patandchickens
Crazy Cat Lady
If you say so. To me, environmental policies do NOT count as government-handout social policies, which is what I thought you were talking about.ScottSD said:Isn't someone saying they want "environment help now" because it is getting more difficult to grow things in extreme weather saying they want it for their own benefit?patandchickens said:I cannot recall a single instance of someone on this forum saying they want <whatever gov't program> for their OWN benefit.
But if your problem is with people favoring ANY policy that has ANY practical impact on their own lives... well, that is hardly just the province of liberals. Surely some of your own preferences for what gov't should do are colored by your own needs/wants/situation, too? Like, I would betcha you're probably against an increase in taxes for whatever tax bracket you are personally in?
Yes, that is what we have said over and over in a bunch of previous threads on this subject. I have never heard anybody say "gee, I think it is really a good thing for gov't to fund lots of programs where millions of cheaters sponge off taxpayers' money for no reason other than greed or laziness". Those espousing social assistance type programs have ALWAYS been in favor of better precision in determining who gets money, to weed out as much as possible the 'cheaters'.And, I do agree with being compassionate. There are definitely times that the government needs to help out....for a time.
But when people milk it and become dependent on it....that is an entirely different story.How does the government prevent those from becoming dependent and/or abusing the system? I think if we could figure that one out, we could figure a lot of our problems.
So, if that is all you've got a problem with or claim to be confused by, it's just a straw man. Nobody is saying that in the first place.
Pat