i sometimes wonder...

violetvirgo

so if we just nixed aid programs, public schools and whatever else "steals" our tax dollars, i wonder what this place would look like?

 a lovely society of free-for-all?  enlighten me.

FolanMama

Mexico.

star173

Duh- it would make those lazy-azzes get jobs!

I'm just getting on here, so I'm not up to date with all the posts, but can I tell you I knew so many hardcore republican, conservative, fundie baptists on WIC and medicaid when we lived at the seminary. Granted, they all had genuine need for it- but it's funny how non-liberal they are, yet sure use the services the bleeding hearts help keep in the system. Hmm.....does that warrant a new post?

Judah'sMommy

This sounds like Adamwife's wet dream.

lucy137

Free for some but not most I should think.

Mrs.Hizzo

I think it would look like Rush Limbaugh's idea of utopia.

violetvirgo

i mean if we can use other countries as somewhat of a model wouldn't the percentage of abject poverty increase A LOT?  which means a lot of the people who think they would be just fine - you know the ones with bootstraps - find themselves along side the super poor? 

i venture to guess that a middle class would cease to exist so you'd have super poor and super wealthy, the former grossly outweighing the latter.

preg_amy

Judah'sMommy:

This sounds like Adamwife's wet dream.

I can think of another bumpie who would also be in heaven... but I won't mention names.

 

Yeah, it would be a world of super rich and super poor, and the rich people would feel wonderful about it.

I'll never understand why republicans/conservatives/those against aid aren't concerned about their communities.  When people are uneducated and poor, that leads to more crime and is just not a lovely picture.

the_mulva

while I do not consider myself a republican nor a conservative, many of you sound as though you are assuming that repubs/conservs don't want aid to the less fortunate in any capacity. that is not true.  many just prefer a system that rewards hard work and tenacity and is 'temporary aid', as opposed to a system that promotes laziness and complacency.

Personally, I think our society (not necessarily the govt) promotes laziness and complacency and the democratic party is just following suit to get the votes, but that's just me.

violetvirgo

the_mulva:

while I do not consider myself a republican nor a conservative, many of you sound as though you are assuming that repubs/conservs don't want aid to the less fortunate in any capacity. that is not true.  many just prefer a system that rewards hard work and tenacity and is 'temporary aid', as opposed to a system that promotes laziness and complacency.

Personally, I think our society (not necessarily the govt) promotes laziness and complacency and the democratic party is just following suit to get the votes, but that's just me.

what about paying for public schools?  

i mean i agree with you that aid should be temporary and there should probably be  better regulations (for the apparent obscene amount of abuse) but that would require more government employees.  the money to pay them would have to come somewhere, right?  so where should it come from?  and just b/c 1 in 100 abuse the system (i have no idea if that's remotely accurate - just throwing out numbers) does that mean we dump the program all together?  

Jessibell

the_mulva:

while I do not consider myself a republican nor a conservative, many of you sound as though you are assuming that repubs/conservs don't want aid to the less fortunate in any capacity. that is not true.  many just prefer a system that rewards hard work and tenacity and is 'temporary aid', as opposed to a system that promotes laziness and complacency.

Personally, I think our society (not necessarily the govt) promotes laziness and complacency and the democratic party is just following suit to get the votes, but that's just me.

**Taps nose**

violetvirgo

Jessibell:

the_mulva:

while I do not consider myself a republican nor a conservative, many of you sound as though you are assuming that repubs/conservs don't want aid to the less fortunate in any capacity. that is not true.  many just prefer a system that rewards hard work and tenacity and is 'temporary aid', as opposed to a system that promotes laziness and complacency.

Personally, I think our society (not necessarily the govt) promotes laziness and complacency and the democratic party is just following suit to get the votes, but that's just me.

**Taps nose**

feel free to answer some of the questions i posed above.  

the_mulva

violetvirgo:

the_mulva:

 

what about paying for public schools?  

i mean i agree with you that aid should be temporary and there should probably be  better regulations (for the apparent obscene amount of abuse) but that would require more government employees.  the money to pay them would have to come somewhere, right?  so where should it come from?  and just b/c 1 in 100 abuse the system (i have no idea if that's remotely accurate - just throwing out numbers) does that mean we dump the program all together?  

Of course not.  While govt programs probably need to be better structured, I think the main issue is the fact that, as a country, we are raising a society of a bunch of lazy, fat, entitled, uneducated f' ups.  Once we stop doing that, the federal aid won't be so much of an issue.  We will be self-regulating, to some degree.

I think public schools is a different issue entirely.  If we can improve our public school systems, then we have a much better shot of eliminating the lazy, fat, entitled, uneducated f'ups mentioned above.  Better public schools improve communities for all, irrespective of whether you have kids in the system or not.

Jessibell

I'm confused as to why public schools are lumped in with aid and services.

There needs to be a lot more transparancy in government spending. If there were, there would obviously be public outrage and perhaps the funds could be better allocated to allow for creating some programs that actually work.

Also, I think there needs to be more emphasis placed on job placement assistance. My husband was layed off a few years ago and found a job through TWC. It ended up being a huge blessing (lots of raises and promotions) and he's turned what could have been just a job into a great career with advancement potential. He found a job relatively quickly, so we never took any unemployment, but he did untilize job placement to our great benefit.

violetvirgo

the_mulva:

Of course not.  While govt programs probably need to be better structured, but I think the main issue is the fact that, as a country, we are raising a society of a bunch of lazy, fat, entitled, uneducated f' ups.  Once we stop doing that, the federal aid won't be so much of an issue.  We will be self-regulating, to some degree.

I think public schools is a different issue entirely.  If we can improve our public school systems, then we have a much better shot of eliminating the lazy, fat, entitled, uneducated f'ups mentioned above.  Better public schools improve communities for all, irrespective of whether you have kids in the system or not.

agree x1000 here.