As you already know I support workfare instead of welfare. I find it interesting that according to the Americans with Disabilities act the disabled are required to be considered equally as job applicants and yet we pay them with our tax dollars for being disabled. The reality would seem to be that very few Americans could not contribute in some way for their own support. Yet we have become a hypocritical nation in many ways.
We will put community service workers out alongside a road in orange vests picking up trash but for some reason when you put a thin chain around their ankles and they they are prisoners who have committed a far more serious crime, it suddenly becomes "demeaning" to require them to work doing the same thing.
Somehow it has also become "demeaning" to require someone on welfare to clean up their own neighborhood. Yet if I as a taxpayer, don't clean up my front yard I can be fined and eventually have my home seized and evicted.
On my way to visit my son, he asked if I would stop and pick up a six pack of beer. I stopped at Wal Mart Grocery and lo and behold they demanded I.D.. Now being 65 I found that funny and reached for my wallet only to find I had left it in my vehicle. They flat out refused to sell me the beer unless I went to the vehicle and got my I.D.. "Company policy".(Bought the beer down the street). YET people on welfare can use their entire EBT card on colas, candy, chips and donuts without a single restriction. That's just absurd to me.
Yes, I think there should be more restrictions on welfare. But I never said there should no social subsidies for individuals. What I said was there should be no subsidies for companies.
On subsidies, they are essentially government regulation. The Gov is telling someone what they can and can't do and how they can and can't do it.
Mitt says he does not dislike PBS, Sesame Stret, Big Bird, what he does not like is government regulation.
Big Bird is not the issue here.
The issue is what right does Federal Government have to regulate and how should it be decided what and who to regulate, and when and where, and under what circumstances.
Obama nor Romney care much, if any, about Big Bird, but they do have differing views on regulation, and what is in "the best interest of the General Public" as opposed to "best interest of the few".
Romney would gladly acquiesce to subsidies to Big Bird in exchange for ending regulation of corporations.
Subsidies are here to stay. Obama wants more to Big Bird(humanity/education) and less to corporations while Romeny wants more to corporations(special interests of elites), and less to Big Bird(education) Different values with both having "potential" for good to society with Romney's way less so. We will decide which course we take on November 6.