So let me ask you people who have such an incredible belief in how our government spends our money. If you had $1000 and wanted to help people, whether it be a local family, charity, homeless person, neighbor, of someone who can't feed thier kids. Would you be able to do more with it directly doing it yourself, or funneling it through the government and all their costs involved to keep track of it, pay the people handling it, cutting through the red tape, making sure it doesn't offend anyone, doing studies to see where it is best spent and where it can help the most, syphoning some off to pay down other bad projects, using a portion of it to test rats to make sure the food they are giving is safe, hiring lawyers to make sure all the paperwork is in order and they can't get sued if someone chokes on their sandwich, and many other bureaucratic crap where they end up with $10 left to feed one person for a day or two? Which makes more sense to you? Love to hear your reasoning why you think the government can handle your money better and help more people with an extra $1000 thn you could with your own money.
Something the Dog Said wrote: Those are fine, but are directed at the individual, not at those who are opposed to assisting the poor. I would recommend the following for those who disparage the poor as all being lazy and sluggards:
"Judge not, that ye be not judged"
Who is opposed to assisting the poor? When did the governemnt become poor? Or that's right 2008. And I contend that it is YOU and others like you who are 'opposed to assisting the poor'. You would rather give the money to the government to waste. I would rather give money to the poor and help them!
Since you have posted in your title regarding welfare and taxation, this is about assisting those who require welfare assistance. The people of this great country, through its representative democracy, has made the decision that it is the role of the government to provide that assistance. Obviously, this role can not be adequately performed by private charities (who do not have an adequate infrastructure) or the capitalistic entities (since there is no profit motive). So it very simply comes down to whether or not you are in favor of providing assistance to those who need it most.
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
St. Dip S... when did we become a representative democracy? Most definitions show the UK and Germany, not us. We are more representative Republic or Constitutional Republic. Has the Democratic Party said not to use the word republic for fear many voters will realize what this nation is?
My own view is that we democratically elect representatives to vote on our behalf, thus a representative democracy. Perhaps my word choice is not precise but the meaning is that we as a people vote for representatives who vote on our behalf. My point being is that this "faceless government" that Viking and others rail against is actually the representatives who were elected by the people, not some entity that governs by fiat.
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
And our ever efficient elected, appointed and created continue to find ways to sue other levels of government to better(?) our nation. Since each of us earned those dollars, each should be able to determine where it goes.
HEARTLESS wrote: And our ever efficient elected, appointed and created continue to find ways to sue other levels of government to better(?) our nation. Since each of us earned those dollars, each should be able to determine where it goes.
And since only $.58 of every tax dollar can be distributed by the government (because the rest pays interest on debt), it's critically important to make sure it's not wasted on people or projects that don't need it.
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
