I explained that to you and even gave an example. Go back and read my post.
I agree, however, denying assistance is not the answer. Changing the rules to allow people to supplement their assistance is the answer. Again, however, there are people who are against that. That is the compromise between people who want to help and those who don’t want to help.
Agreed. But like every other government program there are people fighting against it. Here’s a good example of what I mean. Check this out.
http://www.mmafighting.com/2011/01/...of-attention-after-obama-comment?ncid=webmail
The part between 3:00 and 4:00 minutes. "I'm starting my own business and it's not real easy when giving insurance companies the power to decline you and not pay you."
That's the guy’s concern over the health plan. It’s difficult for him and his business. Check out the video.
You keep pulling up the same strawman: "denying assistance is not the answer".
Show me ONE place where I indicated that denying assistance IS the answer.
What percentage of the population are small business owners? And what percentage are regular recipients of government assistance? If you don't know, use your own sources to look it up.
Guess which faction the government program trappers are going after? (Hint: recipients of assistance are significantly the larger group - again, BY DESIGN.)
The threat of denying assistance is part of the trap. "Oh, NO, you can't be on U/I and go to SCHOOL/TRAINING!!" Why? Because the person might actually make themselves re-employable, and no longer need the government for their daily bread.
You are correct that the idea is to disallow people to better themselves. But you are aimed at the wrong people who do not want that to happen. Think about it. What does the average tax payer want in government assistance? What has been the watch word for assistance programs for several decades now? "Hand
UP, not hand out!" Yet the DESIGN of the programs is the latter, while DELIBERATELY designed to diminish the former! Do you REALLY think it is the PEOPLE who are demanding this? IF so, you are way out of step with reality.
Suppose we had assistance programs which actually helped people better themselves so they are more employable at better paying jobs. Do you really think the tax payers would OBJECT to assistance that did this? Do you think the average small business owner would support or oppose programs that encouraged people to go out and support themselves as much as possible, then filled in the gaps between the individual's income and expenses? OF COURSE they would support such programs. Contrary to the mad wailing of people like evince, the average business owner, the average fiscal conservative, even the average wealthy person (AVERAGE, not the Darwinian extreme) do not begrudge a helping hand to people in need. What IS objected to is a system that perpetuates the situation.
So WHY is it the vast majority of programs are designed so as to DISCOURAGE people working to become self sufficient? It is NOT due to the demands of the PEOPLE, not even small business owners, and not even the rich (unless the rich person is also an elected government official). The people, from conservative to liberal WANT the "hand up, not hand out" programs, and we get "hand out, and don't you dare try to do better" programs instead. If it's not the people asking for the programs we have, WHO IS?
Think again: what happens when millions of people find themselves dependent on government assistance at election time? What is one of the central themes of democratic campaigning? "Vote for us or THEY'LL CUT YOU OFF!!" Again, the THREAT of losing assistance unless you do as GOVERNMENT says. Result: a solidly entrenched (enslaved) voting block.
