Setanta wrote:mysteryman wrote:What I meant is that I DO believe that those people that want to turn us into a "nanny state",where the govt takes care of us from cradle to grave,where conservative values like personal responsibility are denigrated,where self reliance is deemed as an aberration instead of the norm,those people are in my opinion wrong in their beliefs.
Of Course,those same people think I am wrong in my beliefs.
The difference is,those people are trying to force their opinions and agenda on everybody else (in my view),and I'm not.
You have a basic disconnect in operation here, MM. Although there are extremists who might favor something like your perceived "nanny state," it is not correct to assume that people who support state welfare programs are in favor of programs
as you describe them. It is not only entirely possible, it is true that many people support the concept of aid to dependent children, and oppose "welfare cheaters" and those who have children simply to qualify for more benefits.
What is even worse about your castigation of those with whom you disagree is your assumption that self-reliance is denigrated, and perceived as an aberration. It does not automatically follow that those who support programs such as aid to dependent children do not believe in self-reliance.
This is the crux of anger in political debate--rather than simply note that you oppose public welfare, you indulge in a fanatasy of polar opposition to all that you believe on the part of those who disagree with you on that issue. You aren't meeting people half-way, you are simply assuming that if someone doesn't agree with you in every particular, that you can state with assurance that they hold an entire array of beliefs worthy of your contempt. That certainly will never lead to understanding between people from different political points of view.
I have no problem with welfare,but I think it needs to be fixed.
For those who TRULY NEED it,I say give them all the help they need.
BUT,it was not meant to be used as an income,nor was it meant to replace working.
IMHO,those on welfare should be made to work for it,if they are physically able.
There are plenty of highways that need trash picked up,weeds pulled,grass mowed,etc.
I DO have a problem with able-bodied people getting welfare because they are to lazy to work.
The "nanny state" people I spoke of are those that demand free health care,free college educations,gauranteed jobs,etc.
They want the govt to care for us from "cradle to grave",and they are aghast that anyone can live without the govt helping them.
These are the people that want to take from the rich,just because they are successful (and NO,I'm not rich).
As far as personal responsibility goes,we have all seen and heard stories on the news about people that make a foolish choice,then refuse to accept the results.
Remember the woman that sued McDonalds because she spilt hot coffee on her lap?
She knew the coffee was hot,yet she put it between her legs WITHOUT a lid,then sued McDonalds when she got scalded.
It was HER CHOICE to put the coffee there,not McDonalds.
There are news reports all the time about a drunk driver that sues a bar when he has an accident,or someone that points a gun at a cop then sues when he gets shot.
That is what I mean.It seems like those kinds of lawsuits are veing encouraged all the time.
Pick up any copy of the Sunday LA Times.
Loiok in the classified section and you will see many ads from lawyers stating..."Have you EVER been in an accident with a truck? Even if it was YOUR FAULT,call us and we will get you money".
How is that accepting personal responsibility?
