is it better to be dependent on the government and take other people's money through taxation and use it for yourself if you have no job, even though you are totally fit to work? or is it better to be independent and make alot more money than what the govt would ever pay you, and make your own money? would it be better to pay someone lazy guy's rent that you never even met through taxes, while he cries and makes excuses for his "poverty"? or is it better to send your own money that you worke for and not have to have 2 incomes, since you rightfully work to make enough money, and since you wont have to pay that much tax? isnt better for an individual to decide how he spends his money or is it better for someone else to control it, that someone being a party who is using several groups/types of people to gain votes? how long should people feel sorry and guilty for people who can work, but dont work because they can use other people's tax payments to pay for their whatever?
2006-10-04
04:26:43
·
6 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Politics & Government
➔ Politics
i ran out of space for the whole thing.
2006-10-04
04:30:38 ·
update #1
jl jack, that article you mentioned is a bit far-fetched. its a good idea, but first off it doesnt provide proof. so i guess youre willing to believe *anything* that someone says as long as its against bush. second, its based up one or more of the several million conspiracy theories that bored people come up with. they cant all be right because logically there will be those that contradict each other. get proof first.
2006-10-04
05:05:16 ·
update #2