When to Rip the Band-Aid Off?

United States
March 26, 2011 5:55am CST
This might seem political, but since it strictly deals with "people," I thought this to be the appropriate section. Does anyone know when the right time is to cut off people's subsidies? There's a heated debate in America--and other countries can attest to the effects of dependency--about wanting to cut funding on programs that people rely on. Call them what you will, but they're essentially freebies. Some people truly do need assistance. Others, however, including huge chunks of people like our Native Americans, have been given so much assistance for so long that they seem to be bogged down completely by the government. The compassionate argument is that people need more. There's not enough government involvement. All the food stamps and checks and monitoring and community assistance and free healthcare and on and on - some say it simply isn't enough, we must do more. But why isn't it a valid argument to state the opposite? If you were to say, "Hey, maybe it's time you tried it without government" you'd be called racist, cruel, a capitalist/republican/right-winger, cold and heartless b@stard. I cannot think of an example in America where neighborhoods or towns or "groups" of people were made better by government subsidies. Just the opposite. For the average Joe or Jane, some relief might help. But on the larger scale, giving to groups and giving even more, the towns and neighborhoods and communities seem to fall into deeper holes. How can that be explained? If it's racism, the government has long since set it right. If it's because no one gives people a fair shake, the government has long been giving deference. If it's just a handout needed, the government has been plenty busy shoveling money into palms. Could it possibly be--I mean, hey, I'm just floating it!--that some people are simply relying on government to do more because government says it's going to do more? Could that be what's draining entire segments of our society? It's wealth redistribution on a controlled scale. Make no mistake about it. Also, see that it's a pure failure across the board. If you don't think it's time to take it away and believe that government should be giving even more, then please explain to me how more makes it better, as it's been "more" every time people have fallen down a rung. And without fail, every time it's "more" to help them step back up, they ultimately end up down another rung. "YIKES" screams people as matersfish rips off the collective band-aid with his godlike powers!
1 person likes this
2 responses
@dragon54u (31636)
• United States
26 Mar 11
It's not easily solved. We have generations of Americans that have lived on nothing but the government dole, it's a way of life for them and they don't know any other way to live. The government has ruined them with easy money and destroyed their potential with its "generosity" and "compassion". There really are people who need help but it should be temporary. The problem with entitlement programs is that nobody supervises them and tries to help the people receiving the money. They don't try to educate the people or help them get jobs, or train them. I do believe we're going to have to do something about these entitlements, especially Social Security--the ultimate Ponzi scheme. What did people do before SS? Well, they went to live with their children or other family. Family took care of their elders and when a family member was down on their luck, everyone else worked together to help them. It's time we got back to that and stopped relying on the government--the government isn't our family but we have come to expect it to be and we've lost a lot of liberty because of that.
• United States
26 Mar 11
I caught John Stossel's show last night and that has had me thinking all night and morning about how people can honestly look at the entitlement situation and come to the conclusion that government has to do more. I'm astonished by folks wanting to throw more money on the problem free money birthed. The whole entire thing is just twisted. It's a situation government seems to have created. Problem: so and so are disadvantaged. Solution: money and rules in their favor! Fast forward some decades... so and so are even more disadantaged. Solution: more money, because it's obvious that America is to blame, those dirty capitalists and those white males! I know Stossel is discredited now because he's on Fox Business. But he was the shizznit at 20/20 for years. Nobody had a problem with him them. He brought up that $50,000 black farmer subsidy. I remember it being argued on myLot, with opponents saying it's a BS entitlement, a door to fraud, and proponents claiming it was owed due to bigotry in the farming industry. Well, to date, over A BILLION DOLLARS has been giving to black farmers in fifty-thousand-dollar incriments, and so many supposed oppressed black farmers are coming forward that they're taking another $1,250,000,000 from taxpayers to give to farmers. All that is good and well for farmers who were truly discriminated against. But they're giving money to black people with potted plants in their home or with a garden in their yard! It's also been argued on myLot that "social justice" and "wealth redistribution" aren't happening. Well, when you give away $50k to someone because they're black and let them know that they only need to dip their thumb in green paint for a day to receive it, that's redistribution in the name of social justice. That's what a lot feared would happen: massive entitlement packages going to people simply for the heck of it. And all that's not even a drop in the bucket compared to the uberhuge Social Security. I agree it's definitely not easily solved. But a good start would be to expect people to try first, then provide an out if all else has failed. America works on the contrary if you're eligible. You get an out before you even have to struggle. The useless BS we hand out to make people dependent is ultimately hurting those who really need it, because if only the needy were provided for, we wouldn't have the mess in the first place. Thanks for the response!
@sid556 (30960)
• United States
30 May 11
I realize that some people absolutely NEED the help that they get and I would hate to see them hurt as a result of cuts and changes. Unfortunately, those are the ones who are honest and usually do get hurt when someone steps in and tries to change up the system. The ones that are cheating the system, know it well and they do actually benefit from the program. They have guys living with them that help out financially and they don't have to report that income because the guys are not the father of their children. They get more than enough food stamps which they sell for cash. They get rental assistance and all sorts of stuff. There isn't much incentive to work. In fact, the people at the Welfare office will tell them not to get a job unless it pays at least 12.00 per hour.