-
Hello!
Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.
Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....
Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.
Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.
Example of What's Wrong with America
- Thread starter Camby
- Start date
kathylove
Pragmatic & Logical
"...The freedom to bodily autonomy obviously outweighs freedom from taxation for me."
I guess that is true if that is the only choice we have. But it seems to be two sides of the same coin as to whether we give up rights to bodily freedom or freedom use the fruits of our labor as we see fit.
"I think the obstructionism comes from the party of lessor power at the time."
I think there is a lot of truth to that statement.
"The frickin' polarization just gets more absurd everytime people try to say it's not happening, it's the *other* side doing all that! "
That is also true. But if "the other side" (whichever side it is) is proposing legislation that is totally against their principles, then would you have them dump those in order to not be obstructive?
As far as I remember, most Dems voted for the big health care bill, and NO Republicans did. The Dems had enough majority to pass it regardless. From what I remember of the debate, they knew they didn't need GOP help, so weren't too eager to compromise. So I don't see a lot of alternative to obstructionism in many cases. And both sides are guilty, although I do think the party in power doesn't really need to "obstruct" as much as the other party does, in order to accomplish their goals.
"...and the libertarians coming out of the woodworks who have misappropriated the idea of individualism (meaning all individuals important) and turned it into egoism in order to justify their selfishness and naivete..."
I am not sure exactly which ideas or proposals this is in reference to?
I guess that is true if that is the only choice we have. But it seems to be two sides of the same coin as to whether we give up rights to bodily freedom or freedom use the fruits of our labor as we see fit.
"I think the obstructionism comes from the party of lessor power at the time."
I think there is a lot of truth to that statement.
"The frickin' polarization just gets more absurd everytime people try to say it's not happening, it's the *other* side doing all that! "
That is also true. But if "the other side" (whichever side it is) is proposing legislation that is totally against their principles, then would you have them dump those in order to not be obstructive?
As far as I remember, most Dems voted for the big health care bill, and NO Republicans did. The Dems had enough majority to pass it regardless. From what I remember of the debate, they knew they didn't need GOP help, so weren't too eager to compromise. So I don't see a lot of alternative to obstructionism in many cases. And both sides are guilty, although I do think the party in power doesn't really need to "obstruct" as much as the other party does, in order to accomplish their goals.
"...and the libertarians coming out of the woodworks who have misappropriated the idea of individualism (meaning all individuals important) and turned it into egoism in order to justify their selfishness and naivete..."
I am not sure exactly which ideas or proposals this is in reference to?
Shiari
Blutterer
TSST, I chose those words for the dems because the other option in my brain was "jello-spined *expletive**expletive*s". I didn't feel like an infraction today.
Kathy, that's in reference to the idea of this mystical magical "free market" that automatically fixes every single woe in the universe + the desire to repeal anti-discrimination laws.
Because we all know that *de-regulating* an industry will totally make it clean up its act and spend *more* money to be less poluting rather than cut corners so they can make more money... /sarcasm.
Kathy, that's in reference to the idea of this mystical magical "free market" that automatically fixes every single woe in the universe + the desire to repeal anti-discrimination laws.
Because we all know that *de-regulating* an industry will totally make it clean up its act and spend *more* money to be less poluting rather than cut corners so they can make more money... /sarcasm.
kathylove
Pragmatic & Logical
I just received this email, and it seems appropriate to the discussion...
From an email - this actually describes very well how I feel about the erosion of our freedoms as they disappear one by one...
"THIS IS TRULY THOUGHT PROVOKING.
There was a chemistry professor in a large college that had some exchange students in the class.
One day while the class was in the lab, the professor noticed one young man, an exchange student, who kept rubbing his back and stretching as if his back hurt. The professor asked the young man what was the matter.
The student told him he had a bullet lodged in his back. He had been shot while fighting communists in his native country who were trying to overthrow his country's government and install a new communist regime.
In the midst of his story, he looked at the professor and asked a strange question. He asked: "Do you know how to catch wild pigs?"
The professor thought it was a joke and asked for the punch line.
The young man said that it was no joke. "You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground."
The pigs find it and begin to come every day to eat the free corn."
"When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming."
"When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence."
"They get used to that and start to eat again. You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in the last side."
"The pigs, which are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat that free corn again."
"You then slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd. Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom."
"They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to eating the free corn."
"They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity."
The young man then told the professor that is exactly what he sees happening in America .
The government keeps pushing us toward Communism/Socialism and keeps spreading the free corn out in the form of programs such as supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, tax exemptions, tobacco subsidies, dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops (CRP), welfare, medicine, drugs, etc.
While we continually lose our freedoms, just a little at a time.
One should always remember two truths:
There is no such thing as a free lunch and you can never hire someone to provide a service for you cheaper than you can do it yourself.
If you see that all of this wonderful government 'help' is a problem confronting the future of democracy in America , you might want to send this on to your friends.
If you think the free ride is essential to your way of life, then you will probably delete this email.
But God help you when the gate slams shut"
From an email - this actually describes very well how I feel about the erosion of our freedoms as they disappear one by one...
"THIS IS TRULY THOUGHT PROVOKING.
There was a chemistry professor in a large college that had some exchange students in the class.
One day while the class was in the lab, the professor noticed one young man, an exchange student, who kept rubbing his back and stretching as if his back hurt. The professor asked the young man what was the matter.
The student told him he had a bullet lodged in his back. He had been shot while fighting communists in his native country who were trying to overthrow his country's government and install a new communist regime.
In the midst of his story, he looked at the professor and asked a strange question. He asked: "Do you know how to catch wild pigs?"
The professor thought it was a joke and asked for the punch line.
The young man said that it was no joke. "You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground."
The pigs find it and begin to come every day to eat the free corn."
"When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming."
"When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence."
"They get used to that and start to eat again. You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in the last side."
"The pigs, which are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat that free corn again."
"You then slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd. Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom."
"They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to eating the free corn."
"They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity."
The young man then told the professor that is exactly what he sees happening in America .
The government keeps pushing us toward Communism/Socialism and keeps spreading the free corn out in the form of programs such as supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, tax exemptions, tobacco subsidies, dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops (CRP), welfare, medicine, drugs, etc.
While we continually lose our freedoms, just a little at a time.
One should always remember two truths:
There is no such thing as a free lunch and you can never hire someone to provide a service for you cheaper than you can do it yourself.
If you see that all of this wonderful government 'help' is a problem confronting the future of democracy in America , you might want to send this on to your friends.
If you think the free ride is essential to your way of life, then you will probably delete this email.
But God help you when the gate slams shut"
Shiari
Blutterer
Quite a few good points... except the above. That is a falsehood.
Would it technically have been cheaper dollar-wise to have removed my appendix myself? Sure. But the final cost would have been my own death.
Services, such as healthcare and infrastructure are NOT 'cheaper' to do yourself.
Also, if everyone grew their own food, made their own clothes, performed their own healthcare, etc we'd have no time to do anything else. We'd be too busy to advance science. We'd be too busy to look beyond ourselves. It would be a step back to the feudal era as large city populations would be forced to disperse so that families could find enough land to support themselves. There would be chaos as people would try to settle on any land they could and claim it to farm.
There would also be massive layoffs if people began doing everything for themselves. And rampant spread of disease as most of our sanitation is another "freebie" the gov't hands out.
kathylove
Pragmatic & Logical
Yes, I have to agree with you. If the email would have said "usually" or "often", then I would have agreed with it. But they spoke in absolutes, I guess to get the point across. So I only agree with about 90 - 95% of it - not the whole thing, lol!
It is the idea of "turning up the fire slowly so the lobster doesn't know it is being cooked" part of it that I really liked, not the explanation afterwards. I think it is so very true that most people don't notice what is happening if it happens little by little so they can get used to it. And eventually a whole new generation will come of age without realizing how much has been lost. That is the part that really struck me as so true.
It is the idea of "turning up the fire slowly so the lobster doesn't know it is being cooked" part of it that I really liked, not the explanation afterwards. I think it is so very true that most people don't notice what is happening if it happens little by little so they can get used to it. And eventually a whole new generation will come of age without realizing how much has been lost. That is the part that really struck me as so true.
Shiari
Blutterer
Stories like this rarely work for me, because I know animal behaviour. The boiling a frog analogy is based off incomplete information: The frogs used in that experiment had the majority of their brains removed.
As to the pigs: You can catch most of a herd of swine in a trap without the slow set up. Also, if they had 'forgotten how to forage' for themselves, feral animals would never happen. And there are a LOT of feral pigs in the mountains near me.
The complacency with which people are accepting the complete erosion of rights confounds me. While I do not mind taxes (though prefer them to be more 'fair' when it comes to income levels) and think that universal health care can only be a good for society as a healthier population is a more effective population, the attitude towards things like peaceful assembly (the increase in macings for sit-down protests is an example), discrimination (yes, because denying rights to people totally protects rights...), religion (only OUR christianity is okay, all you others need to shut up), bodily autonomy (Have to carry that dead fetus to term! And if you miscarry we'll charge you with murder!), and safety (I really approve of the guy who stripped in public for the TSA as a protest) are appalling.
As to the pigs: You can catch most of a herd of swine in a trap without the slow set up. Also, if they had 'forgotten how to forage' for themselves, feral animals would never happen. And there are a LOT of feral pigs in the mountains near me.
The complacency with which people are accepting the complete erosion of rights confounds me. While I do not mind taxes (though prefer them to be more 'fair' when it comes to income levels) and think that universal health care can only be a good for society as a healthier population is a more effective population, the attitude towards things like peaceful assembly (the increase in macings for sit-down protests is an example), discrimination (yes, because denying rights to people totally protects rights...), religion (only OUR christianity is okay, all you others need to shut up), bodily autonomy (Have to carry that dead fetus to term! And if you miscarry we'll charge you with murder!), and safety (I really approve of the guy who stripped in public for the TSA as a protest) are appalling.
kathylove
Pragmatic & Logical
Sometimes it seems that some people (or politicians) had a lot of their brains removed, too, lol!
We used to have quite a few pigs on our 20 acres in Florida (not as many now, but they come and go). We had some hog hunters come and set up automatic feeders that spewed corn a time or two per day. It sure did work as far as getting them to arrive at predicted times. I could see where we could have started to pen them in, although I have no idea how long it would have taken not to spook them. I can tell you that they stayed away for a while (a few weeks) after they were shot at in that location.
I have no illusions that they were not still foraging on their own - we didn't feed them THAT much. But it is strange that I remember reading that one of the supposed reasons for prohibiting feeding of marine mammals was that they would get too used to handouts and stop fending for themselves. Although it would be bad to offer them food that was not good for them, I did find that pretty strange reasoning to stop ALL feeding. But I don't know if that was something reporters came up with, or the government scientists / hands off environmentalists were trying to use as a logical reason for stopping boat captains from taking tourists out for feeding and photo ops.
We used to have quite a few pigs on our 20 acres in Florida (not as many now, but they come and go). We had some hog hunters come and set up automatic feeders that spewed corn a time or two per day. It sure did work as far as getting them to arrive at predicted times. I could see where we could have started to pen them in, although I have no idea how long it would have taken not to spook them. I can tell you that they stayed away for a while (a few weeks) after they were shot at in that location.
I have no illusions that they were not still foraging on their own - we didn't feed them THAT much. But it is strange that I remember reading that one of the supposed reasons for prohibiting feeding of marine mammals was that they would get too used to handouts and stop fending for themselves. Although it would be bad to offer them food that was not good for them, I did find that pretty strange reasoning to stop ALL feeding. But I don't know if that was something reporters came up with, or the government scientists / hands off environmentalists were trying to use as a logical reason for stopping boat captains from taking tourists out for feeding and photo ops.
Nova_C
New member
Warnings about feeding wild animals are usually for preventing wild predators from seeing humans as a source of food. The only place I've ever heard of not feeding them because they'll stop feeding themselves is when people are trying to draw up comparisons to the poor and disenfranchised.
I'm not sure it even makes sense that an animal will let itself starve if it gets used to handouts. Like, what?
I'm not sure it even makes sense that an animal will let itself starve if it gets used to handouts. Like, what?
kathylove
Pragmatic & Logical
It makes no sense to me, either. Since we don't hunt marine mammals in this country, I am not THAT worried about them getting used to humans. And if they are a danger to people, it would be mainly the people feeding them - and I am inclined to allow adults to choose their own level of danger to themselves.
I always assumed that the argument was just something that animals rights people used to justify the "hands off" law. They don't realize that people will protect what they know about, and care about. When people see dolphins and other animals in Sea World, movies, or in the wild for themselves, they will care a lot more about them than just reading about them. Not to mention that whatever tourists dollars it brings in is welcome in this economy.
I always assumed that the argument was just something that animals rights people used to justify the "hands off" law. They don't realize that people will protect what they know about, and care about. When people see dolphins and other animals in Sea World, movies, or in the wild for themselves, they will care a lot more about them than just reading about them. Not to mention that whatever tourists dollars it brings in is welcome in this economy.
Shiari
Blutterer
Deer, moose, raccoons, pigs, bears, even squirrels that are hand fed lose their fear of humans. All humans. And then, when they don't get want they want they'll get pushy. And a pushy animal can lead to injuries to people who did NOT feed them in the first place.
That's why Yosemite doesn't allow people to feed the deer. People there have been killed by the deer.
That's why Yosemite doesn't allow people to feed the deer. People there have been killed by the deer.
kathylove
Pragmatic & Logical
I can TOTALLY see that caution with animals you would find on land. ANYONE might encounter those animals used to handouts. But not nearly so many encounter them at sea. Those who do are usually on boats. Diving is popular, too, but not as much as driving to a national park. And divers have more training than your typical park visitor who wants to stick their arm out to feed a cute bear. So the sea creature feeding doesn't seem as risky to me (for those not doing the feeding, at least). And it doesn't really matter - people will continue to feed them out on the boat, and nobody will see them do it. Passing unenforceable laws just makes more people lose respect for the laws that really are needed. I just think the legislative effort could be spent on far more important problems.
Ricky87
New member
This is where I have a problem with the pig analogy though, and I'm just going to say it very clearly so that people don't use assumptions...Without some federal assistance there are people who would struggle *way* too much. I am one of those people. People don't know what it's like to be in someone elses shoes so they assume everything in life is about freedom. Not every one is free though, and there are some things certain people will never be free of.
I will never be free of my muscle condition, but I don't complain or curse the world for why I was chosen to have it...I don't loath people who don't have it either. It's something that was laid on me to live with, so, when people start picking apart Social Security/Disability income I hope they realize what life gives them every month. The ability to run, to jump, to not have back pains, neck pains, leg pains, chest pains, etc...Not only do people disrespect disabled people in general, but when their taxes go towards other people such as myself they want this title of superior-taxpayer/hero. I'm content with the money I receive, but I don't see any of it. It goes straight to my home, then to electricity, then to food. I'm satisfied and blessed to have the life I have, but not because 'Uncle Obama' pays me. People only think of people like me when tax-time comes...Change that around and think of people like me the next time you pick up your child or go for a run with your dog. The next time you're at the job you hate so much, but that gives you a paycheck that allows you a fully expressive lifestyle. I eat Mac and Cheese every night lol...Sad, but true. I don't ask for pity though, and as such I don't owe any tax-payer anything. God made me who I am just as God put everyone elses lives in front of them...It's on the individuals to make good on it, not some government or some ideal freedom.
I'm not a pig in a cage myself...I'm a human being with great value and limited opportunity. So are many other people...Circumstance is what separates people, not fences. Which does it hurt more in the end; the giver or the taker?...The answer is the one who doesn't appreciate their lives regardless of if they're giving or taking. Nobody is worthless!.
I will never be free of my muscle condition, but I don't complain or curse the world for why I was chosen to have it...I don't loath people who don't have it either. It's something that was laid on me to live with, so, when people start picking apart Social Security/Disability income I hope they realize what life gives them every month. The ability to run, to jump, to not have back pains, neck pains, leg pains, chest pains, etc...Not only do people disrespect disabled people in general, but when their taxes go towards other people such as myself they want this title of superior-taxpayer/hero. I'm content with the money I receive, but I don't see any of it. It goes straight to my home, then to electricity, then to food. I'm satisfied and blessed to have the life I have, but not because 'Uncle Obama' pays me. People only think of people like me when tax-time comes...Change that around and think of people like me the next time you pick up your child or go for a run with your dog. The next time you're at the job you hate so much, but that gives you a paycheck that allows you a fully expressive lifestyle. I eat Mac and Cheese every night lol...Sad, but true. I don't ask for pity though, and as such I don't owe any tax-payer anything. God made me who I am just as God put everyone elses lives in front of them...It's on the individuals to make good on it, not some government or some ideal freedom.
I'm not a pig in a cage myself...I'm a human being with great value and limited opportunity. So are many other people...Circumstance is what separates people, not fences. Which does it hurt more in the end; the giver or the taker?...The answer is the one who doesn't appreciate their lives regardless of if they're giving or taking. Nobody is worthless!.
kathylove
Pragmatic & Logical
I think a lot of people are focusing in on the comment section of the analogy about losing the ability to forage when given free corn. There may be some truth in that in certain circumstances. But that is not the part of the email (that I copied in full) that I was hoping to highlight. It was the part about slowly losing our freedoms, little by little, so we don't notice too much, that I was trying to agree with. I guess I should have just excerpted that part and deleted the irrelevant (to me) part.
I am not an anarchist. I do believe that local or even federal (if absolutely necessary) government must provide certain services which we must pay for. I just believe that most of us highly underestimate the cost of those services, and so allow the government (especially the huge federal gov't bureaucracy) to assume some responsibilities that would be best left to local gov't, or private providers. I am not singling out particular services, just saying the gov't is too bloated and inefficient.
I have my own bias from own experiences. When I was a child, my mother was in a mental hospital for many years. At that time, the state would help my dad only by putting us in foster care, since he couldn't work and take care of us too, and didn't make enough to hire full time help. It would have been cheaper for the state to provide a housekeeper than foster care, but they were not set up for single dads. So after bouncing from one foster home to another, being separated from my siblings, he finally moved us to his mother's house. Then my dad went in the hospital for kidney and back problems. Still no help from the gov't - because he was a single dad and not a single mom. But guess who stepped in to bring us a couple of cars full of food and Christmas presents, and other things we needed? The Salvation Army, not the gov't. The gov't was not there to help us in our time of need, but private charity helped when they didn't.
I am sure many others have been helped when they really needed it. I don't deny that. But my own early experience left a sour taste in my mouth that hasn't been sweetened by the inefficiency and lack of logic I have seen in gov't operations as an adult. I try to look at it as logically as possible. But we are all products of our own experiences to at least some extent.
I am not an anarchist. I do believe that local or even federal (if absolutely necessary) government must provide certain services which we must pay for. I just believe that most of us highly underestimate the cost of those services, and so allow the government (especially the huge federal gov't bureaucracy) to assume some responsibilities that would be best left to local gov't, or private providers. I am not singling out particular services, just saying the gov't is too bloated and inefficient.
I have my own bias from own experiences. When I was a child, my mother was in a mental hospital for many years. At that time, the state would help my dad only by putting us in foster care, since he couldn't work and take care of us too, and didn't make enough to hire full time help. It would have been cheaper for the state to provide a housekeeper than foster care, but they were not set up for single dads. So after bouncing from one foster home to another, being separated from my siblings, he finally moved us to his mother's house. Then my dad went in the hospital for kidney and back problems. Still no help from the gov't - because he was a single dad and not a single mom. But guess who stepped in to bring us a couple of cars full of food and Christmas presents, and other things we needed? The Salvation Army, not the gov't. The gov't was not there to help us in our time of need, but private charity helped when they didn't.
I am sure many others have been helped when they really needed it. I don't deny that. But my own early experience left a sour taste in my mouth that hasn't been sweetened by the inefficiency and lack of logic I have seen in gov't operations as an adult. I try to look at it as logically as possible. But we are all products of our own experiences to at least some extent.
tsst
Deuce is watching!
I understood the analogy Kathy. IMHO an analogy need not be a scientifically proven factually accurate exactly precise comparison to make a point. IMHO when one needs to point out a scientific flaw in an analogy as the disregarding factor then they either don't agree with the point being presented or don't understand it. :shrugs:
As far as your father only getting help from the Salvation Army and not the fedgov. Again IMHO that was because the Salvation Army is a charity set up to assist those in need by people that want to help those in need. I don't believe millionaire politicians actually care about those in need but rather are simply pandering for votes. I would rather see a 125-150% (incentive) tax credit for gifts to actual charities and not have a giant hugely inefficient fedgov bureaucracy involved as a pseudo charity. But that would take power from the fedgov giving it back to the people and nobody in DC is going to buy that.
I too am not an anarchist. I simply believe in a minimal fedgov as documented in our constitution and not the distorted ever ever ever expanding view coming from DC.
Nova_C
New member
Welllllllllll, if the analogy is false, it kinda doesn't work anymore. Either that, or it makes analogies meaningless. "Bears will shave their fur every spring, but if someone does it for them, then they will forget how just like people on welfare." I mean, that doesn't mean anything. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
If you have to make up facts in order to support a point of view, it's not the person disagreeing with it that doesn't understand what's being said.
Outcast
ATPSS
You guys are not thinking about cultural things within this analogy. The person speaking about catching pigs is not from here, and probably does not know much about how they are. I know that fence traps are used here in NM to catch Feral Pigs, so it does work. Also, I grew up in an area where people still say "Keep all the black snakes because they eat the poison ones", Is that something that is true? Not likely. But, until I started to research everything on my own, and started to learn about the different species of snakes, and how not all black snakes are King snakes, I did not know the difference.
One thing I have noticed about both groups of people that post here is that it doesn't matter what the analogy is, if you do not like the message, you are going to pick it apart without reading into the meaning of what is said.
Just think for a moment... The person speaking in the analogy came from a country with a communist regime. The last time I checked, those countries don't really focus much on education and higher learning. Keep that in mind the next time you guys want to try and discredit a message because the analogy is a little off in how an animal reacts to a situation.
One thing I have noticed about both groups of people that post here is that it doesn't matter what the analogy is, if you do not like the message, you are going to pick it apart without reading into the meaning of what is said.
Just think for a moment... The person speaking in the analogy came from a country with a communist regime. The last time I checked, those countries don't really focus much on education and higher learning. Keep that in mind the next time you guys want to try and discredit a message because the analogy is a little off in how an animal reacts to a situation.
Shiari
Blutterer
I had said that I agreed with most of it. But as I tend to be a big animal/science buff, I can end up with this "good message filled with stupid" reaction. And I tend to like to correct the stupid when I see it.
There's an (un-related) email about atheists currently making the rounds, one that is so full of errors while getting across the perceived message that atheists are arrogant and immoral and christians are so much better. It is pure drivel, and once you correct the stupid in *that* one... the message gets reversed when viewed against the original.
So there's part of what it's talking about in THIS email that gets a little reversed too.
The 'you get x, we take Y' that includes... healthcare/education/social welfare/infrastructure and being a true society where we depend on *each other*. And the 'get so many handouts you don't know how to survive on your own anymore'. This story fails to take into account a *lot* of things. It is naive in many ways.
There's an (un-related) email about atheists currently making the rounds, one that is so full of errors while getting across the perceived message that atheists are arrogant and immoral and christians are so much better. It is pure drivel, and once you correct the stupid in *that* one... the message gets reversed when viewed against the original.
So there's part of what it's talking about in THIS email that gets a little reversed too.
The 'you get x, we take Y' that includes... healthcare/education/social welfare/infrastructure and being a true society where we depend on *each other*. And the 'get so many handouts you don't know how to survive on your own anymore'. This story fails to take into account a *lot* of things. It is naive in many ways.