Welfare

You say that, "The only function a government should display is to protect us from foreign and domestic threats such as funding the military, the police, the fireman and also regulations such as business and health." That is one of the craziest notions I have heard, who pays for the roads? Who would be willing to help you if you had a disaster and you lost your home. You need social assistance programs if you want to have a good country. How would some of us survive if we didn't have food stamps? If we didn't have social programs, the people who would be doomed would probably revolt and cause social unrest that that is not something we want to happen. You also say that, "People do want to help but they do not want give the impression that they are the only source of income. They want to help those who are genuinely in need. You say you have never heard of people getting rich off of charity but here are some links to provide evidence of the case." Your first link does say that there are beggars with a number of tactics in San Francisco and Portland but it does not say anything about getting rich. And your second link is VERY misleading because if you look at the date it's from 1905. You say that, ". Meanwhile you criticize me for making a hateful statement. Do I not have the right to despise the mindset of entitlement?" First off lets see the definition of despise "To regard with contempt, distaste, disgust, or disdain; scorn; loathe."(1) You have the right to despise that mindset of entitlement but how do you know that mindset exists in large numbers? Have you ever been poor or worked closely with the poor. I've worked at soup kitchens and the patrons are extremely happy to see the food and eat it, no matter how bad it tastes! After that statement you say, "You make it sound like I hate people in poverty when I have already explained to you that I go out to help them by my 'will'." That sounds like two contradicting statements to me. You say that, "You say that a person can't live with 1000 dollars a month and that's balony because my monthly expenses reaches below that amount considering I had fed myself paid for my car insurance, gas and room for rent that most people can find now a days and this is in Southern California." First off its spelled baloney, second the money is the income before any expenses. Lets do some math to debunk your statement! Ok I'm going to assume that you make ten dollars an hour and you have an eight hour work day and that you only work on weekdays. 10x8=80 80x20(workdays per month) 80x20= $1600. Maybe you make 8 dollars an hour which is seventy five cents above minimum wage: 8x8=64 64x20 $1280. Your statement would be false unless you are relieving welfare and living a better life with those on welfare. Lets try minimum wage just for reference. 7.25 x 8=58 58 x 20= 1160. You are only eligible for welfare if you are working part time at McDonald's. Therefore your statement is false. I am pro welfare. Maybe not the current state of welfare, but I have no problem being forced to give to the poor because I have money and I have money to give. Why should one human prosper while another suffers? You say that, " I would feel better if it went to the appropriate people but logically this type of social agenda is theft and who agrees with theft.?" Well maybe it's not theft lets do more logic. The government lets you live here, the government does not make you do forced hard labor, the government does a pretty good job compared to other governments, and you get to elect your officials instead of having a dictator. It's sort of a contract between you and the government that says "You are allowed to live and vote here only if you pay our taxes." (1)http://dictionary.reference.com...