Low taxes are a subsidy?

[Deacon]

JudgeMental, hyperbole doesn't mean impossible. It is referring to your use of a rare worst-case-scenario, whereby exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect. And the medical bills were paid without forcefully taking earnings from strangers to do so, and they seem to be doing alright now, though at some point the son ought to consider getting a job. I agree that if Welfare were to be reserved for those instances where it's truly needed and deserved, it would be far less objectionable.

[JudgeMental]

He did and does.

And I think that welfare was originally intended for the worse-case scenario. Problem is, like the rest of the government, it's become so bloated and wasteful... The issue, naturally, isn't helping those in need. It's in helping those in need while not supporting those who COULD support themselves, but won't by choice, one way or another.

I know that the situation I described was quite out there, but you were sounding to me like the system is wholly corrupt (might not get argument from me there) and that anyone who was getting from welfare should just get off their lazy ass and work. I just wanted to point out that such is not ALWAYS the case.

[Deacon]

There are always exceptions to the rule, yes.

[JudgeMental]

Out of curiosity, from where do you derive your stance? That is, have you met lots of people on welfare who shouldn't be on welfare, have you checked some kind of statistics page, that kind of thing.

[Deacon]

I thought it was pretty much common knowledge that there are exceptions to nearly every rule...

[JudgeMental]

No no, I meant your general stance, that welfare is subsidizing the lazy, or something to that effect. I don't feel like summarizing your own stance for you

[Captain Pink]

[quote="JudgeMental";p="716224"]He did and does.

... it's become so bloated and wasteful... [/quote]
This is why I say: Give everyone a bite and do not waste the money on deciding who deserves it more.

@Deacon:
You want a point? So then come get it:
Those people have many opportunities, but surely not the opportunity to work and earn money.
And a paralyzed person does need more than a wheel chair. you need a home that is a least minimal fitting for a disabled person, since you need a new bed, an elevator and a new bathroom, since you can not enter the bath tube or the shower the normal way or use the toilet without handlebars aso. speaking of toilet, many paralyzed persons are not able to hold their excrements, so they need diapers, which need to be changed. If you have someone in the family who can take care of all this, fine. For those who do not have it, the welfare is needed.
And I am working as a mechanic. If I would be paralyzed, I would not be able to work in this job anymore. Perhaps I cold find a job at an office, where I could work without my legs, but I surely have to do some training on this. Until this would be finished, I would need money I could not earn. Luckily I have a private insurance that will cover these costs, but many people can not afford this.

[Deacon]

[quote="Captain Pink";p="716614"]Those people have many opportunities, but surely not the opportunity to work and earn money.[/quote]
Which people?

And a paralyzed person does need more than a wheel chair. you need a home that is a least minimal fitting for a disabled person, since you need a new bed, an elevator and a new bathroom, since you can not enter the bath tube or the shower the normal way or use the toilet without handlebars aso. speaking of toilet, many paralyzed persons are not able to hold their excrements, so they need diapers, which need to be changed.

What bullshit. Maybe this is how Europeans think, but in the US this is not a big deal. First of all, entrances are rarely difficult. Putting a short ramp in front of the entrance to the garage is very easy and cheap. You don't usually need a new bed, you never need an elevator unless you have a strangely designed house, and a new bathroom is almost never needed, either. And even if all of those things were true because you had the world's worst-designed house, the answer is pretty simple: move. Here in the US moving to another house is an option, especially if you own the one your in to begin with...

And changing diapers? What? That's certainly not universal, but I would be shocked if there were no solution that didn't involve being followed around the office by a nurse.

And I am working as a mechanic. If I would be paralyzed, I would not be able to work in this job anymore. Perhaps I cold find a job at an office, where I could work without my legs, but I surely have to do some training on this. Until this would be finished, I would need money I could not earn.

Wow, it sounds like you really need to expand your skillset to avoid being bitten by the world's worst career planning. I mean, you're obviously not a very good mechanic if the loss of your legs would mean you are of no use to anyone in the industry.

Luckily I have a private insurance that will cover these costs, but many people can not afford this.

Really? Why not? And those that truly can't afford it are usually the ones with the biggest families, so there should be no problem there.

[minsx]

It's not that I think that people don't need it or deserve it or the like, but I do have a problem with the government taking my money at the point of law and "forcing" me to be charitable with it.

While I do believe it is the job of society to help the less fortunate, I don't believe it is the job of the government to do so. Nor do I really believe that the government does so in a responsible manner: not necessarily the result of evil government so much as it is the result of inevitable bureaucracy. For this reason I would readily support an end to welfare with an emphasis on responsible personal charitable spending.

I'm sure that I can find a number of charitable institutions that don't have the bloated, inefficient system with high overhead that the welfare system supports. At least of the ones I'm aware of run with volunteer help, or employ individuals that desperately need work or to learn new job skills, and so their employment can be considered charitable in and of itself.

In addition, this kind of system allows for people to support what they're willing to support: whether that means donating to help nuclear families whose head of household needs job training, or donating to support the woman with 5 children by 4 different men who wants a free ride.

[Arres]

[quote="Captain Pink";p="716614"]Those people have many opportunities, but surely not the opportunity to work and earn money. [/quote]

This is utter BS. I knew a young lady a few years back, who in childhood had gotten chicken pox. In and of itself, this isn't a problem. Unfortunately, it got bad, went internal and got on her heart. Due to circulation/improper medical care, whatever, she lost both legs above the knee and both arms above the elbow.

She had a job, and her own apartment. Girl had no arms or legs! AND WAS EMPLOYED. Short of being a quadrapalegic, get a goddamn job.

[Deacon]

Or think of a good idea and start a company so you can hire people to do your shit for you

[adciv]

Or look at Stephen Hawking. No, I'll admit not everyone has a 200 IQ. However, he can't even move his arms or legs and still has a job.

[Martin Blank]

And he has affairs with his nurses that lead to his wives divorcing him.

[mikehendo]

[quote="adciv";p="716828"]Or look at Stephen Hawking. No, I'll admit not everyone has a 200 IQ. However, he can't even move his arms or legs and still has a job.[/quote]Nor was he always like that.. and, you cant fire someone for thier disabilities..

[adciv]

Depends. If it prevents them from doing the job they were hired to do...