Question for liberals
Okay, so I know that one of the major criticisms Democrats make about Republicans is that we don’t care for the poor.
How do you figure that? You’re right that we don’t want the government to do that through the welfare/ food stamp system. But this is not because we’re greedy and unwilling to help people. It’s because we would rather help the poor ourselves than have a big government collect money from everyone. This devalues the spirit of giving and free will. It should be done voluntarily, and we should be able to choose who we help. Under socialist programs, you have forced giving, and those who benefit from these entitlements are known to be corrupting the system. They’re not looking for work, and they’re just using crazy sums of taxpayer money to buy drugs and alcohol. I mean, look at the people occupying Wall Street. They’re clearly not working because they’re too busy breaking the law by using drugs, destroying property, and assaulting people. Are these really the people we should be giving to (or rather, forced to give to)?
Please tell me the rationale behind these socialist ideas. I would really appreciate if someone could explain it to me, and preferably go beyond the cliche “we’re helping the poor.” Because I believe that’s important too, but I’m curious to know why you think your way works better than the people helping the poor on their own and how you justify the corruption that’s happening. Thanks.
The poor can’t really “help themselves” when we allow businesses to stomp all over their employees and take away benefits in the name of “creating jobs.” The poor can’t “help themselves” without access to education, transportation, and basic needs like food and shelter.
The poor are not “using crazy sums of taxpayer money to buy drugs and alcohol.” That attitude is the disgusting poverty-policing that conservatives use to distract people from how much taxpayer money is given as breaks to the wealthiest people in our country. The average family of 4 people can expect $500 a month in food stamps and $900 a month for their welfare check. That’s $1400/month for 4 people, or $350 per person. To live and eat for a month.
Oh, and they ARE looking for work. You have to be actively looking for work to receive unemployment benefits. Again, you’re vilifying the poor with absolutely no statistics to back up the idea that they’re lazy government parasites.
The people who participated in OWS were not all unemployed, or drug users, or assaulting people or destroying property. Some people took time off work to demonstrate their unhappiness with the system.
The corruption in our government is a direct result of allowing corporations and rich people to buy politicians and pay lobbyists to write our laws. Explain to me how a poor person can “help themself” with a dwindling minimum wage, underfunded schools, and poor-hating attitudes like yours. And please, show me a government or country where that mindset has actually helped people.
You’re a disgusting classist who is playing right into what the Republicans want you to believe about “helping people help themselves.” Congratulations! You’re well on your way to being a disdainful upper-middle-class scumbag who doesn’t give an *actual* shit about other people.
-Jess
While I like most of your post, I think you miss what this person said about “we would rather help the poor ourselves”- not that the poor need to help THEMSELVES. In other words, all charity should come from private individuals because, presumably, private individuals are better determiners of who is deserving of charity and not wasting it.
Which is a ridiculous argument. For one, private individuals don’t make enough donations to benefit all the people who are legitimately suffering and not on drugs or just lazy. Private charities are not widespread enough and don’t have resources enough to cover every case. For another, the charities an individual donates to are not likely to be giving money less often to corrupt/lazy/drug-taking people than the US government would be, simply on the virtue of it being an individual choice. As an individual, I can attest that my charity-giving inclinations are poorly thought out, poorly researched, and generally based on whoever makes me feel most guilty. Granted, I’m a biased sample… but how would a publicly owned system be LESS likely to respond to public demand than millions of individual choices? If the system is broken, we can change it.
For a third, this isn’t a battle over whether or not money should be spent by the government. Money IS spent by the government, and no one(with the possible exception of Ron Paul) argues that it SHOULDN’T be. Why is it completely valid that I, a pacifist, am forced to pay taxes that enable the government to fight in unnecessary wars, and completely invalid for pseudo-moral conservatives to engage in the collective need to feed the poor?
^^ See also.
Hey, I’m all for helping the poor ourselves using our own money. What do you think a “government” is?
I’d also like to ask the op, (thetruthisoutthere, i think) how they would plan to ascertain who is the “deserving” poor and who is not, and if they realize how much it would cost to do things like mandatory drug tests and what not. Beyond being born of shitty, oppressive generalizations and stereotypes, its also not very smart on a fiscal level.
