“You have already made the trip from conservative to moderate supporting the govt. safety net.”
This is BS. These are all programs that we’ve supported with our tax dollars for decades.
I think there is general agreement that there should be a safety net, or perhaps you’d prefer India.
The unkindliness here is disturbing.
I would say something else, but I won’t.
The unkindliness here is disturbing.”
***
Government should not be doing charity. The programs we already have are loaded with waste, fraud and corruption. Another thing: With government, our “charity” is forced through taxes.
I would rather government get out of the charity business and out of everything business-related. Maybe then our taxes would be lower, people would be employed and we would all have enough money to help those in need — voluntarily.
“I think there is general agreement that there should be a safety net”
There is a safety net of 26 weeks of unemployment where there is consensus.
Most moderate rino republicans support 26 weeks, not 99 weeks or almost 2 years.
Mostly the democrats support 2 years.
Those attitudes were formed before and during the Reagan Administration, and aimed at the 60's-70's loser class that sucked down so many government benefits back then.
Those attitudes are not to be expressed toward white middle class unemployed Americans who are today under deliberate, violent attack from the 60's radicals who have taken over large parts of government - an attack driven by rage over those very Reagan Administration attitudes that deprived said radicals of the free ride they think they deserved over the last 30 years.
There is a lot of confusion about who is on whose side - hopefully, the critics will straighten out their thinking and stop attacking the wrong people before Civil War II begins.
Forget being condescending toward your unemployed allies who aren't willing to spend what little money they have left moving to North Dakota to become oil truck drivers. Save that condescension for Obama, Holder, and Jarrett.