Should productive Americans be forced to subsidize the lazy ones?

Question

How can we bring an end to this?

Answer 1

The Great Society of Johnson era is so in trenched in our society that there seems to be no way out. We have almost, not quiet yet, but almost half of our population that pays no taxes but yet they are allowed to vote on issues that will burden those that do pay taxes. This is grossly unfair. But politicians will do anything including prostituting themselves for a vote and if it means you and I brother, will be taxed to death because we go to work and support ourselves and families then so be it. Because those with their hands out will always be just that......and their vote is brought with our blood,sweat and tears. Term Limits .....now or it will be too late in another Dem. Presidential 8 years.

Answer 2

They shouldn't be forced to subsize lazy people. In theory though, they are subsidizing the economically disadvantaged and not the lazy. Obviously, in practice this is not always the case as the two are often inseparable.

The real question is whether or not need alone is sufficient to force a helping hand. Or really, to what what extent do you believe individual liberty should be preserved? To point of the death of another? There is no objective answer as your question seems to imply, it's really just a matter of opinion. However, because it is too difficult to determine the exact circumstances that have brought about the need and whether or not the need is truly deserving help, I personally don't believe we should be forced to help everyone who is down and out. The system is too easily abused and creating one that isn't appears to be pretty much impossible. That said, it would nice if more people helped others out voluntarily---but, sigh, I think it is part of their right to freedom not to if they don't want to.

As far as bringing an end to welfare and the like? Good luck. My guess would be to let it get all the support it needs, and let it get absurdly out of hand so we wouldn't have any choice but to get rid of it. I would also start indoctrinating kids early by making them work for their school lunches, do Ayn Rand book reports and put money that would otherwise have been given to charity into a savings account. But then you'd just be forcing one thing to achieve freedom in another. Huh, have you considered demagoguery?

Answer 3

Obviously not, but the strategy of the Left is not to offer that as the choice. They pick out areas that are not working well and then propose a redistribution to solve it. Healthcare is a classic example. A significant fraction of the health insurance "crisis" is composed of taxing health insurance unfavorably if it is delivered in certain ways and in state mandated minimum coverages that turn health insurance into bad debt insurance for doctors.

Health insurance in all its various forms should be made tax exempt now and it should be made tax deductible, because in essence, it would be both those things if it were socialized. Next, the state mandated minimums should be overturned.

Why the Left are against lower taxes is that it makes it harder for the Left to socialize things.

So, Dead Marxist, as usual you are 100% right, but the Hillarys of this world have every institution of government working for them - even the Supreme Court - see United Hauliers Association Inc. v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority 2006 October term - permitting socialization of interstate commerce by a municipality. See www.supreme.justia.com. Justice Alito voted the right way on that.

I think that the only effective way to deal with this sort of problem is the introduction of national referendums. That was the way some of this (rampant property taxes) was brought to heel in California with Jarvis. Unfortunately, the California Republicans worked mightily to put conservatives in their current position there - most of all Pete Wilson, but that is a story for another occasion.

Answer 4

We already are. Don't get me wrong, I feel there are people on welfare that honestly need help and WANT to get back on their feet and are using the program the way it was designed, as a helping hand for a short time, but there are others, and I've seen them, that will come to the grocery store and use food stamp to purchase things and walk out and get into a new Navigator or Escalade. Something wrong with this picture. There are people who DON'T WANT or have no intention of getting off welfare because it's easier to stay on and collect a check from the government. These slugs are what give the program a black eye.

Answer 5

No it's not right. I've been opposed to if from the get go. My ex-wife was one of those lazy people. She wanted to go on welfare when we first got married, needless to say that's where the "EX" came in. She did nothing to help provide in the marriage and now 25 years later, she has to work doing what she can to survive and I own and run my own business. As for what we can do about it, vote for anyone but those who want to give more to the lazy people. I know there are those who can't work but then the lazy people are giving them a bad reputation.

Answer 6

"some_guy_times_50".... LOL !!

This guy cracks me up. He's been watching too much TV again. The only reason the Democrats are eager to grant amnesty to 20 million illegals is because, overwhemingly, minorities will vote Democrat... hoping of course, for more freebies. Don't think for one minute the Dems give a rat's buttocks about those illegals. They're just looking for some extra votes come election time.

Answer 7

Absolutely not! I for one am sick and tired of seeing my tax dollars going to support ones that will not support themselves.
I'm tired of seeing tax dollars going to some women that have child after child while on welfare so the "habit" continues from one generation to the next.
This Lib mind set of supporting everyone must be stopped.
We need to go back to the welfare offices being tied to the employment offices! You go in for welfare, unless you have doctor documentation, they hand you a job referral!
Now if someone is working full-time and just doesn't earn enough to meet living expenses, yes, a little help from the tax payers along with skill training. Construction crews always need more people, and have you seen the income of a plumber, brick layer, electrician? They could start out as apprentices on the job, with govt aid support themselves until they learn the trade and make full wages.
But this crapola of just sitting around waiting for a govt check has to stop

Answer 8

We should not be forced to subsidized lazy people.

But we probably ought to subsidize people who need help, but aren't able to provide for themselves for reasons that are not their fault. Natural disasters, catastrophic illness, crime, that sort of thing.

And the children of "lazy people?" I think we ought to subsidize them as well. Unless you can prove that those 1-17 year olds are lazy as well.

Answer 9

Welfare reform. Electing conservatives.

They did it in WI under Tommy Thompson

I have no problem helping those who cannot care for themselves. I do have a problem with giving welfare to those who can work but choose not to.

The problem you will find here is democrats need these voters. They will not let go easily.

Answer 10

The obvious answer, if you want the truth, is no, however for those who are truly disabled, if Americans care about them, and their life, it is obviously correct to help them. Some disabled folks cannot be "cured". Those who fake the system out should be shot, because to me, doing so, is the same as being a traitor to their country!