Citizens: How much should the government spend and control over their lives?
i'm starting to see the old obama, cloward and piven line again...imo...it is hyperbole to the extent of being, likely, dishonest. i say likely, because i don't know obama's true intentions.
the struggle between the left and right seems to be about how much government control should we allow over our private lives. some on the right believe the bedroom is not private, some on the left believe our thoughts are not private. some on the right believe we should spend next to or nothing to help people, some on the left believe only the government or the government is the main party responsible for providing us our daily needs.
so how much?
It appears some folks fail to understand the reason or cause of government interference.
Let's take ObamaCare as an example. Consider all the rules and regulations applied to insurance companies. The interference in private insurance plans; what insurance plan one must have, what it must cover, etc. So people ask, "Why all the control?"
The same applies to welfare. Why all the regulations? You must do 'this'. You can't do 'that'. If you live with someone the benefits are cut which, by the way, leads directly to families being broken apart. One can't get a part-time, temporary job without the threat of losing all their benefits or jumping through hoops of regulations.
So, why all the regulations? Why does the government want to micro-manage people's lives?
Well, the answer is quite simple. Those opposed to any government help insist on rules and regulations and interference. While they begrudgingly vote for social programs they try to make them difficult to obtain and as intrusive as possible. The motto is, “If we’re going to help you we’re going to make your life miserable.”
(SmarterThanYou;981894)a federal safety net is full of bureaucracy, red tape, waste and fraud, and leaves a gaping abyss for those in need to fall through and suffer.
Again, the reason is all the restrictions/conditions placed on helping people. Governments with a philosophical aversion to helping deliberately make programs inefficient in order for them to fail. They don’t want the programs to work.
Look at North Carolina. Just recently (last year) they have permitted people to attend school while collecting unemployment. Prior to that the attitude was, “why pay people to go to school?” Businesses paying into UI would rather have people stay at home and let the program run out rather than let people improve their chances of employment by them increasing their education.
That money stolen by a federal tax could be put to a much better use in safety nets if it's done at the state, or even county level, with way less fraud, waste, and red tape.
Have you ever lived in a small town? Do you think local programs would treat people equally?
One tends to forget society had years to try local initiatives. From SS to welfare over one thousand, nine hundred (1900) years passed before governments had to take over.
The solution is a guaranteed income. No favorites. No special conditions. No loopholes. No red tape. No holes to fall through.
On that note it's siesta time.
