On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 14:06:40 -0500, DSK wrote:

JohnH wrote:
The "American system" does encourage people to work and improve their
lot in life. This is the system that let's a Pakistani immigrate, buy
a clunker, paint it yellow, and start a cab business making $30,000 a
year.

Well, if the theory was true that the sum of all gov't prgrams
overwhelmingly benefits the poor, and taxes penalize the rich, then this
would rarely happen. Most people would happily sink into "poverty" while
sucking the gov't teat.

But many do. To any normal person with some pride and ambition, living
off the government teat would not be enough. But there are those who
lack either shame or ambition, and they are perfectly happy to let the
rest of us pay for their living costs.

This doesn't happen. Therefor the theory is false.

It does happen, so the theory is true. It doesn't have to be 100% to
make it so. You also left out an important detail; most recent
immigrants come here from places which are not so "kind" with respect
to welfare. They're used to working hard for a pittance. When they get
here, they are rewarded far more for their hard work. The typical
welfare slacker, on the other hand, is an "American" by birth, and
never had a good work ethic instilled in them. They are content to
feed off the government.

One need only look at all the outrage when the welfare program was
tightened up to force recipients to "work" to be eligible, to see just
how lazy these people are.

Very simple logic,
based on very obvious real-world facts. So why do so many people try and
claim otherwise?

Because your logic is flawed, and human beings are not always logical.


But it's also the system that allows 59% of the babies born in DC to
be born out of wedlock. (Ironically, this rate is exceeded only by the
Virgin Islands, in the TANF data.)

AFAIK procreation is not regulated by the government. Is this the next
step in the new faith-based "moral values" federal government? It seems
rather incongruous for a group of people who claim to want to reduce the
size & scope of government, in theory.

No one is talking about the government regulating procreation
(Although if certain people are happy to let the government pay for
their care, the government should impose some restrictions as part of
the deal), only drawing a parallel that the same people who lack the
ambition to earn their own living also lack the responsibility to
avoid having children in a less than honorable or financially stable
environment.


Many of us 'right-wingers' (if it's necessary to call names)
understand that personal responsibility *does* fall both ways - some
folks have it, some don't.

Maybe that's the difference between a "right-winger" and a conservative.
Without using it as a pejorative, a "right-winger" is somebody who
believes at least 3 totally incompatible & illogical things and tries to
apply them rigidly as political principles.

Which are?

A conservative at least will give a passing nod to reality.


Does that include backing an obvious liberal who flies in the face of
conservative ideals?

Dave