Well let's see I don't think you can justify giving money away to social programs. Screw um, they can work for it just like me. As far as the VA (the answer above me) ummm retard, that would not be a social program. Social would mean it is, in theory, available to all, not just heroic injured veterans.
2007-08-14 14:04:24
·
answer #1
·
answered by hardwoodrods 6
·
5⤊
4⤋
OK first lets stipulate that not ALL democrats favor ALL social programs.
I support programs like social security which (in the past) has provided a safety net for our older citizens.
I support government funded education through to an Associates Degree, which allows for higher education leading to higher pay and a return on investment eventually to the taxpayer.
I support the food stamp program which ensures American children don't go hungry. At the same time providing farmers a retail outlet, as the program was originally intended. I concede the farmer no longer reaps the full benefits of the program as it was initially formatted. But that's a different Q.
The bottom line is that I support socially responsible growth and safety net programs but not all the current give always.
I believe that conservatives would be more willing to provide social programs (production incentives etc) to large corporations within a trickle down theory than to the end user directly. i.e. see tax incentives to oil companies or land developers in hurricane stricken cities, also republican backed land grants for oil and timber or guaranteed loans for Chrysler.
You see both conservatives and liberals both back social programs, we all just differ on who is the best recipient. Needy big business or needy individuals
2007-08-15 16:08:42
·
answer #2
·
answered by whitiepossum 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
The ones that fight hardest for social programs are the bureaucrats that administer them. Remember you will have to pay for their retirement bill as well. Employee's of the government & utilities will be the only ones with a definded benefit plan all others have gone to 401k's or gone bankrupted.
I have a younger brother that is a church addict that chooses to be one of the under employed. At some time in the future he will be on welfare & I'll tell him off then as well as now. He feels he is entitled to a bigger paycheck because he has a degree. I subsidize him by letting him live at my house. When I think about it I'm doing him no favor.
2007-08-14 14:15:13
·
answer #3
·
answered by viablerenewables 7
·
3⤊
1⤋
We are either;
1. Naive enough to imagine that the AVERAGE recipient of most of these over bloated social programs is just an unfortunate, hard working, responsible citizen who hit a temporary speed bump.
2. A freeloading, lazy, incompetent deadbeat who has figured out how to work the system and who feels the world owes me. I already have to buy my own Playstation, cell phone, cable TV, drugs, cigarettes, booze, $120 sneakers, so why shouldn't the "well-to-do" tax payers foot the bill for my necessities? (And I'm going to create as many offspring as I can to follow in my footsteps).
3. Someone who is actually physically incapable of working and supporting themselves and truely need assistance.
2007-08-14 14:17:33
·
answer #4
·
answered by heavysarcasm 4
·
3⤊
1⤋
they simply tell human beings what they desire to pay attention "loose". John Kerry in simple terms offered a yacht and parks it around the water in Rhode Island so he did no longer could desire to pay $500,000 in taxes. isn't he a liberal who could desire to pay taxes to help the folk who vote for him? Then the actuality that there are mega-wealthy democrat politicians is fairly hypocritical. help people who can no longer help themselves until it is going to take money from a $7 million boat. The Clintons remodeled a hundred million interior the previous 3 years. See them donating maximum if it NOPE to wish. there's no longer a regulation that declares you are going to be able to desire to take any deductions on your taxes, do you relatively thnk any of them fill out the 1040ez style and declare no longer something so their taxes will help the folk. how many human beings could desire to he fed or have a place to stay if Oprah offered her Santa Barbara materials? Hypocrite comparable with each and all the stars, they stay in distinctive homes claiming to desire to help people who want help yet all of them have CPA's doing their taxes
2016-10-10 06:05:42
·
answer #5
·
answered by ? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Socialism in general doesn't work.
Democrat here, old style, before the 1970's take over by the Socialists (read their history).
I don't, never will.
Charity is great. Government theft is not.
2007-08-14 14:08:42
·
answer #6
·
answered by mckenziecalhoun 7
·
6⤊
0⤋
I use to see your point until GOD showed me other wise. Why does our government give money to small businesses? To help them grow, why does anybody do anything. Maybe we should all just sit around and do nothing. I guess you have not had a chance to really walk this earth yet. Your mind is small because it has not see the things I have seen. You say that each person should stand up for themselves. You say they should take responsibilty for themselves. Life can nock you down, nock you way down. With out that one person to help you just a tab, you could fall down into the cracks. Do you really want another person falling down into the cracks. if you are so worried about your tax dollors, why not try to help people up instead of letting them fall to the place you hate so much.
2007-08-14 14:14:45
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
3⤋
Hey, I got an idea. You figure out a way to go make all the people on welfare and all the senior citizens go get jobs. Welfare and S.S are social programs. All the Child protection agencies who depend on funding from the government, they are a social program.
But screw those kids who are abused and neglected, they can fend for themselves right? Of course all kids suck-unless of course they are in utero and unwanted by the parents.
Typical Republican attitude.
2007-08-14 14:17:44
·
answer #8
·
answered by Rosebee 4
·
3⤊
4⤋
you answered your own question -- hand over the tax dollars to programs that help the people who need help, like the poor. and for all the cons who piss and moan about 'socialist liberals', let me remind you it was your hero, mr. bush, who ignores the constitution and continues to try to increase his power. just recently he signed a bill that allows his to expand his ridiculous wire tapping program. mr. republican, do you think that's how the tax dollars should be spent? by investigating (without a warrant) you're average white, middle class citizen with a family? islamic radicals don't fit that description.
2007-08-14 14:11:09
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
4⤋
Because the Dems love throwing money at their social programs to make themselves feel better & they don't care if it actually works or not because they aren't held accountable for anything & they know they'll get more money to waste because every year new taxes are collected. It's the ulitmate in perfect scams.
2007-08-14 14:02:24
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
4⤋