View Single Post
Old August 31st, 2012, 07:08 PM   #43 (permalink)
A.Nonymous
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RazorSharp View Post
Ah, I see, I didn't read your previous statement clearly enough. So you would dismantle all unemployment, welfare and homeless programs entirely, because everyone who needs it is a product of either being lazy or being unprepared? Have I got that right?
No. Said programs still are needed to provide for the mentally disabled and infirm. Those people lack the physical capabilities to take care of themselves. I feel we, as a society, have an obligation to take care of them. But I would cut a lot of those programs back by a lot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElasticNinja View Post
What about people who are mentally or economically disadvantaged?
Charities cant provide wealth transfers to double digit percentages of the population, the inefficiencies would be horrendous.
Wealth transfers are not needed. To me it reprehensible to take something from someone who has and give it to someone who has not for no other reason than because that person has not. You would advocate taking from someone who has for no reason other than that they have. Then you're going to turn around give to someone who has not just because they have not. And on top of that you're going to use the force of government to do so.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote