One in six Americans is receiving help from the government.
More than 50 million people are on Medicaid
42.2 million people are on food stamps
About 8.5 million people are on unemployment and 3.9 million have benefits since last year.
4.4 million people are on welfare, an 18% increase since Obama took office.
47% of Americans don't pay federal income taxes and therefore can be considered as citizens who are obtaining most federal governental services for free.
The notion that Clinton was responsible for effective Welfare Reform in the the late 90's is one of the greatest political slight of hand tricks in our history.
He vetoed Welfare Reform twice
, before finally bowing to public pressure and signing it into law. It's testimony to his oily skills as a politician and the Left's desire to give credit even when it isn't due to one of their own, that anyone thinks he was the champion of reform.
Why would a Democrat ever want to reduce the citizenry's dependence on governmental assistance? The more people they can hook on government assistance the more reliable Democrat voters they can rely upon.
No one wants a permanent underclass dependent on the government?
Nonsense, Democrats do.
What's more, they don't want to rely solely upon an underclass, they want to expand the dependence which is why so many federal programs don't limit qualification for benefits to the officially designated "poor," but kick in for people as much as 100% or more above the official poverty line.
I've no doubt there are very many deluded liberals who think their heroes in government are just looking out for the disadvantaged and misfortunate, but this isn't the case.
Establishment Liberals consistently grossly exagerate the number of Americans who fall into the category of truly needing help. Witness how the media have blatantly and dishonestly exaggerated the number of homeless in this country.
Witness the widespread canard of a vast swath of American suffering from hunger.
If you get votes by solving problems with governmental expansion and largess it behooves you to exaggerate the problems you are claiming to combat.
Right now these programs are being funded by the 53% of Americans who do pay taxes and the Chinese.
There isn't enough wealth in this country to keep these programs funded, let alone continue to expand them.
Pure and simple, the welfare state is unsustainable as Europe is painfully coming to realize.
Leave it to Democrats who are thinking in terms of time periods as short as two years and, at the longest, six years, and there is no reason to believe that they will ever change their parasitic tune.
We all (except for the truly hopeless koolaid drinkers on the left) know that Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid as they currently operate are unsustainable, and yet every time there is an attempt to reform these programs so that they can continue in some form and not bankrupt the country, Democrats not only vote against reform, they seek to demonize those who suggest it.
Paul Ryan's budget for example.
Under his plan every major entitlement program grows as compared to current spending, and yet Obama and the Democrats cast it as Social Darwinism. It's more than their depressingly familiar trick of calling any increase that doesn't match what they want a "cut," it's lying for political gain.
Even where the Ryan budget calls for true cuts (in discretionary spending) they are not to be affected evenly across the board, but by insisting they are, Democrats (like thier leader Obama) are able to make baseless charges about widows and orphans getting the shaft.
The liberal Democrat train is riding a very straight track to national disaster and all of you who are on board are doing a great disservice to those who come after us. The **** will hit the fan if something isn't done about it and if you enable it, my hope is that you will experience the penalty when it comes due.\ rather than passing on several years before the whole country tanks and the social safety net ceases to exist.
As for Question 2, I can't speak for all Republicans but here are my thoughts:
History as shown us that no matter what ideology or economic model prevails in a country there will be varying levels of lifestyle among the populace. In communist Russia and China the gap between the elite and the commoners was greater than any ever experienced in the US.
No doubt most members have read Orwell's Animal Farm
and are aquainted with the often quoted line: "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."
Pure equality among men is a fantasy, and a harmful one at that. All attempts to force it have proven disasterous.
No matter who is in power in America there will be "poverty," which is to say there will be people at the bottom of the economic totem pole.
Even if we rid our society of all manner of illegal and immoral discrimination, there will be people at the bottom.
Our goal should be to ensure that no one who who has talent and is willing to work hard is forced to reside in the bottom because of entirely meaningless characteristics.
This doesn't mean that we should stack the cards for anyone who might fit this description.
The goal of achieving a society in which no one is denied opportunity because of immaterial characteristics is far more achievable than the goal of pure equality among us all.
I would rather bet on the inate value of each and every individual than assume we need some monolithic power, controlled by a very few elitists, to make things right.
I truly am amazed that those of you who consider yourselves liberal buy into the Progressive bullshit that we are all such idiots we need a conclave of elitists to tell us how to live.