It amazes me how many people who are fans of conservative “agenda” request assistance of community funds, public funds due to a change in their circumstances. I find that interesting and wonder why they don’t see the conflict there!
I think their issue is with funding going to those they deem unworthy. They’ve just come upon some bad luck, you see. Whereas ‘they’ are lazy and undeserving.
Close as I can tell, that’s how it goes.
Actually, most people I’ve talk to are just as, if not more upset about being forced to pay (i.e. by taxes) for other peoples’ mistakes/misfortune.
Survival beats ideology every time. Also, there’s the attitude that since you’ve already had to pay for this program, it’d be foolish not to take advantage of it when you need it.
Hypocrites.
Moved to Great Debates.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
It is entirely possible to be against something, advocate against it, while simultaneously taking advantage of it.
Play within the rules, while trying to change the rules. I could be against a particular tax deduction, but continue to take it while it is available.
Pretty much. And who counts as undeserving generally comes down to ego and race.
Generally they feel whites are more deserving, native born more deserving.
But also they’ve built a narrative that they are extremely independent, intelligent, hard working, talented, etc. while ‘those people’ are lazy and dependent.
Basically, ego and race.
This study found Trump supporters were more hostile to a housing assistance program when they though it would benefit black people, they were more supportive when they felt it would benefit white people.
So anyone opposed to a government assistance program should be required to pay the taxes for it, but be forbidden from receiving any of that assistance if needed?
I guess I’m not seeing the conflict. Whether they take the money or now, they are still, by and large, paying taxes. If I’m paying for it anyway, why wouldn’t I take advantage of it if I can?? 
It’s possible, but how is it possible to do without being a hypocrite?
WEll, IMO that would be hypocritical.
Question: Are you implying ‘Staunch Conservatives’ are abusing the Welfare system with generational welfare? Cite? ROFLMAO
It’s not at all hypocritical, especially if you vote for candidates who would eliminate the policies that you disagree with.
We accept that, in a representative democracy, there are policies that we like and policies that we don’t like. We each do what we can (voting, debating, spending money, whatever) to keep the policies we like and eliminate the ones we don’t.
But if there’s a policy that we think is bad, that also might benefit us personally, it’s not hypocritical to take advantage of it. Warren Buffet constantly argues for higher taxes on capital gains, arguing that the low rate of taxing capital gains means that he often pays a lower marginal tax rate than his secretary. But I’ll bet that Buffet takes advantage of that low rate to maximize his wealth, which he can then use in ways that he finds morally uplifting.
There are also myriad possible reasons for opposing a policy, some of which might be more likely than others to attract a charge of hypocrisy. If you argue against food stamps on the grounds that the people who use them are lazy and irresponsible, and don’t deserve any help, then it might be somewhat hypocritical to accept food stamps, although I wouldn’t blame a person who needed them for using them. But if you argue against food stamps because you believe that the poor should be helped, but there are better or more efficient ways to help them, then there is nothing at all hypocritical about using them if you qualify.
Exactly. It would be hypocritical if someone in a position of power made a decisive vote to remove public funded benefits but put in an exception for themselves. THAT would be hypocritical. But as with your Buffet example, it’s not hypocritical to use the system as it is, because, frankly, there isn’t much that most conservatives (or liberals or even moderates) can do about it at the macro level. It would be like someone refusing to use energy because it’s not nuclear (or solar, or wind, or whatever)…or hypocritical for someone who opposed the use of coal (as I do) to use what’s available while trying to get it changed.
Just out of interest, did you agree with the Republican tax cut passed in 2017? Will your taxes be lower as a result of that tax cut?
If the answer to those questions is “no” and “yes,” respectively, will you voluntarily donate the extra money to the government at tax time?
I’m still trying to figure out what the drive-by poster was referencing or if it was just a random squat.
Perhaps you should offer a definition of hypocrisy and/or hypocrite; I’m not at all sure we agree on what they mean now that I’ve read your post.
It’s his 1 and only post…
No and no. But if I had said “no and yes”, would you have believed me when I said I’d donate the difference to the government at tax time, would you have accepted that as true? :dubious:
Because your post was nothing but a ridiculous leading question. :rolleyes:
How many people are you talking about? Is this post just based on some personal anecdote(s)?