This is such a typical strawman argument that Liberals use to demonise conservative, and paint them as heartless. As a conservative I have no problem with helping people out, and id be willing to bet if we compared tax returns, i donate as much, if not more than you do to charity. When i do hand money to someone though, I am very specific about where its going, the government doesnt want to put the same kind of controls in place, thus they create a permanent class of people who simply choose not to work. Every year at Christmas time instead of buying presents for each other my family puts together what each person can afford, and my old man goes and talks to a priest he knows who works with alcoholics, and homeless people, he gives him the cash. The main thing is when he gives Father Brad the cash to go work with people, he tells him to go and find people who are out there really trying to make a difference in their lives who are simply down and out on their luck, or people who want to make a legitimate change in their lives, or other lives. He also very specifically says he doesnt want any of the money going to someone who has no desire to change their lifestyle, or any desire to support themselves. Thats the difference between conservatives and liberals, we believe in donating money to people who need it, but that is not a one way street in our view, they have to do something in order to deserve it as well. Liberals believe in simply handing out money to anyone who doesnt have it, regardless of the situation, or who caused the person to be in that position, liberals create dependency, where as conservatives empower people to help themselves, if they so choose. Look at a right wing economist like Dambisa Moyo, who has the courage to point out the fact that simply handing african countries money has been a complete and utter disaster, and it has caused them more poverty than gain, liberals seem to believe that if you just hand a person enough money, with no expectation, that the person is going to suddenly change their behaviour, when reality has consistently shown us that subsidizing poverty simply causes more poverty. <iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/pXWIUg30Cpk?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Quote from bigarrow: My Grandma told me during the great depression men and sometimes families traveling used to stop by asking for a bite to eat and maybe a place to spend the night. Grandma's family was dirt poor in Arkansas but they did own a farm and raised animals and grew some food. She said they would feed people when they could. Sometimes the travelers would work around the farm and sometimes just eat a bowl of soup and hit the road. Guess Scat comes from different stock than what I did. --------------- That's what normal people did during the depression, numbnuts. I was told stories of people coming to our back door asking for something to eat and they were always given something. People during that time didn't fear strangers coming to the door like they do today. People were more giving, trust worthy and honorable. Even those down on their luck having to bum around for food were principled. It was a kinder, better world in America then with people taking care of each other rather than the government doing it with all the fraud and abuse built in. Government social programs have ruined much of American values and Obama wants to finish the job.
Giving some hungry man a meal isn't the same has having him barge into your your house, plop down on your couch and expecting you to provide for him the rest of his life. Besides, by the time Grandpa was passing his wisdom along to me, the Great Depression had been over for 30 years.
Liberals dont understand the difference, nor do they want to change anything about the way it currently works. You want proof, just look at how we pay more and more to people who keep having more kids. Conveniently all those kids will end up voting for them which is why they have no desire to stop it. Imagine the outrage we would hear from the pro abortion party if we were to simply say, "Anyone who is recieving government assistance, or wants government assistance must take some form of birth control, for atleast the length of time while they are receieving assistance." Anyone who legitimately wants to turn their life around, or anyone who legitimately wants to live a self sustaining life would not be interested in having kids while they cant even support themselves, so this should be a no brainer. Add to that the dead beat fathers who wont pay child support, those guys should be forced to have vasectomy's in order to leave prison, no more of this bullshit with people who dont care having 11 kids they cant pay for.
The Japanese are quite responsible people anyway, most of them would not shirk from work. Guess things are getting pretty bad.
That is different. I didn't know people were barging in and plopping down on your grandpa's couch and stayed forever or until grandpa died. That would be unpleasant. Question, if it's ok to give a grown man, who is hungry a meal, is it ok to feed a baby who is hungry or what about children is it ok to feed a child, providing he is hungry of course?