The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
Thomas Jefferson
2007-06-06 12:25:23 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I agree. But provisionally... I don't mind a bit to help those *unable* like VETs with bits blown off... I think we should take a page from the Japanese and actually start caring for our *own* elderly (you know... kids taking care of their parents,?)
But definitely stop supporting the lazy bums who choose not to work.
2007-06-06 12:30:30 · answer #1 · answered by MotherBear1975 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Thomas Jefferson once defined a democracy as 2 wolves and 1 sheep voting what was for dinner...
the USA was not set up as a democracy it was set up as a Constitutional Republic.
Even James Madison who penned the US Constitution in the Federalist paper # 10 talked about the dangers of a democracy.
We don't sing a song called the Battle Hymn of the Democracy but the Battle Hymn of the Republic.
When we pledge to the flag we don't pledge to a democracy for which it stands but a republic for which it stands...
2007-06-06 19:35:10 · answer #2 · answered by DONALD H 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I am guessing that you are using this statement, taken out of context, to support the idea that we shouldn't have any welfare in America.
I can understand the sentiment behind that and respect that point. However, it's not like we live in a country where 80% of the people are taking handouts from the 20% who work. We are NOT the "welfare state" that many Conservatives would have you believe. Just look at the stats on it. Only 5-10% of our population is unemployed at any given time. Of that, 3-5% are abusing the system. Do you want to scrap the system over that insignificant number of idiots?
I don't have a problem with requiring welfare recipients to work in some capacity, unless they're single moms taking care of children. But I think the notion that welfare recipients are drug addicts who are creating an overwhelming drain on our economy is false.
2007-06-06 21:42:47 · answer #3 · answered by BOOM 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Sure.
And, yes, as was pointed out, there are those 'unwilling to work' at both ends of the income extremes - the intentionally 'destitute' who live off the public dole and the idle rich. You don't want the government giving to either.
2007-06-06 21:38:14 · answer #4 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Thomas Jefferson also said don't let your government over spend the country into debt.
2007-06-06 19:29:49 · answer #5 · answered by awake 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Yes. Absolutely.
2007-06-06 19:31:32 · answer #6 · answered by fruitypebbles 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Depends. Do you think the vast majority of the "rich" work?
We are not all farmers any longer who are slave owners!
You get rich off of the poors backs, and fail to recognize that without them you would have squat.
You also ignore our economy is based on supply and demand, and an added element of exporting jobs!
Our system CREATES people who don't work. OUR ECONOMY WOULD NOT WORK with 0 unemployment!
Your whole premise starts from the wrong end!
You are rich BECAUSE of the poor, NOT IN SPITE OF THEM!
Boy we really have some thinkers in here!
2007-06-06 19:29:29 · answer #7 · answered by cantcu 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
I agree 100%.
And we must be ever vigilant to make sure that we remove those in congress who believe in socialism, and to NOT vote for replacments.
2007-06-06 21:41:21 · answer #8 · answered by Moneta_Lucina 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes. Just the point I have been making in my questions on this site.
2007-06-06 19:30:33 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
That is the road we are heading if Mrs. Bill Clinton is elected.
Sad, but true!
2007-06-06 19:44:13 · answer #10 · answered by bhopefull 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋