On Feb 6, 11:59 pm, frankg <[email protected]> wrote: > Studio, > > Question for you; suppose you want to help ten people who need shoes. > Shoes can be purchased for $10 a pair so you provide $100. You are > later told that only six pairs of shoes were purchased but there’s > nothing left of your $100. What do you do – do you give them another > $40 or do you find out who took the $40 that wasn’t spent on shoes?
Since I've already purchased the 10 pair of shoes myself...the money question is mute. Plus they didn't cost $10., I got them at the bargain prices of $5 or less...so that means I have another $50+ to buy them other things. > How many hundreds of billions of dollars can be saved by eliminating > waste, fraud and abuse from Medicare? ..or the Military? ..or even > the National Census? I mean, there’s just so many places to save it’s > hard to know where to begin. But despite the obvious, apparently no > one is willing to risk their campaign on promises to clean house. It’s > far more attractive to promise more funding for and endless stream of > ‘programs’. I agree. > This administration and this Congress is putting even the most > wasteful of veteran politicians to shame. But I refuse to think of > this as a Democrat vs Republican issue because it is ALL politicians. > NONE of them would spend like this if it was their money and it is > this reckless spending that incents people to take from society rather > than contribute to it. I agree. I love how celebrities and politicians can contribute "their time" to a cause, but everyone else is expected to contribute their time and money and/or goods to the cause. > You dismiss the concept of the opening post as nonsense yet you ignore > that there is empirical data to back it up, my own sister-in-law being > an obvious example. I can guarantee you that should the government > stop paying her unemployment (she clearly does not deserve it) and > should they stop paying SS child disability (since she doesn’t really > qualify) that she would get up off her fat ass and go earn a living. > But the government enables her to be a lazy, non-contributing leech on > society, and she is more than happy to oblige. Well, suffice it to say I have no way of really knowing enough about that situation other than what you say about it to really comment on it. Regardless, she is not the problem, or the solution. You might be tempted to reason that government is the problem and solve it from that perspective by eliminating these institutions. But most likely, it would just transfer the problem to the "free market", where she, or others, could be left to die because there's not enough profit in it for them, and/or turned into Soylent Green for profit. Would that somehow be a better solution? You really do have to be careful what you wish for. If you think government is bad, you may not have seen a worse alternative yet. Personally, I'm my own governor. Yes even in this world as it is, I can govern myself just fine, I've no need for government at all. But the problem is the vast majority of people either can't be their own governor through their own over-riding ignorance, or, they have an insatiable want, to be yours, with the help of the the fore mentioned. Human beings as a whole, have simply not evolved far enough yet. And will not as long as they hold on to superstitious and unsubstantiated belief systems. "There are two things that are infinite. Human stupidity and the universe. And I'm not sure about the universe". -Albert Einstein Please take note that Einstein isn't referring to a political party. -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
