Why do people assume?

Question

That if you are against endless social programs and against universal healthcare - THAT you live off of rich relatives or something?

In response to an answer to my last question.

I have worked ever since it was legal for me to do so. I make my own living and dont rely on anyone to help me unless absolutely necessary.

Answer 1

Because they can't imagine that anyone is apposed to entitlement.

Answer 2

I think that it would be advantages to list the particular 'social programs' that you oppose. To be against 'social programs' in such a general sense is like being agains 'chemicals'. Certainly some are 'bad', and should be eliminated or modified, but repeating a mantra against 'social programs' doesn't give those you are trying to convince much to go on. As far as 'health care' is concerned, the question is really 'health INSURANCE'....while these two seperate entites are connected they're not the same thing. Nobody is beating any drums for some kind of government hospital/government clinic/government doctor situation. The health care delivery system will be pretty much the same, the difference is that with universaal health insurance all of these services will actually be paid for. Moreover, none of this is going to be 'free'. There will still be deductables and co-pays. Third, nobody assumes that you live off rich relatives or have a trust fund. Let's stay on the actual issues!

Answer 3

I've noticed the same thing! I work full time and barely cover my expenses as it is. When taxes go up, I feel it! Tax me too much and I'll have no choice but to get those taxes back with a handout. If they didn't take 15-20% of my money off the top, things wouldn't be so tough. And come on, we know the federal government doesn't really contribute all that much to making people's lives better.

Also, if you support the strict constructionist view of the constitution that dominated American political debate for 140sh years, people will say you want old people to starve and do not care about the children's education! There is a false dichotomy that you must support entitlement or else you are heartless. The reality is that the federal government has no legal standing to pursue these policies and whatever charity the voters find appropriate should be distributed through the states.

Answer 4

I wonder the same thing.
I have been self employed since 1971. During that time, I have never collected any type of government dole, not even unemployment.
I started my own business with just a few hundred dollars that I saved in the Army. I've been working at it ever since. I have had to pay my own way on everything, healthcare or whatever. I have done well over the years and have accumulated a comfortable sum.
If during that time I had to payout a portion of my income to support the basic needs of other people, I would have considerably less money than I have now. The bulk of my nest egg is small sums of money I invested 30 years ago. These investment, which originally were very small amounts of my income, would likely have not been possible if I was taxed at a greater rate to support social programs. Instead of facing a comfortable retirement, I most likely would be a burden to some younger tax payer.
So, I am very much against burdening wage earners with programs to pay for the basic needs of other people. Even a small amount of money over a long period of time can amount to a fortune. As example, one of the jewels in my portfolio is a company called Berkshire Hathaway (BRK-A.) I bought 25 shares of the company in the early 1970s for less than $1000. Look up the current stock quote and see what 25 shares are worth today and you'll understand what I am talking about.
Since I started working and contributing to Social Security, I believe I have payed in over $65,000 to the system. Compare that to the return on my $1000.

Answer 5

Sway, looks like an overwhelming majority support your position (as do I). Those who don't, have to go to extremes to make their point, such as "the starving children". If the deadbeats would get out of line, there would be plenty of social support for those who truly need it. No conservative or liberal has a problem with helping those in need. The difference seems to be the conservatives want to meter support out with some sort of rationale and expected responsibility or change in return; whereas the liberals are OK with folks taking social help for a lifetime. In my hometown, it was generational. We had a couple families on welfare and somehow the children learned from the parents how to milk the system. And in a little town, all the hard working knew who the deadbeats were. It was only two families, and I'd bet they haven't changed in the last 40 years. Both families had a house and several cars and no jobs. I guess they were part of that 17% living in poverty.

Answer 6

Actually it's usually the other way around.

Class warfare arguments appeal to:

1) Misinformed people who, if they'd simply researched the question, would realized that economic mobility is significant and has improved with every set of tax cuts.

2) A few people who are low-income and always will be - - the Boston Globe reported recently that the Romney mandatory / sorta/kinda pay as you go program for health insurance "won't work" for this 53 year old woman who works at Dunkin Donuts - - any rational person would ask, if you're not retarded, how is it you're working at a donut shop at 53.

3) A few people who have a ton of money and never worked for it.

But most people with money did work for it, as the Census Bureau data and all other studies of economic mobility suggest, and we don't feel guilty about what we've earned. And those of us with any knowledge of finance and economics can grasp that the tax burden that used to be in place to pay for the programs for the poor is what kept them there - - it's easier to get ahead if for every 10 steps forward you take the government kicks you back 4 instead of 7!

Answer 7

Sway, I stand corrected on the fact that you live off of daddy. I too have worked since the age of 13 and so have my 8 brothers and sisters, none of which have ever had to accept public assistance, there is definitely waste in the system, that is obvious, but try and imagine losing your job tomorrow, and not being able to find another one for months and months. If you had no where else to turn, you would want that program to be there. Clinton made some changes, tried some things, Bush has done nothing about it, yet all we here is that it's the libs wasting money on welfare.

Answer 8

I don't assume that. You know what they say when you assume, you make an expletive out of you and me. I assume that you have reasons for your particular stance, such as the high taxes levied on everyone, the long waits at doctors offices, or the months it can sometimes take to see a specialist. Where is the incentive for doctors treating the patients if they aren't paid what they are worth? Where is the incentive to become a doctor? I do feel that we need health care reform, but I feel we need to look at it, study it, and form several different theories and explore each one before we implement anything. By the way, nice picture. Is there any particular reason your "member since" date is in French, or do you just prefer "la langue de l'amour?"

Answer 9

I know. I'm not wealthy, I come from an immigrant working class family and I'm just a student with no big income. I don't have a trust fund or have house beach but I'm against universal healthcare. Is socialized medicine and will only hurt people of my income more by being trusted on big government. Social programs have failed and only captured more people, welfare enables lazy people to collect checks. Liberals think if we are for small government, we are evil rich people who don't want to share our money. When many liberals are wealthy (nothing wrong with that) it seems they have a bit of guilt for their success. Is the shame of the Patrician class.

Answer 10

Democrats for the most part assume that Republicans and conservatives are rich or well off. actually I think it's more like yours and my experience. I have worked since I was 15 and full time except while in school since I was 16. I'm not rich but I take care of myself and my family.

Answer 11

I have to ask why you are against helping people in your own country I guess. Not so christian to be all about yourself and no one else. What happened to giving and caring in this country, you neocons only care about yourself and that is it. Forget the people starving and the fact the poverty level is at 17% in this country or that 47 million people don't have health care...that includes small children by the way...you know the ones you didn't want aborted so you could watch them die a slow starving death instead. If you make your own living and live well, then great, that is what we strive for. But if you do that while you watch people in your own country die and don't care, you are sick. I have generous family members that help if I ask but I support myself. I use them to buy cars and toys.