- Joined
- Jul 15, 2005
- Messages
- 28,133
- Reaction score
- 15,017
- Location
- Canada's Capital
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
Not only did you take a flying leap off the cliff to make a lot of assumptions, but you put a lot of words into my mouth that I did not say.
I'll make this painfully clear for you, and perhaps you'll actually take the time to understand what I'm saying instead of standing on your little soap box, attacking an idea I didn't express:
1. I want to provide programs to help the poor overcome the obstacles that keep them poor, namely lack of education and job skills.
2. I never said we should remove their benefits or let children starve in the process of helping the poor acquire the above skills.
3. I never said that the poor are lazy or "parasites" or even blamed them for the lack of education or job skills.
4. My point in attacking the entitlements designed to "prevent" poverty was to point out that they don't, in fact, prevent poverty. These programs sustain people who are still living in poverty despite the money/programs.
See, I want better for the poor, and I think the programs we have no don't offer "better". I think they offer a security blanket while leaving them standing out in the cold. It doesn't solve the problem, it just makes it more tolerable.
But by all means, turn my statement into a rich vs. poor argument. Jump to conclusions. Attack me for wanting a better program and a better opportunity for people. Go ahead. It just proves you don't care what I have to say, you just want to get up there and rant away about something not only unrelated to my argument, but completely outside of any logical interpretation of what I was saying.
Hypothetically speaking, say all the poor were educated and gained job skills.
I ask you the following questions:
a) Who then would do the important but low-paying skilless jobs?
b) Would there be enough good and equivalent jobs around?