Ah, Cam, and Anna. that was great. Such a refreshing flash-back to younger naïve days.
Point one)
Quite a long time ago, I (with some friends out looking for adventure) saw a guy down by the railroad yard with a nice fire burning. In my great wisedom I said "CAMPFIRE! . . .let get some hot-dogs and marshmellows and go see this guy" (yes we had been drinking)
Well we got quite the education that night. "Ol' Rusty" was setting us staight about the life, and culture of a transient. I can't really put it all in words here, put make no mistake, many transients are "transients
just to be counter to "the system." (at least in this country)
Point two)
At one point in my career I took a job with a govt funded "non-profit" org, said to be in exsistnce to bolster the World Health concerns, primarily for women & children of 3rd world countries.
What a sham. I sat in total disbelief as the funding official gave mountains of money (tax-payer money) to projects that he openly admitted had no future. I was dumbfounded when I was instructed on how to mis-apropriate billing.
These two points were pivitol in my understanding the
balance of this issue of tax dollars going to fund the "needy"
Please understand that your argument of "taking money away from the poor thru lower taxes" is off base. There needs to be a
balance!
Certainly zero help to the truely needy would cause much further hardship to those already having problems. . . but as it exists right now, TAXATION does not lead to relief. Taxation "for the needy" leads to bureaucrat putzing around until they have used up all the money paying themselves, and their friends, or paying any who will kiss ass whilst chasing funded-bone$.
So, before Anna goes telling people, just what their (lacking)perspective is. . .she may be well advised to consider that
from where they sit may be just a little less naïve than from where she sits.
btw; my favorite cardboard [feign]
cry for help[/feign] sign, that I've seen. ..
"WILL WORK FOR FOOD. . .
but this is far easier. "