That said, they also allow ( make possible) colleges to raise tuition prices well beyond any good, service or commodity being offered, while still never delivering the offering in most cases.
I would say yes to both. I think the questions arise when someone benefits from government programs bitches and whines about others benefiting from government programs, well that just seems self serving and wishy washy.
If a thief robs you, then later returns your money, are you going to refuse it because you're against theft? If you accept it, are you now a hypocrite to speak against theft?
If your premise was correct I might be persuaded.
No. I look at it like this.
To use your scenario I look at it like this.
Because we as a country don’t “pay as we go”. We don’t stay within budget. We buy on credit and expect future generations to pay for it.
You may have funded the Ponzi scheme but that doesn’t mean you paid for unfunded wars, the war on drugs, the Cold War, and everything else that Americans decided they wanted but didn’t want to pay for through taxes.
The first mistake you made was making an assumption.
It doesn’t matter if you think it’s acceptable or not though. It is a reality.
I'll follow you line of thinking and for argument sake just agree.. We screwed up in the past, have dug a hole, let's keep digging.
Nope. We ARE GOING to keep digging. Nothing from either party suggests that will end.
It is reality, each wage earner has skin in the game, money is confiscated from each and every paycheck for their (individual) supposed benefit. Not so when the government taxes an individual for the proposed benefit of another person or group that is not the future benefit.
I agree, neither party is clean. It is a grave. I made that claim a couple years ago.
But it is the “future benefit” as well as the current benefit.
It's different because one program benefits all who work and is separate from the overall Federal budget. SS is independent. The other benefits a specific group at the expense of everyone else. People who didn't already have insurance through employment were forced to buy into the new program or pay a penalty. It was the first time the Federal government mandated citizens to buy something they may not have wanted. And in order to make it work since they were required to cover preexisting conditions insurers had to increase premiums and limit benefits for everyone else. So employment insurance for most now is primarily catastrophic insurance unless you're fortunate enough to work for a company like UPS. Meanwhile the previously uninsurable enjoy better insurance than the rest of us. The best thing to come out of this is if I do contract cancer or whatever I can march down to an insurance agency and say "cover me." As an early retiree and no longer having insurance I will take advantage of the available insurance much to Bacha's chagrin if I need to because I'm watching the government print trillions while importing millions of illegal immigrants. They are going to do what they're going to do no matter what I do so I'm not going to make some principled stand but rather use what's available before it all crashes down. Why should anyone do without when the government is literally throwing money at us?
You people are trying to build cradles to carry people to their graves.
Tell me again how fiscally responsible you people are.
My state has a balanced budget, it's not run by you left wing radicals though.
Maybe you should secede.
