Gene Kearns wrote:

On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 12:37:49 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote:


As opposed to you guys on the left, who would take away from those who
work hard, in order to prop up those who won't? Yea, that's real
fair....

Dave


The straw man you have raised is truly unfair. I don't think anybody
would feel "that tak(ing) away from those who work hard, in order to
prop up those who won't" is fair or makes any sense, at all.

Is it? When you have democratic presidential hopefulls attempting to
create class warfare by declaring that a nominal tax cut is a "tax break
for the rich"(even though everyone gets the same percentage of tax
relief), the underlying message is that when the people who pay the
most, get more back, it's somehow unfair to those who put in little or
nothing. The obvious implication is that these politicians are
acknowleging that those who pay the most, are the ones providing the
money to fund those who aren't. If those who pay more get a bigger
break, then there won't be money left to fund programs to support those
who aren't paying. In other words, they are defending redistribution of
wealth, by denouncing tax breaks.


Trouble is, your straw man just doesn't reflect reality.

Not quite yet, but if those on the left have their way, we will move
closer and closer to a socialist system, where the burden of providing
cradle to grave services, will be borne by the middle and upper economic
classes (according to their means). It costs tons of money to provide
services like universal healthcare, child care, etc.

True, there
are some that would abuse the system... but they are a small
percentage and workfare has helped reduce that number.

But bear in mind that human nature dictates that your degree of
motivation is directly proportional to the urgency of your situation. If
you are somewhat "comfortable", barely making ends meet, especially if
the government is subsidizing you in some way, then you are less likely
to invest a lot of effort into improving your skillset or your
marketability. If you are about to be put out on the street, and you
know there are no safety nets, you will be a little more interested in
making changes to improve your situation.


Bear in mind that a working American is also a tax paying American.

Some much more than others.


When you go to the polls vote for a candidate that lends a helping
hand to those that need it,

And that is the basic bone of contention; the definition of "need". To
me, a "needy" person is someone who is unable to make a better life for
themselves, due to a physical or mental condition. Anyone else, can be
trained to work in a productive manner. To simply throw your hands up,
and give up because you aren't qualified for any job which pays higher
than McDonalds or Wal-Mart, does not make you "needy".

The issue of the ever changing job market, and the erosion of manual
manufacturing labor jobs, makes this all the more important to
understand. Everyone of high school age, needs to be responsible enough
to pick a good career path and receive the proper education.

Dave