the ability to work themselves out of poverty, is that not what you have argued?
If they can "work themselves" out of poverty, but choose not to do so, is not then, THEIR OWN FAULT?
It is. But the reason they are in poverty to start with may not be. You twist my words again.
If it is their own fault--why should we care about them?
We should care about them, most certainly. But not by giving them handouts. Offering jobs or expecting work in return does far more than giving handouts. Teach a man to fish, and he eats for life.
Upon such simple-minded logic, rests the cornerstone of many a conservative's philosophy.
I am a conservative? not quite.
The fact is, to anyone who knows anything about the poor in this country--not just what they learned in Economics 101--there are MANY poor people who work hard all day, and are unable to escape the nine-to-five, minimum wage slave trade.
Slave trade? How is going to work and making money a slave trade? Do you think that we should put everyone who works nine to five on welfare? Does working 9 to 5 make you a poor slave? I dont think so. Your argument is ludicrous.
I didn't put words in your mouth. You put them there. At least have the consistency not to deny them
You have indeed put words into my mouth, twisted what i have said, and pulled things out of context to attempt to form an arguement. You have failed. In the future, i will not respond to any of your posts unless you at least try to be civil and present valid points.
"They that would give up freedom to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither freedom nor safety."--Benjamin FranklinThis comment was edited on Sep 14, 12:19.