Politics.
- Thread starter AikiRooster
- Start date
pantera
New Member
I know exactly what you mean see next:tora said:Anarchy leader
I am an anti-christ
I am an anarchist,
Don’t know what I want
But I know how to get it.
I wanna destroy the passer by
’cos I wanna be anarchy,
Ho dogs body
Anarchy for the uk
It’s coming sometime and maybe
I give a wrong time stop a traffic line.
Your future dream is a shopping scheme
Cause I wanna be anarchy,
It’s in the city
How many ways to get what you want
I use the best I use the rest
I use the enemy.
I use anarchy
’cause I wanna be anarchy,
Its the only way to be
Is this the mpla
Or is this the uda
Or is this the ira
I thought it was the uk
Or just another country
Another council tenancy.
I wanna be an anarchist
(oh what a name)
And l wanna be an anarchist
(I get pissed destroy)
is it that you mean HIiiiiiiiiiii!
tora
Funmaker
pantera said:I know exactly what you mean see next:
I am an anti-christ
I am an anarchist,
Don’t know what I want
But I know how to get it.
I wanna destroy the passer by
’cos I wanna be anarchy,
Ho dogs body
Anarchy for the uk
It’s coming sometime and maybe
I give a wrong time stop a traffic line.
Your future dream is a shopping scheme
Cause I wanna be anarchy,
It’s in the city
How many ways to get what you want
I use the best I use the rest
I use the enemy.
I use anarchy
’cause I wanna be anarchy,
Its the only way to be
Is this the mpla
Or is this the uda
Or is this the ira
I thought it was the uk
Or just another country
Another council tenancy.
I wanna be an anarchist
(oh what a name)
And l wanna be an anarchist
(I get pissed destroy)
is it that you mean HIiiiiiiiiiii!
That and more
AikiRooster
PainMaster.
Serena.
Serena:
One thing I'd like to share with you about politics that I learned along time ago. You shouldn't vote for an individual because he supports an agenda you agree with more. Vote for the party, not the person. Persons are not strong enough, it is the entire party that is strong not the individual person running for President, Governor, etc. etc. Rarely is a President ever strong enough alone to do anything without party support.
Serena:
One thing I'd like to share with you about politics that I learned along time ago. You shouldn't vote for an individual because he supports an agenda you agree with more. Vote for the party, not the person. Persons are not strong enough, it is the entire party that is strong not the individual person running for President, Governor, etc. etc. Rarely is a President ever strong enough alone to do anything without party support.
Amos Stevens
New Member
When I voted,it was democrat
AikiRooster
PainMaster.
Democrat/Republican.
The difference between the two in my opinion, is way too much. The point that both parties ought to be concerned about is of course, Americans being safe and secure and then of course too, Americans being as happy and wealthy as is possible in the life and times we now live through. No, I do not agree with all of the rich being rich and not helping those below them of course, however, I also do not agree with the more wealthy being forced to give there earnings away because the lazy are not willing to work to make something for themselves or of themselves. Yes, I think the more wealthy have an obligation to help ggod working class people especially when they are down and out for some reason of some sort, that is of course alot different then just supporting the lazy. I also agree with making education more affordable so you don't have to be wealthy to get a college degree. Every American should have opportunitites open to them to get a college degree without being broke for the rest of there lives after thats accomplished.
The difference between the two in my opinion, is way too much. The point that both parties ought to be concerned about is of course, Americans being safe and secure and then of course too, Americans being as happy and wealthy as is possible in the life and times we now live through. No, I do not agree with all of the rich being rich and not helping those below them of course, however, I also do not agree with the more wealthy being forced to give there earnings away because the lazy are not willing to work to make something for themselves or of themselves. Yes, I think the more wealthy have an obligation to help ggod working class people especially when they are down and out for some reason of some sort, that is of course alot different then just supporting the lazy. I also agree with making education more affordable so you don't have to be wealthy to get a college degree. Every American should have opportunitites open to them to get a college degree without being broke for the rest of there lives after thats accomplished.
I ask this question not being facetious, not being sarcastic, not to cause a debate, as I do not
debate. It is simple curiosity and perhaps a bit of ignorance on my part.
Does anyone know if any countries pay for their young people' entire college education? I don't mean assistance or grants, as we have in the U.S., or special scholarships. I mean pay for students' entire college/university until completion and a degree in a particular chosen field?
If anyone has the facts--not speculation--could you please post which countries? I'd like to do a bit more research on that.
I do love looking up things.
debate.
It is simple curiosity and perhaps a bit of ignorance on my part. Does anyone know if any countries pay for their young people' entire college education? I don't mean assistance or grants, as we have in the U.S., or special scholarships. I mean pay for students' entire college/university until completion and a degree in a particular chosen field?
If anyone has the facts--not speculation--could you please post which countries? I'd like to do a bit more research on that.
I do love looking up things.
AikiRooster
PainMaster.
Serena.
I agree Serena. That would be interesting to know. I doubt it though and if any countries do I would be surprised if those colleges participating in that would be recognized by Universities in this country [the U.S. that is].
I think college should be more affordable in this country and not just for the more wealthy which is the way it appears at this point in time.
I agree Serena. That would be interesting to know. I doubt it though and if any countries do I would be surprised if those colleges participating in that would be recognized by Universities in this country [the U.S. that is].
I think college should be more affordable in this country and not just for the more wealthy which is the way it appears at this point in time.
kickingbird
candle lighter
Environmentally Friendly
Hhmmm, we're not eating dinner right now, are we? Discussing over dinner isn't a good idea lol.
I tend to vote democratic.
Am fond of Jimmy Carter but he's too good to be president and that's why he didn't stay. Very sincere and good man and I admire him greatly.
BTW, for anyone interested in literature, there's a good book The Sovereignty Revolution by Alan Cranston that I would suggest to anyone seriously interested in the world situation. It is available through Stanford University Press http://www.sup.org. I've read it twice and am very impressed with it. I'm not very good at book reports so suggest to simply check it out [at a library? lol].
My main interest in "politics" is keeping the environment safe and stopping nuclear prolifiration without starting WW3 in the process. Any leader/s who can do that would be most welcome, regardless of political affiliation.
Hhmmm, we're not eating dinner right now, are we? Discussing over dinner isn't a good idea lol.
I tend to vote democratic.
Am fond of Jimmy Carter but he's too good to be president and that's why he didn't stay. Very sincere and good man and I admire him greatly.
BTW, for anyone interested in literature, there's a good book The Sovereignty Revolution by Alan Cranston that I would suggest to anyone seriously interested in the world situation. It is available through Stanford University Press http://www.sup.org. I've read it twice and am very impressed with it. I'm not very good at book reports so suggest to simply check it out [at a library? lol].
My main interest in "politics" is keeping the environment safe and stopping nuclear prolifiration without starting WW3 in the process. Any leader/s who can do that would be most welcome, regardless of political affiliation.
Mr.Rooster said:
Hey! How come I get ragged on for making a sweeping statement, and you don't? I'm crying, "foul!" "favouritism"!
I should like to point out that for about two months last year I was forced to go on welfare. I was not lazy; there was simply no work to be had. The "workfare" on offer was, frankly, a waste of my time; and in large part a waste of most people's time, as well. (A better programme by the previous government was nuked by the then-ruling Conservatives because it was a government-funded programme that got people off welfare - permanently - and what the Conservatives wanted was to have private enterprise participate, and what private enterprise got was a lot of free labour which put the unions' collective noses out of joint... and so on and so on and so on....).
It was the worst two months of my life. I was treated like the scum of the earth, a drain on the public purse. I was getting a paltry $520 a month, of which $325 was supposed to be "housing allownce". I live in Toronto. $325 a month doesn't even get me a room in a rooming house. The other $195 was supposed to go for groceries - for a single person, estimated not to exceed $100 per month, with the balance of $95 to pay for telephone - $60 - transportation - $100 for a monthly bus pass - clothing allowance... wait a minute. Something doesn't add up here.... In short, there were insufficient funds to allow me to look for work. However, who had time to look for work? Workfare required I put in 40 hours a week on the workfare job, plus another 10-14 hours a week volunteering.
It was a programme designed by idiots, and run by bureaucrats who hadn't the faintest idea of the cost of looking for work in terms of both time and money.
There are some people of my acquaintance who were unable to work. They have social function disorders such as Asperger's, or were physically disabled to the point where they could not work even if they wanted to. They are not lazy.
Living on welfare is a terrible thing. Those who are habitual users (and yes, some are abusers) of the system have become that way simply because living on welfare robs you of your dignity, your self-respect and your will to better yourself. Not only is there a social stigma to receiving welfare, there is a political and bureaucratic attitude towards people on welfare that brands them as enemies of the capitalist state. That is why right-wing politicians always take aim at the economically challenged. Instead of offering them opportunities to cease being a drain on the public purse, they punish people on welfare as if people on welfare were criminals. A person on welfare is forbidden from taking any kind of courses that would improve their job skills and therefore their job opportunities, the reason being if they are able to go to school, then they are able to go to work, and so their benefits are cut off.
What's the sense in that?
I can tell you that $520 a month is impossible to live on. I tried to limit my grocery budget to $100 a month. But not only food came out of that budget; laundry detergent, dish detergent, personal hygiene products, all of that had to come out of the $100 per month. A couple of MPPs tried the $100 a month grocery budget (and they bought groceries with the whole $100) and at the end of the month, they discovered they were suffering from severe fatigue brought on by undernourishment. They were forced to buy cheap, unhealthy processed food because buying fresh, healthy food was too expensive and used up their budget too quickly.
People on welfare can't afford to eat healthy food. They buy whatever's cheapest, that will give them a feeling of being full. But it isn't nutritious; and over long periods of time, will have the effect I described above. Chronic fatigue makes them unwilling and unable to exert themselves. Maybe that's where some people get the notion that people on welfare are lazy.
Walk a mile in the shoes of someone forced to live on welfare, and see if you think social programmes should be canned to avoid "lazy people" sucking the wealthy dry.
Lollipop
Banned
I was poor the day I was born and stayed that way until I took charge of my own life at 14 and have worked my butt off everyday up until about 3 years ago! And that was to take care of various sick people in our family!
I had the Scarlett O'hare syndrome and I said " I refuse to go to bed hungry another day in my life"
And I have not! There are exceptions to every rule, but I think we can make a difference in our own life no matter who is in office.
So TD, you have not always lived in Canada, that all happened in America?
I had the Scarlett O'hare syndrome and I said " I refuse to go to bed hungry another day in my life"
And I have not! There are exceptions to every rule, but I think we can make a difference in our own life no matter who is in office.
So TD, you have not always lived in Canada, that all happened in America?
Lollipop
Banned
TD I didn't know you had had it so rough here in America, I would have went back to Canada, too!
I have been in your shoes, I was born extremely poor! I mean we lived where I wouldn't drive in a locked car with four men with me today. I have never asked or accepted anything from anyone. I worked my butt off since 14 and swore my children would never go there! And they have not! They have had every chance to do what they wanted. And they have, no matter what party was in office and it has been a few years and both have come and gone. And "I'm Still Standing"!! I don't think the party holding office determines my fate-I do! I have! And will always!!
I have been in your shoes, I was born extremely poor! I mean we lived where I wouldn't drive in a locked car with four men with me today. I have never asked or accepted anything from anyone. I worked my butt off since 14 and swore my children would never go there! And they have not! They have had every chance to do what they wanted. And they have, no matter what party was in office and it has been a few years and both have come and gone. And "I'm Still Standing"!! I don't think the party holding office determines my fate-I do! I have! And will always!!
I've always lived in Canada. After World War II, my father had a choice - he could to the U.S. - my mother's family was there, and they would sponsor him as her fiance (they didn't get married until they came over here) - or he could go to Canada, where there was a job waiting for him at CN Rail. He chose Canada, preferring to be self-sufficient than have to rely on somebody else until he was approved for citizenship.
I have American friends, some who have lived here for a while and then gone back. Here, they bitched and moaned about the high taxes and government spending on social programmes and other things about how awful Canada was, hence their desire to return to the US where they would get to keep more of their dollars.
Well, they moved back "home" - only to discover that a pre-existing medical condition in their child prevented them from getting insurance to cover her medical treatment - where here in Canada she would have been treated without incurring huge debts because health care is universal (although there is a movement afoot here to change all that, a lot of it pressure from the US vis-a-vis NAFTA and that universal health care is a barrier to fair competition. We have a different view of health care, you see: we think health care is a right, not a privilege, and it certainly isn't a for-profit business as it is in the US).
Suddenly, our high taxes didn't look so high, compared to the hundreds of thousands of dollars of treatment for the child that was going to have to come out of their own pockets.
The fact is, high income earners are extremely loathe to part with their cash. They want to keep it all for themselves, and the airy-fairy and extremely naive idea that if the wealthy are allowed to keep all of their wealth and be taxed at a lower rate than those in the lowest income brackets because their wealth will "trickle down" to provide jobs for the masses is just so much wishful thinking. Redistribution of wealth is not something that occurs naturally. Rich people like their money and more than anything, they like to keep it for themselves. Rich people are more likely to take their money out of the country, thus "redistributing" their wealth in places like Belize and the French Riviera. It doesn't stay home.
Believing in the "trickle-down" theory of economics is an exercise in self-delusion, at best, and extremely dangerous at worst. Why dangerous? As the gap widens between those who have and those who have not, those who have not have a tendency to want to address that in any way they can. Usually, violently. Hence why those who "have" want to demonise the poor - calling them "lazy" and "abusers of the system" "criminals" - when their only crime is inescapable poverty.
I have American friends, some who have lived here for a while and then gone back. Here, they bitched and moaned about the high taxes and government spending on social programmes and other things about how awful Canada was, hence their desire to return to the US where they would get to keep more of their dollars.
Well, they moved back "home" - only to discover that a pre-existing medical condition in their child prevented them from getting insurance to cover her medical treatment - where here in Canada she would have been treated without incurring huge debts because health care is universal (although there is a movement afoot here to change all that, a lot of it pressure from the US vis-a-vis NAFTA and that universal health care is a barrier to fair competition. We have a different view of health care, you see: we think health care is a right, not a privilege, and it certainly isn't a for-profit business as it is in the US).
Suddenly, our high taxes didn't look so high, compared to the hundreds of thousands of dollars of treatment for the child that was going to have to come out of their own pockets.
The fact is, high income earners are extremely loathe to part with their cash. They want to keep it all for themselves, and the airy-fairy and extremely naive idea that if the wealthy are allowed to keep all of their wealth and be taxed at a lower rate than those in the lowest income brackets because their wealth will "trickle down" to provide jobs for the masses is just so much wishful thinking. Redistribution of wealth is not something that occurs naturally. Rich people like their money and more than anything, they like to keep it for themselves. Rich people are more likely to take their money out of the country, thus "redistributing" their wealth in places like Belize and the French Riviera. It doesn't stay home.
Believing in the "trickle-down" theory of economics is an exercise in self-delusion, at best, and extremely dangerous at worst. Why dangerous? As the gap widens between those who have and those who have not, those who have not have a tendency to want to address that in any way they can. Usually, violently. Hence why those who "have" want to demonise the poor - calling them "lazy" and "abusers of the system" "criminals" - when their only crime is inescapable poverty.
Lollipop
Banned
I escaped and have friends who did the same, one is a Dr. (shrink) she paid every penny of her education and probably now gives more than she keeps!
I chose not to go to college and went straight to work and passed (not officially) but a CPA exam at 25. They made me do it at work to justify my salary and promotion! I do give some to charity but like it the movie HPD when the bad guy(don't remember his name, I have selective memory, I remember steven, nick and lester my fav's)was asked what was his cause by the FBI agent he said "I am my cause" I worked for it I earned it and I take care of my children and my mother. I feel they are mine and I take care of what belongs to me!
You're earlier post lead me to believe that your bad experience was here in America so that is why you chose to live in Canada! So Canada sounds alot like America in helping out the poor also!
So the point of your father choosing Canada over the US sounds mute!
I chose not to go to college and went straight to work and passed (not officially) but a CPA exam at 25. They made me do it at work to justify my salary and promotion! I do give some to charity but like it the movie HPD when the bad guy(don't remember his name, I have selective memory, I remember steven, nick and lester my fav's)was asked what was his cause by the FBI agent he said "I am my cause" I worked for it I earned it and I take care of my children and my mother. I feel they are mine and I take care of what belongs to me!
You're earlier post lead me to believe that your bad experience was here in America so that is why you chose to live in Canada! So Canada sounds alot like America in helping out the poor also!
So the point of your father choosing Canada over the US sounds mute!
Lollipop said:
The political climate changed here in Ontario when raging right-wing conservatism took over from left-wing socially conscious sensibilities in 1994. This was the government that began to demonise those they deemed "special interest groups" - they attacked everything from education to welfare, hospitals to seniors, public transportation and infrastructure.
They thought people on welfare were getting too much money so they cut benefits by 22% in the first year and nuked an excellent, government-run Jobs Ontario programme that got people off welfare faster than the current system, which they put in place. (Benefits have not risen since the 22% cut in 1995, though cost of living has.)
They abolished rent controls, forcing people who lived in substandard housing to stay where they were, as rents skyrocketed for anyone moving out of one apartment and into another.
They downloaded social assistance funding to the cities, forcing the cities to pay for it out of property taxes collected locally. Formerly, it had been funded through revenue from income tax (i.e. wealth redistribution), but the plan was to reduce income taxes for the very wealthiest in the province. They executed that plan, leaving the province with a 5.4 billion dollar deficit by the time they left office. (The guys in power now made the incautious election promise of not raising taxes, and our deficit grows ever bigger, forcing even more cuts to programs already suffering from lack of funding).
They tendered home care contracts out to private companies instead of continuing to allow non-profit organisations to supply those services. Non-profit organisations paid their workers a decent wage and so they were able to get good staff. The private companies that won the bids won because they pay their staff a pittance, and have sub-standard workers providing substandard care to the most vulnerable in our society. But you see: this is capitalism at work. Can't have any of that nasty social responsibility interfere with making a profit.
Property taxes in the cities went up because they privatised tax assessment and collection. The private company that does these assessments have shareholders that demand profits and a board of directors requiring huge salaries. But privatisation is cheaper for you, said the government, so that we can give you tax cuts on your income tax.
Because of soaring property tax assessments and the lack of rent control, there was suddenly an increase in the number of people forced to live in shelters, or worse, on the street because they could no longer afford to live in housing. But that's okay - better they die out on the street than be a burden on the public purse.
One thing the Tory government did in 1995 when they took power was cancel the construction of 5000 units of affordable housing. This represented less than 1% of their budget, but even that was too much - the wealthy absolutely HAD to have their tax cuts, because that's what the Tory government promised.
They took over funding education for the province, cutting the budget so that teachers were often forced to go out and spend their own money getting supplies for their students. Maintenance budgets for school infrastructure was slashed, and the schools today are in a terrible state of disrepair; it will cost nearly a billion dollars to get them put right.
But those wealthy people needed that tax cut. Besides, wealthy people don't send their children to public schools anyway, so why waste any money on the public school system?
Hospitals were closed, and emergency rooms were shut down. People died because they couldn't get treatment at the closest hospital - one notable case was of a boy injured in a fight, taken to the nearest hospital, arriving at 10:15 - but the emergency room had closed at 10, forcing the ambulance to go to another hospital. 45 minutes later the boy was dead - he could have been saved if he had just received treatment sooner.
But the wealthy needed their tax cut, and emergent care was too costly to maintain in so many hospitals.
This is what right-wing conservative politics and economics does. Pardon me if I don't think protecting the income of the wealthy benefits society as a whole.
AikiRooster
PainMaster.
TD Woj:
I am not in any way, shape or form ragging on you.
You and your examples are the ones I am talking about deserving to be helped. All I was saying is avoiding the welfare for the lazy ones. Not you nor your examples there, promise. When I first got out of the military I went on unemployment until I found something. I been to Canada, I agree with you and I'm shocked, $600 and whatever dollars there can buy you very little there. Definitely not a month's worth of taking of yourself by yourself, no way. Unless if maybe you could rent a cardboard box perhaps. Don't cry TD, you misunderstood the ones I was referring to. There are those whom have skills that can work and don't because they can get welfare. Now, I also understand and agree yes you can work but you might have to do something your miserable doing, so no I don't think that is a very good option either.
Personally, I think if it can proven a company has alot of profit and they are not helping with hiring people to making them a parto f the working class, they ought to be taxed at a higher rate or something like that. I request that instead of feeling insulted by me, you ask me instead exactly what I mean about something. I am open minded TD, I do not think people should be miserable. I believe in helping all so all can be happy or at least as happy as possible.
I am not in any way, shape or form ragging on you.
You and your examples are the ones I am talking about deserving to be helped. All I was saying is avoiding the welfare for the lazy ones. Not you nor your examples there, promise. When I first got out of the military I went on unemployment until I found something. I been to Canada, I agree with you and I'm shocked, $600 and whatever dollars there can buy you very little there. Definitely not a month's worth of taking of yourself by yourself, no way. Unless if maybe you could rent a cardboard box perhaps. Don't cry TD, you misunderstood the ones I was referring to. There are those whom have skills that can work and don't because they can get welfare. Now, I also understand and agree yes you can work but you might have to do something your miserable doing, so no I don't think that is a very good option either.
Personally, I think if it can proven a company has alot of profit and they are not helping with hiring people to making them a parto f the working class, they ought to be taxed at a higher rate or something like that. I request that instead of feeling insulted by me, you ask me instead exactly what I mean about something. I am open minded TD, I do not think people should be miserable. I believe in helping all so all can be happy or at least as happy as possible.
I wasn't insulted, Mr. Rooster; I was merely making the point that the number of "lazy" people are not in fact as high as some would have you believe. These people are the ones committing fraud against the system, and eventually the system catches on and they get caught. However, these are the ones that the conservative right hold up to the light as illustrating the evils of welfare. The fall-out affects those - the majority - who have no choice and must live on welfare, in a negative fashion, resulting in reduced benefits, reduced access to programs that would get them off welfare and being treated like scum, all because of the handful who do abuse the system.
I also wanted to point out that what looks like "lazy" from one angle may in fact be something else entirely from a different angle. The label itself is an act of demonisation, and I was simply trying to caution against assuming that what's true for a few is true for all.
The truth of the matter is that big business is in business for itself, not for the benefit of society. The bigger the business, the more profits it wants to generate, and the way to do that is to cut staff at every opportunity.
It was interesting to note that during the recession of the late '80s to the early '90s, the companies that did poorly were the ones laying off staff left and right; while other companies who hired rather than fired, did very well. This seems to fly in the face of logic, and the survey was in fact very quietly reported. Even today, many of the business that did massive lay-offs during the recession have been reluctant to hire more staff, resulting in a greater incidence of staff absenteeism, from staff who have been required to work far more hours than they had when there was sufficient staff.
These businesses continue to lose ground with each person they fire; and yet the CEOs of these companies continue to rake in huge salaries and bonuses, while the company lays off staff and more people are forced onto the unemployment rolls.
We recently had a situation with, I believe it was Nortel, where the top executives were forced to give back their bonuses because they were based on a fraudulent financial statement of earnings for the company which had never been realised. One hears on the news all the time of CEOs making ridiculously huge sums in salaries and bonuses, while the financial report for that company show that the profits realised were due in large part to massive layoffs.
I applaud your belief that everyone should be as happy as possible. A lot of people can and are able to manufacture a good life for themselves through hard work and endurance. But for those for whom a helping hand might lift them up, I'm very much afraid that the right-wing conservative believer is all too eager to leave them to suffer by the side of the road, on the assumption that anyone who needs help is lazy and should not be helped but rather punished for being poor.
I also wanted to point out that what looks like "lazy" from one angle may in fact be something else entirely from a different angle. The label itself is an act of demonisation, and I was simply trying to caution against assuming that what's true for a few is true for all.
The truth of the matter is that big business is in business for itself, not for the benefit of society. The bigger the business, the more profits it wants to generate, and the way to do that is to cut staff at every opportunity.
It was interesting to note that during the recession of the late '80s to the early '90s, the companies that did poorly were the ones laying off staff left and right; while other companies who hired rather than fired, did very well. This seems to fly in the face of logic, and the survey was in fact very quietly reported. Even today, many of the business that did massive lay-offs during the recession have been reluctant to hire more staff, resulting in a greater incidence of staff absenteeism, from staff who have been required to work far more hours than they had when there was sufficient staff.
These businesses continue to lose ground with each person they fire; and yet the CEOs of these companies continue to rake in huge salaries and bonuses, while the company lays off staff and more people are forced onto the unemployment rolls.
We recently had a situation with, I believe it was Nortel, where the top executives were forced to give back their bonuses because they were based on a fraudulent financial statement of earnings for the company which had never been realised. One hears on the news all the time of CEOs making ridiculously huge sums in salaries and bonuses, while the financial report for that company show that the profits realised were due in large part to massive layoffs.
I applaud your belief that everyone should be as happy as possible. A lot of people can and are able to manufacture a good life for themselves through hard work and endurance. But for those for whom a helping hand might lift them up, I'm very much afraid that the right-wing conservative believer is all too eager to leave them to suffer by the side of the road, on the assumption that anyone who needs help is lazy and should not be helped but rather punished for being poor.
AikiRooster
PainMaster.
Oh, I don't know if I would agree with you there TD. Perhaps the number that truly are lazy and trying to get something for nothing are probably higher then you believe, hence the welfare system problems in the first place. They are or at least seem to be the ones making it difficult for the good people like you and your examples you utilized in your previous post to be helped by the system. Just because you and them were/are good/honest people doesn't mean the majority using the benfit are or were. Having an open mind is necessary yes, but having an open mind means just that, for both sides of the spectrum not just the one you wish to believe because that may have been your personal experience or history with the system or with folks whom utilize the particular system in question.