Anti-government people complaining about government budget cuts.

[MrFun]

The strategy is called "firemen first." It's how government drones fight back against calls to cut budgets: punish the populace.

That's funny you say that, because I'm sure you have no problem "punishing the populace that are on welfare."

[The Mad Monk]

...because that's the way we all think. Right?

[MrFun]

Where did I say that's how all conservatives think?

I'm referring to DD's heartlessness toward people on welfare, and then his hypocritical remark/protest about how government "punishes the populace" first, when budget slashing ensues.

[MichaeltheGreat]

That's funny you say that, because I'm sure you have no problem "punishing the populace that are on welfare."

Maybe they should look at ways of getting themselves off welfare.

[Elok]

I didn't really read that much of this thread, but last I heard Yellowstone was taking serious wear-and-tear from the constant influx of people anyway; you can't move thousands and thousands of people through a region nonstop without a marked negative effect on the ecosystem. A shorter season and fewer visitors will be better for the park.

[MrFun]

Maybe they should look at ways of getting themselves off welfare.

If a person has no post-secondary education, and has to settle for a minimum wage job, that person will still have to stay on welfare if he wants to live independently.

Of course, one could get TWO crappy, low-paying jobs, then watch their self-esteem suffer while they get burned out working 65 - 80 hours a week, and resent their situation day in and day out, and then they can get off of welfare.

Of course, taking two ****ty, thankless, low-paying jobs you have zero interest in, is even more difficult for a single mother with any kids, as she would not be able to afford daycare.

Or someone on welfare can start pursuing a post-secondary education, and then acquire tens of thousands of dollars in student loan debt on the gamble that they will be able to obtain gainful employment after graduation to begin paying back their loans.

Or maybe you're someone with a severe disability or retired senior who made poor retirement planning before retirement, that you need to rely on welfare in order to be able to live.

[The Mad Monk]

I didn't really read that much of this thread, but last I heard Yellowstone was taking serious wear-and-tear from the constant influx of people anyway; you can't move thousands and thousands of people through a region nonstop without a marked negative effect on the ecosystem. A shorter season and fewer visitors will be better for the park.

I had actually thought about that. Perhaps a park "holiday year" is in order.

[MichaeltheGreat]

If a person has no post-secondary education, and has to settle for a minimum wage job, that person will still have to stay on welfare if he wants to live independently.

Then maybe get roommates and work on education and advancement?

Of course, one could get TWO crappy, low-paying jobs, then watch their self-esteem suffer while they get burned out working 65 - 80 hours a week, and resent their situation day in and day out, and then they can get off of welfare.

We shouldn't be paying for people who made poor decisions to net resent the consequences of those decisions. There are plenty of times I've worked more than 80 hours in a week. Not for minimum wage, though, because I got off my ass and developed actual job skills.

Of course, taking two ****ty, thankless, low-paying jobs you have zero interest in, is even more difficult for a single mother with any kids, as she would not be able to afford daycare.

Then maybe she should have thought better of having kids and/or who she had the kids with? It's really not our obligation as a society to subsidize bad choices.

Or someone on welfare can start pursuing a post-secondary education, and then acquire tens of thousands of dollars in student loan debt on the gamble that they will be able to obtain gainful employment after graduation to begin paying back their loans.

Then maybe they should be real careful to study hard, get good grades, and pursue degrees or progams that translate well to the job market.

Or maybe you're someone with a severe disability or retired senior who made poor retirement planning before retirement, that you need to rely on welfare in order to be able to live.

Welfare != disability and social security. And again, poor retirement planning really isn't our responsibility.

[MrFun]

I'm not in favor of capital punishment (sentencing someone to death by starvation/extreme exposure) for people who have made mistakes/poor decisions.

I favor erring on the side of compassion and empathy/sympathy.

[giblets]

"Get a job or starve" is your idea of capital punishment?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Ah yes, because the only alternative to open ended subsidy is death by starvation or exposure. That's a truly Benesque argument.

[MrFun]

"Get a job or starve" is your idea of capital punishment?

You can have a minimum wage job, and still be at risk of becoming homeless.

[MrFun]

Ah yes, because the only alternative to open ended subsidy is death by starvation or exposure. That's a truly Benesque argument.

Nah, that's not what I'm arguing; guess my statement was too extreme.

But I still favor erring on side of compassion and sympathy/empathy. It's part of what makes me human and part of humanity.

[Elok]

I move that restrictions be placed on MtG's further use of the smiley. Also that a more competent liberal debater than MrFun be appointed to argue with him on the subject of welfare. Could be an interesting argument that we HAVEN'T done to death, but I don't have the time.

[MrFun]

Besides, why is welfare for those who really need it, attacked so much more often while the issue of corporate welfare/subsidization is often ignored?