Originally Posted by Mr. I'm So Rad
That's really a moot point.
But here's the thing: Not every poor person is poor because they're some lazy slob who refuses to do anything. I'm not taking about giving a person thousands of dollars for nothing. I'm talking about people who just want to eat and have a bed or floor to sleep on...the basic necessities of human life. Did you ever learn about the 5 basic needs of human life while in elementary?
It's not irrelevant because the attitude from lots of conservatives is that it's every poor person's fault for being poor as if they control the job market and wages. Wealth can't trickle down if a rich guy doesn't want it to.
If you believe this then you really have no idea how the so called handouts you oppose really work. You can't buy whatever you want with foodstamps, and like I've said, it's not that much anyway. The most 1 person can get if they have zero income is $200 a month. And when you factor in rising food costs, and the fact that if they don't have any income they can't pay for anything else then you realize how little it really is.
So tell me, which would you rather have: $200 a month to spend on food only, or save $100,000 from getting a tax break from some loophole?
It's not though. It's like saying that the Rolling Stones have sold more albums than someone like Cream. Sure, the Rolling Stones have sold more albums, but you'd expect that as they released more albums.
The attitude of conservatives (at least me) is that why should I, as someone who earned my money, pay for someone who can't. If I can earn my money, why is it my responsibility to make sure you can earn money.
I realize you can't buy anything on food stamps, hence the almost before it. Again, why should I have to pay for someone else's food?
Obviously the 100,000 dollars. It isn't fair per say that they should get tax breaks, that's fine if they are eliminated.