When someone gets a "free" car, who pays for it ? How much do the politicians get each day for their part in getting federal money for anyone or any corporation (corporate welfare) ? How much do the lobbyists get ? Why does everyone get more than the recipients of the car(s) gets ? 'Who' is it all 'supposed' to 'help' ?
All the politicians. The system. Not just one party. Who pays for it all ? Who gets paid for it all ? (ALL the politicians).... whether it is welfare, health care (broken system), military, police protection, humongous money changes hands unknown... (maybe published somewhere ? ) .... try opposing pharmacy, military, or health care (broken system) - no way then to get into office.... usually not even into the media / news....
@Beth Gallagher Nice! But, dangling principle, now I am wondering what exactly transpired at 50? I do not recall you mentioning what your career consisted of, or being forgetful, just lost it. No biggie! Frank
@Jeff Elohim In Arizona, law was passed providing paid automobile insurance for the indigent: they were driving to work illegally, and ticketing them was infringing upon their right to work and feed families. Maybe now the car provided comes complete with insurance, cost wrapped up in the bill presented to taxpayers. Frank
Well, as for me, after I passed that mark, I started telling people "I'm almost 100".... then explained what I meant (I don't look a day over 95) - I am closer to 100 than I am to zero...... "almost" being a relative adjective to me.
Is this also like the $3000.00 per month taxpayers pay for people's drugs ? (Rx) .... without price controls, without options that cost $30.00 offered, I think people just ignored , forgot, didn't know, or don't care how much it cost someone else to pay for their drugs .... I think they think "they've earned it" or are "entitled to it" ? Maybe worse result from so much money: Don't most people even brag, or at least believe that paying thousands of dollars a drug, thousands a day, thousands a month, means they are 'worth' something ? Meanwhile, back on the farm, a poor man pays $150.00 total, and no more . Once. Not twice. Not daily. Not monthly. Just once. So then, who is better off ? The healthy poor man, or the rich one who remains sick and dependent on manmade methods and toxins ?
Don't fret over the mystery; I was simply using "apex" in a sentence and didn't want to reference a triangle.
"Political" connections vs Faith (Creator's Instructions) perspective: Remember when anyone in 'Church' who needed a car got one ? (totally voluntarily, no tax dollars) The people were continually full of thanksgiving for the flow of grace and truth and love and joy rejoicing in Jesus.
Those who received the car were part of the church. They were part of that community, so their need was known to be valid. These days, people line up for free stuff not out of need, but because it is free. Heck, a couple of presidential administrations ago awards were given out because some government workers finally got the proud [stubborn] folk in the Appalachia mountains to sign up for Federal programs. The government no longer offers "assistance"...it aggressively sells it. Government comes in and cares not for true need...why would it? So now when folks have their dollars taken away to "fix that problem," they are generally not inclined to hand out more dollars to fix a problem they already gave money to resolve...and that is an intended effect on the part of the government. That being said, the people in the churches in my community do lots for folks here. I am happy to do what I can to support the activities and the situational needs that someone brings to the table on behalf of others, even if they are not part of the congregation (loss of job, house fire, etc.) I don't know how churches behave in more affluent areas, but I suspect that in these poorer regions most folks know "what it's like" to be in a bind. And in such small communities, we generally know who really has need and who could do for themselves but prefers to game the system...and we try to get the "gamers" some help to modify behaviour. But even aggregating our experiences with the people here, there are still those who receive help whose "needs" are really wants." At least we try to filter them out so resources are properly used. Meanwhile, government writes checks to dead people. This "responsible stewards of finite resources" behaviour applies to other organizations here (I've been in a few of them), but regardless of the group, the underlying motives are heavily faith-based. I saw a televised service from a church in Richmond where the pastor said "If your cup runneth over, everything that spills is wasted." Sure, it's a little hokey. But there's a valuable lesson there. Most folks I know understand that, whether or not they are conscious of it. Regarding the original topic, it's emblematic of what "government" does to patronize and to buy votes. They lower the qualifications bar for folks to receive welfare, and then use the "welfare recipient" status to attach other benefits to as though that watered-down status has any meaning left to it. And good luck being the responsible politician who later comes along and tries to "take away the benefits." ps: The "War on Poverty" was won a long time ago. A family of 4 receiving the assistance (food, housing, health care) provided by the taxpayers gets the equivalent of over $70,000 in benefits (I believe the figure is $74,000.) But that doesn't count, huh? They're still "in poverty." bull
Far far far worse than poverty. What good does it do to gain the whole world - $1 to Billions/Trillions of dollars - and lose their soul(s).