- Joined
- Apr 20, 2013
- Messages
- 12,331
- Reaction score
- 1,941
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Well, you were by no means specific, or specific only in that in "taking more" signifies being more poor. Admitting to corporate welfare would, whether YOU brought it up or not, indicate welfare is just not for the poor. Further logic would indicate, then, welfare is not necessarily dependent on how actually "needy" one is. This obviating your whole only if they are more impoverished will they need more benefits, or as you put it, "...if someones takes in more welfare it means they are more poor"... but would rather guess it more dependent on how many votes its calculated to garner in the future while employing the vote getter's particular partisan agenda.No, if I was talking about corporations I would have said so.
So, perhaps it was you, this time, that inadvertently gave another example, not of CATO, but of you and yours trying to trick us. I understand that you truly believe what you are saying to be truth, yet it seems you are willing to ignore much in the acceptance of this "truth".
More than enough of our people, at either the low or high end, get more than is necessary currently...both ends need quit sticking their hands out, palms upwards, begging for more.