FoodBanter.com - View Single Post

jmcquown

Janet Bostwick wrote:
> "Peter A" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >,
>> says...
>>>> This is a false dichotomy. It isn't an either/or proposition.
>>>> You do not simply ignore waste in one area, because it occurs in
>>>> another.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Ranee
>>> I'm arguing for a sense of balance. There are several posters that
>>> are of
>>> the opinion that their taxes will drop dramatically if only welfare
>>> programs
>>> were eliminated or if welfare waste was eliminated. If you are
>>> going to scrutinize welfare waste and vote(you should) how you
>>> think your welfare money should be spent, you should also
>>> scrutinize other areas of government
>>> waste and vote to correct that as well. Bitching about individual
>>> examples
>>> of welfare waste is an easy thing to do. Paying attention to what
>>> is going
>>> on in local, state and federal government and participating to make
>>> changes
>>> that work is harder.
>>> Janet
>>>
>>
>> I agree 100%. If you are against government waste then you should
>> rail against the worst waste, which is certainly not in welfare
>> programs. Some people are really against welfare, but because that
>> sounds mean they convince themselves that they are really against
>> "waste."
>>
>>
>> --
>> Peter Aitken
> It's interesting to read the comments about how an individual doesn't
> qualify for a particular welfare program that would help them to
> survive or better themselves, yet the same individual wants to screw
> down benefits to others -- never realizing that the more you restrict
> the welfare programs the less is available to help people like them
> in marginal circumstances. Janet

If the individual already doesn't qualify it won't hurt them one bit if the
regulations are tightened to prevent abuse of the system by others. The
individual still isn't going to qualify.

Jill