You couldn't come up with something to add so you decided to throw down a blanket insult based on hyperbole? It wasn't even a tiny bit amusing.
While I don't agree with the OP at all, I do understand the problem he's addressing, and the frustration he feels at seeing tax dollars used to support people that seem unconcerned about supporting themselves.
No, clueless as usual, I did add something. The fact you don't understand what it was results in your post.
I don't know what you mean by "blanket insult", other than it's a cliche and you might tend to spout cliches meaninglessly. Oops, was that a blanket insult?
There's nothing "blanket" about it. It's about one statement of one person, very specific.
As for insult, that's a cheap easy word to throw around at any criticism. If I criticize Paul Ryan for shifting Medicare money to tax cuts for the rich, is that 'criticism' or 'insult'?
My point here was to say that this post is advocating having the government intrude greatly into people's lives in a cruel way. That's a criticism more than an insult.
In doing so, I highlighted that such people love to talk the talk of 'small government', but are hypcritical about it IMO when it comes to people who receive assistance.
Republicans tend to have these cruel, hateful attitudes towars anyone who receives any sort of food stamps or welfare or aid for children. They LOVE anything that attacks them, that tries to cut benefits. They have no solutions, and bad policies on the issues - just get rid of all benefits and they'll be fine! So rather than 'debate' the issue of the bad policies, I'm pointing out that this is a contradiction to their 'small government' rhetoric.
That they throw the rhetoric out the window and dehumanize when it comes to welfare.
Now, I understand the sentiment quite well, contrary to your post, and I think it's wrong.
Surprising hint for you: even progressives who strongly support assistance for the poor can stand in a grocery line, see food stamps pulled out to buy food, and feel a flash of "WHO THE HELL ARE THESE POEOPLE GETTING TAX DOLLARS, THE BASTARDS!!!!", before the next step of remembering a better understanding of the issues and supporting the food stamps - that is the thing Republicans don't do, instead RAGING against the food stamp people - and rushing to vote for a Newt Gingrich who runs a campaign based on pandering to that hatred, calling Obama the 'food stamp President', while screwing the voters he's pandering to by serving who's are really damaging to the country, e.g. Wall Street.
Look, there is a logic to saying "what the hell business do people who are struggling this much have having children they can't afford to support?"
This is an issue with different sides to discuss the tradeoffs between fiscal issues and the benefits to incenting not having chilren, versus the moral issues involved in recognizing having children as an important and moral thing for people to get to do and that helping people in poverty do so has humane beneftis, reducing the problems of poverty on them, not to mention the practical issue people tend to have children no matter what even if they can't afford them, and there are practical and moral benefits to their having care.
If you REALLY want to get people who can't afford children not to have them not to, you probably not to be a half-as about it and make it a crime with long jail sentences.
Anything less seems unlikely to do so, if even that will. By the way, something like 98% of all children born in coming decades will be to the poorest people in the world.
This is a complicated issue to discuss; not one well suited to the right-wing idiot who can contribute nothing but the 'that asshole taking food stamps' rage you have.
That's an important difference, the left better appreciates what helps create a better society, while the ragers you represent are incompetent citizens creating poverty.
You don't even understand how much progress in our society at reducing poverty is because of left-wing programs - you just take it for granted like the spoiled kids you are.
So, I'll stand by my post, which makes one point about the whole 'small government' blather going out the window when aimed at the poor, and say your response is wrong.
