Government funded welfare programs are a trade off between freedom and security. Money is power and when we turn our money over to the government for programs such as unemployment (the benefits are paid by employers, but the program itself is taxpayer funded), Social Security, food stamps, and public schools we give up power and freedom to the government that would otherwise belong to us.
Unemployment recipients for example give up much of their freedom to decide when, where, and from whom they will accept a new position.
Food stamps and other handouts are expensive and low income workers who would prefer to save for such contingencies have a harder time doing so because so much of their money goes to taxes to pay for those programs.
Mandatory contributions to Social Security take away the workers right to decide how much of their retirement funds are invested.
Paying taxes for the public school system makes it difficult for low income parents to choose private schools.
2006-10-18
12:58:22
·
13 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Politics & Government
➔ Politics
My point here is that it is not the well to do who suffer the when we give our freedoms up for security in the form of welfare programs.
It is the working poor and the working classes that feel the effects the most. It is the people who do not have a lot of money who lose the freedom to choose to be self sufficient.
2006-10-18
13:04:03 ·
update #1
dapixelat...
How is my premise "messed up"?
My premise is that there is a trade off that exists. As we turn to the government for security we give up our right to certain freedoms and that those freedoms then become privilages.
When we disallow the words "under God" to be spoken in the pledge of allegience at public schools or prevent politicians from holding voluntary bible study in their private offices we put restrictions on the freedom to free practice of religion and on the right to free speech. In the short term this fuels the fire for the prejudices of certain special interest groups and in the long term threatens those freedoms for everyone.
2006-10-18
13:19:02 ·
update #2
and all of these have been supported by your local liberal, taking your freedoms in exchange for a little cash, I expect the next thing is education, theyve one the battle halfway already.
2006-10-18 13:02:08
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
3⤋
yeah, I'd like to you to answer that question when you're laid off next or the company you work for just decided eliminated your job.
Your premise is pretty much messed up.
Our society has decided that we want certain safety-nets in place to help out those who fall on hard-luck.
Investing in public schools is a good thing-- educated people are something society needs. How else would all those poor people you don't want to support via social programs become productive in society?
Social security is more than just retirement. It also helps take care of people if they become disabled. It was never meant to be a full retirement program but part of a retirement program.
Most low income parents could not afford private schools anyway. And those who rent are not paying taxes for public schools.
You are mixing freedom with choice-- they're not the same.
You are not giving up any freedome thru these programs. You are certainly free not to make use of them if you don't want to.
People who make next to nothing have very little freedome to do things other than struggle to survive in many cases.
2006-10-18 13:08:19
·
answer #2
·
answered by dapixelator 6
·
2⤊
1⤋
Section 215 of the Patriot Act violates the Constitution in several ways. It:
Violates the Fourth Amendment, which says the government cannot conduct a search without obtaining a warrant and showing probable cause to believe that the person has committed or will commit a crime.
Violates the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech by prohibiting the recipients of search orders from telling others about those orders, even where there is no real need for secrecy.
Violates the First Amendment by effectively authorizing the FBI to launch investigations of American citizens in part for exercising their freedom of speech.
Violates the Fourth Amendmentby failing to provide notice - even after the fact - to persons whose privacy has been compromised. Notice is also a key element of due process, which is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.
2006-10-18 13:03:49
·
answer #3
·
answered by dstr 6
·
1⤊
3⤋
Oh guy i won't be able to permit you already know the way disillusioned i'm that if an apprehension suspect from yet another u . s . a . calls me the government.could be listening. you're so delusional. maybe you may desire to study a e book or 2. extra human beings die in Canada on a waiting record than die from denied care in the U. S. and Medicare denies extra remedies than the main appropriate ten insurance firms mixed. Now pass wax your eyebrows and quiet down. Nicholas, the Dems can pass something they %. The republicans have not got sufficient votes to stop them. You gotta stop pointing arms and notice why your social gathering won't be able to agree.
2016-10-19 23:21:45
·
answer #4
·
answered by comesana 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I am NOT willing to give up any more freedoms, especially in the name of security.
2006-10-18 13:10:49
·
answer #5
·
answered by Villain 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
we could also stop paying taxes that help fund the grants for low income students.
just a thought.
2006-10-18 13:05:10
·
answer #6
·
answered by Lexi 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
We've given up more than enough of our freedoms already!!!!This question is a very simple one to ask: "What the **** is next?"
2006-10-18 13:40:54
·
answer #7
·
answered by brian 2010 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
I'll give up my freedom to drive. I'm tired of driving.
2006-10-18 13:23:46
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
Our freedom is going to cost us our freedom. Freeloaders are going to cost us more money. Keep working for those who don't wish to work......
2006-10-18 13:01:15
·
answer #9
·
answered by TMAC 5
·
2⤊
3⤋
I'm not giving **** up ,are you.government can kiss my ***. but we all must be assimilated by the uncle same sooner or later,so resistance is futile.
2006-10-18 13:04:24
·
answer #10
·
answered by CIVILIAN 4
·
1⤊
2⤋