Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
In defense of Clang , et al
#1
It occurs to me here and elsewhere that, in the act of vilifying anyone poorer, less financially astute, and/or browner than ourselves, the argument of more beliggerent conservatives always drifts back toward "my tax dollars blablabla". And once those magic words are uttered, assholes and minds slam shut tighter than Cynical Ninja's spending allowance. More virulent jackasses (coughSallycough) view people on public assistance as persons directly robbing their bank account to party it up on the taxpayer's dime.

First: allow me to correct a glaring error in the assumption that ANY tax dollars are "yours." They aren't. They are your duty as a citizen of this country and you don't get to decide how it gets spent, at least not directly. Don't believe me? Take your w-2 down to the IRS and tell them you don't approve and would like it all back. Then time how long they laugh. Bring a calendar.

Second: let's examine the basic fallacy of "drains on society" like Clang. For argument's sake, let's put his average monthly government handout at $1,000. That's a grand of Sally's hard earned husband's money via the goddamn liberal treehuggers in Washington.

Except:

A thousand ain't much to live on, even at his mom's. Practically a given that Clang has no savings to speak of. His credit without a job is shit, which means he's strictly cash-and-carry, which limits his purchase power to local business. And all his allotment goes right back into his community: for food, lodging, gas, medicine...Clang and every other welfare case pumps a thousand buck guaranteed cash DIRECTLY into his or her local economy, and right back into the hands of hardworking taxpayers and business owner s like Sally, who actually has the nerve to bitch that he's spending government money to ensure her continued success as an entrepreneur.

Ungrateful bitch.

In short: when complaining about people's spending habits, instead of worrying about where their money came from take a minute to consider where it's going: landlords, doctors, stores, grocers, and eventually right back into your paychecks.

Meanwhile, corporate welfare cases and huge bank buyouts and subsidies on subsidies on subsidies: where is THAT money going? Not to you, angry taxpayer. Maybe that's the point of conservative media whipping up frenzy against "welfare handouts" to the poor: so we forget to be enraged at the ones really ripping us off.

/end commentary.

Firsy
Reply


Messages In This Thread
In defense of Clang , et al - by Donovan - 05-28-2013, 11:16 AM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by username - 05-28-2013, 12:10 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by sally - 05-28-2013, 12:26 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by Mohammed - 05-28-2013, 03:55 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by sally - 05-28-2013, 04:09 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by crash - 05-29-2013, 01:22 AM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by Duchess - 05-28-2013, 12:31 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by Duchess - 05-28-2013, 12:43 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by sally - 05-28-2013, 02:05 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by Duchess - 05-28-2013, 02:58 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by FAHQTOO - 05-28-2013, 03:41 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by sally - 05-28-2013, 01:46 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by username - 05-28-2013, 01:56 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by Donovan - 05-28-2013, 02:08 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by sally - 05-28-2013, 02:43 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by username - 05-28-2013, 02:13 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by sally - 05-28-2013, 03:33 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by Midwest Spy - 05-28-2013, 03:40 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by FAHQTOO - 05-28-2013, 03:51 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by Maggot - 05-28-2013, 05:59 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by Clang McFly - 05-28-2013, 10:22 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by Clang McFly - 05-28-2013, 10:23 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by sally - 05-28-2013, 10:58 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by Clang McFly - 05-29-2013, 01:04 AM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by Duchess - 05-29-2013, 06:57 AM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by sally - 05-29-2013, 11:13 AM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by Clang McFly - 05-29-2013, 04:07 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by Donovan - 05-29-2013, 12:09 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by Donovan - 05-29-2013, 12:10 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by Clang McFly - 05-29-2013, 04:08 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by sally - 05-29-2013, 04:58 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by Clang McFly - 05-29-2013, 06:17 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by Duchess - 05-29-2013, 01:28 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by Clang McFly - 05-29-2013, 04:09 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by Donovan - 05-29-2013, 02:11 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by Duchess - 05-29-2013, 04:11 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by Duchess - 05-29-2013, 04:56 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by ZEROSPHERES - 05-29-2013, 06:36 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by HairOfTheDog - 05-29-2013, 10:11 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by aussiefriend - 05-30-2013, 03:04 AM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by ZEROSPHERES - 05-30-2013, 01:52 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by ZEROSPHERES - 05-30-2013, 04:31 PM
RE: In defense of Clang , et al - by ZEROSPHERES - 05-30-2013, 06:24 PM