Conversely, on what basis do the proponents of free shit firmly believe they, as adults should expect others to pay their way, for their bad choices, for their children they themselves can’t afford, for their booze, for the cigarettes, their weed, their flatscreen t.v.’s..etc etc?
I’m genuinely curious how at any point one can arrive at “others OWE me a better life” and how such an ideology can be championed by so many?
What about this state of mind is AMERICAN in any way?
Dear
BrokeLoser:
1. Many on the left see Corporate interests as taking advantage of
freedoms and laborer resources in this country to make huge profits
where they assume such profiteers can afford to pay so much in taxes,
this can easily fund education and health care instead of trillions spent on military.
2. Many believe the same way funding military defense is needed for public
protection, paying for health care is equally necessary for public safety.
3. They don't get the mathematical relation between corporations
MAKING all the money, and the freedom to invest tax breaks into their business
development. They think the same money can be made while raising taxes
on these "wealthy" businesses and it won't affect the businesses' ability to generate the same profits to invest.
4. They don't see it as abuse to deprive "wealthy" people of income through taxes
but believe it is "immoral" to make that much money and "not be REQUIRED through
GOVT" to pay it through taxes to help others. They don't trust charities or churches to
be enough to help voluntarily with free choice to help others, and believe GOVT
is the only way to manage equal access to help for EVERYONE so rights and protections
are EQUALLY guaranteed.
They believe promoting social welfare as a more critical duty of govt to protect people
rather than "due process before depriving people of liberty" which they take for granted
living in America and thinking that's automatic. They don't see govt involvement as
a threat to that democratic ability (but blame RELIGIOUS groups for abusing govt
to ỉnfringe such as with opposing regulation of abortion and reproductive rights
and LGBT and marriage rights - they see this imposition as the CHURCH's fault which they do not trust, not the Govt which they trust to protect them from the church influence they see
as the bigger threat to freedom)
In short, they want the same charity and help for the needy that the Church
and Christianity takes responsibility for; but they don't want to meet those conditions.
So they want the State/Govt to provide that help for everyone WITHOUT
religious or behavioral conditions that private programs would apply.
They forget that the Govt is run not just on their representation and tax contributions,
but INCLUDES the same people who believe as the Christians and Churches do,
that help should be localized and voluntary where there is accountability not just
a free ride and bailout without any agreement on the terms of donating help.
The liberals who think this way believe once taxes are collected by govt
and/of people get elected, then that money and representation can be used
in any way by the people "yelling the loudest" and using majority rule or
court ruling to DICTATE policy, regardless of the other people who should be represented.
Once they believe it's public money, they think they have the right to lobby
to put it where they believe, REGARDLESS of Constitutional limits and process
(or beliefs of other taxpayers) they don't believe is required WITHOUT COURT ORDER.
This why believe we should separate political beliefs organized by party
and agree to fund or defund programs by consent of the membership bases,
so everyone agrees where theỉr taxes go, instead of leaving it to chance
on who gets elected or wins in court. Like two divorcing parents who don't
agree who should pay more for the kids and education, there should be
one joint fund dedicated to what they agree to pay for. And what they want
to pay for separately should come out of theỉr individual accounts without
any interference by the other party who isn't forced to contribute to that account.
Where you don't agree, then pay for it separately and quit fighting
and trying to force the other person to pay for it. And whatever is
legally necessary for both parents to pay for ie the kids' food, expenses and
schooling, you work out an agreement on that part alone.
The terms and conditions should be agreed on by the people paying.
That's the part many liberals miss because they believe once it is
in government hands, it's public and they have a right to use it as they want.
