Cons, would you still oppose welfare, housing subsidies, food stamps, Soc.Sec., if you were not paying for it?
What if gambling revenue, legalized dope, alchohol, ciggys, and legal red light districts paid for it?
What if gambling revenue, legalized dope, alchohol, ciggys, and legal red light districts paid for it?
?
Favorite Answer
As much as I hate to admit it, you've asked a good question. I don't expect that from liberals. You're unusual.
In answer to your question, I would not oppose welfare, if I weren't paying for it.
ἠγέρθη
It's not the funding of the system that I oppose. It's what it encourages.
If you don't work, you don't eat. It sucks, but it's fair. I wouldn't be opposed to a system that made people earn their checks. Like creating jobs for people who don't have enough money. They could build roads, bridges, schools, libraries, hospitals. Others could be hired to help maintain these things, instead of handing out checks to people who do not do anything for the system in return.
Oh wait, we already have these things. They just don't have adequate funding or labor....
Anonymous
Yes, I would still oppose it.
Transforming the population into lazy parasites is bad enough.
Financing it with vice (thus creating an incentive to promote vice) would make things even worse.
Have you ever heard of Soddom and Gomorrah?
Loosid
Its called charity and that is the way it had always been done. People took care of people and the choice was still ours to make.
Now, many of us give to charities on top of what the governement demands of us.
Sidenote: Do you know that US Americans are (by far) the most generous peoples :)
RACIST
I would oppose it because it creates a society of dependents on the government and does not hold any incentives to provide for your self or your family like those of us who work do.~