In a republic, how much should citizens contribute back to society?
Is there an obligation to contribute?
What should society do about people who “refuse” to contribute?
Lets use 2 groups of people as examples:
1 – criminals.
2 – individuals who make a career out of welfare.*
* There is a difference in someone that uses welfare as a helping hand to get back on their feet, and someone who lives their entire life off the system. This is about people who expect society to provide for them, while returning nothing to very little back.
Society frowns upon criminals, probably because the criminal takes more from society then they contribute.
Historically, society has tolerated and somewhat frowned upon welfare. We know that members of society need a helping hand from time to time. There is no shame in needing help. The shame should come from being too lazy to help yourself.
Why are the people who are too lazy to provide for themselves not ashamed? Over the past few decades, any shame that was associated with welfare has all but disappeared. Why is that?
Why do people vocally complain about the money spent on criminals, but are less vocal with people on welfare?
Why should different groups, both of which contribute almost nothing to society, be treated differently?
Group A – too lazy to get a job, so they sell crack.
Group B – too lazy to get a job, signs up on welfare, then does nothing to improve the quality of their life.
Group C – due to religious beliefs have more children then the family can support.
Culture of entitlement
My personal opinion on the issue, society has fostered a culture of entitlement. Society has taken certain classes of people, cuddled them until those individuals lost the desire to work.
When you go into a park, there are usually signs up saying do not feed the animals. There are various reasons not to feed the animal.
A couple of reasons are:
The animals become dependent on the handouts
Once dependent, the animals lose their ability to hunt and forage
Animals will associate people with food
All of those characteristics are also displayed in career welfare individuals. They become dependent on the handouts then they lose the desire to work. In the end, they associate the government with assistance and handouts.
Just as a raccoon walks around the campsite looking for a handout, so the welfare parasite goes to the welfare office looking for food stamps.
Thomas Jefferson said “we have the wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go.”
We can not continue to pour billions of dollars into a welfare system, of which we get little back; nor can we abolish the welfare system.
Is there an obligation to contribute to society?
Besides paying your taxes, voting and staying out of trouble with the law, does the average citizen have an obligation to contribute anything else?
Are citizens required to pick up garbage, donate to various organizations,,,, required to do anything that would help our fellow man?
If you say no, citizens should not be required to contribute, then why do our taxes dollars go to prisons and welfare?
Did you know the government spends almost twice on corporate welfare, then it does on welfare to the people?
In 2006, the government spent around $59 billion on traditional social welfare programs, but $92 billion is spent on corporate subsidies. Source – Government Spends More on Corporate Welfare Subsidies than Social Welfare Programs
And we wonder why the nation has an out of control deficit?
Between traditional welfare and corporate welfare, the government either spent or lost somewhere around $151 billion.
If the government would eliminate corporate welfare and subsidies, we might have money to fix our roads and highways.
In 2006, the Federal Highway Administration said it would take $140 billion to repair every deficient bridge in the U.S.
Why dont we end welfare for low income families, stop corporate welfare and subsidies, take that money and put the people to work who are being kicked off the welfare system?
That $151 billion is doing what? Letting corporate America maximize profits, and letting welfare leeches sit on their ass.
That $151 billion is only for 1 year, which would cover only bridges. Then there is expanding the highway system, dams, rural highways, expanding rural internet services,,,, there is a lot of work to go around.
Lets use this article in the nytimes as one example,
About half of the residents receive food stamps, and one-third receive Medicaid benefits and rely on federal vouchers to help pay their housing costs.
How can a community exist when 1/3 – 1/2 receive assistance?
Lets flip that around. How can a community exist if 1/3 – 1/2 of the population were in jail? If 1/2 the population was affected by anything, the government would be asking questions.
If 1/2 the population had the flu, had chicken pox, measles, mumps,, the CDC would be all over that place. A few years ago there was an outbreak of mumps, which involved 6,584 cases.
Holy crap, really? We get 6,584 cases of mumps, and the CDC declares it an epidemic.
We have 46 million – 52 million people receiving Medicaid or Food Stamps, and the government does not give a crap?
If social assistance was a disease, the CDC would declare a state of emergency. Schools would be shut down, there would be national emergency broadcast telling people what do do,,,, there would be panic in the streets.
But when 1/2 the population receives some kind of assistance, the government keeps their mouth shut.
Latest posts by Kevin Felts (see all)
- Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Is The Result of a Root Problem - November 25, 2018
- Hunting in Seasonally Blocked River Sloughs - November 25, 2018
- What Do The 2018 Midterm Election Results Mean? - November 11, 2018
- Agenda of the Democratic Socialist Party of America - November 4, 2018
- Democrats Voting Against Their Best Interest - September 2, 2018