Why is it better to furlough people instead of shaving off some of the billions spent on welfare?
- 234 Replies
Several of my friends are government employees and I think it sucks that if a deal is not reached they have to lose 20% of their pay but we're still going to pay out the billions that go toward welfare. Why do working people have to sacrifice their pay so that entitlement programs can still be funded? I know there are some people who need PA, the disabled, elderly, etc. But there are many who don't need it they just choose to use it because they don't want to work. It sucks that people who are working will be put into a financial bind but those receiving handouts will keep getting them like nothing happened.
Because the government thinks that working is bad. Everyone should stay home and the government will provide. People who do work will be taxed to death.
Yeah, it makes more sense to cut 20% from all welfare programs. Still provide to everyone, just make people pay more for their subsidized housing, childcare, food, and medical. Let's put some personal responsibility back into the low income folks instead and teach some budgeting skills.
Well, taxes only pay for politicians. Athletes and actors and such are paid by those who CHOOSE to support them. If you cut the pay of some actors, the money doesn't magically go to the tax payers. It stays in Hollywood.
Quoting Anonymous:
I agree, but I also think that the salaries of pro ball players, musicians, actors, and politicians need to be cut as well.
Quoting Anonymous:
I agree, but I also think that the salaries of pro ball players, musicians, actors, and politicians need to be cut as well.
*facepalm*


