Obama Says: Steve Jobs Deserves to be Rich

[2real]

[citation][nom]aaron88_7[/nom]I work and pay taxes as well. I also enjoy defending those who need defending which I find as a good moral thing to do.Now paying taxes isn't much of an accomplishment, in fact it requires very little effort at all and is something even a mentally handicap person working at McDonalds does. So do you have any accomplishments, or is merely paying taxes all you have? Pretty sad dude, I feel sorry for your parents.[/citation]
paying taxes is all you need to do... i'm sorry you feel the need to judge people based on their accomplishments

 

[Silmarunya]

[citation][nom]davewolfgang[/nom]Wow.....if someone of you think that Taxes have anything to do with the Debt or Deficits - it's the SPENDING. /sigh at the lack of ejumacation that's taught you people. When household's Income decrease - most "normal" people ALSO lower their spending.When a companies Income decreases - most "normal" companies ALSO lower their spending.But yet Goverments?? When income increases - the still overspend that increase, when it decreases, they STILL increase spending. (and just so some of you know - trickle down DOES work, but it's never been ALLOWED to be fully realized - the Gubment keeps stealing it.[/citation]

That is insane in a lot of ways...

1) A deficit is caused by spending more than you earn. Cutting spending is one way (an economically counter productive and asocial one by the way), increasing taxes is another. Both are equally well suited to cutting the deficit, but in truth the US is in such deep trouble it will need both. Spending can be cut, especially on military expenditure which is absurdly high. Taxes on the rich will have to be raised as well.

2) Government can't simply spend less in the same way a family does. A family can cut back all non-essential expenditures if needed, but the government can't, because it has a responsibility to provide certain services. A family can postpone buying a TV, the government can postpone spending money on education. A family can sell their second car, the government can't sell its army. Governments have a long term obligation to do the things the people requires them to do (because they cannot be done by individuals or corporations), so any decrease in spending is equally long term.

Besides, I'm curious as to where Tea Party'ers and co want to cut spending exactly. They keep talking about 'government largesse', but fail to mention concrete things. Okay, they want to ban earmarks and that's good, but earmarks are to the government what a penny is to you: nothing. Education, healthcare, science, infrastructure and other crucial areas are already underfunded.

There is one area of government spending where large savings are possible without cutting back performance: the military (the US is responsible for over 50% of the world's military spending. Even if that figure were to be cut by, say, a quarter, the US would remain the uncontested world leader). Ironically, the Republicans want to ring fence that....

Face it. No party can/dares to come up with a single proposal that cuts spending without cutting in essential government tasks. If you can't spend less, you'll need to earn more.

 

[alextheblue]

[citation][nom]aaron88_7[/nom]The reality is that democrats have a proven track record of fiscal responsibility while republicans have a track record of ballooning the national debt to record amounts.[/citation]Unbelievable. So all those times when dems were in charge of Congress and went on a spending rampage (very very recently, for example), that this was somehow really the repubs pulling the strings? Your good friends Pelosi and Reid are fiscally responsible? Like hell.

They all spend like madmen, and your democratic Congress and your Dear Leader are no different. If you can't see that, you've been indoctrinated far, far too deeply. At that point, all I can say is: Suck eggs, kiddo. I hope you'll be satisfied once we can no longer afford to make interest payments on our debt. Argentina, here we come!

 

[alexi90]

damn obama you should say that about bill gates !!!!

 

[garborg]

the IPhone adds to America's trade deficit

 

[aaron88_7]

[citation][nom]2real[/nom]paying taxes is all you need to do... i'm sorry you feel the need to judge people based on their accomplishments[/citation]
And I'm sorry you're not creative or talented enough to accomplish anything more than what the vast majority of 300 million US citizens do every year. Perhaps if you spent as much time working hard in school as being an internet troll you would have the capability to reach much higher.

Now I have family things to do, I'm sorry I can't provide you with the attention you are so desperately seeking on this festive holiday. Perhaps you can find someone as lonely as yourself in a chat room or in another web forum on this day? Good luck, and merry Christmas!

 

[thlillyr]

[citation][nom]Silmarunya[/nom]You make redistribution of wealth sounds like a bad thing, while it's the cornerstone of a welfare state...Nobody expects Jobs to give everything away. But imagine this: you make a few million dollars a year. Your neighbour is ill, can't work and can't pay his bills. If you were to give him, say, 1k dollars, he could lead a life above the poverty limit. Not far above, but still liveable. You on the other hand wouldn't even notice it. That's redistribution at its best: take from those who can afford to give, give to those who need it.Nobody expects a working class person to support the poor, but it's reasonable for a millionaire to do so. Nobody expects a lazy ass that never did something productive in his life to be supported. But is it wrong to transfer money from the super rich to the disabled, elderly, poor and other groups of people who would otherwise be dangerously close to the poverty line?And how would that fundamentally transform society? The rich remain rich, so no change. The middle class doesn't receive or gives a lot in this model, so no change. The poor remain rather poor, they'll just be able to pay their bills and feed their children. Not a fundamental change, rather an incremental one.Also, redistribution of wealth supports the economy. A rich person can only buy so much before he has everything he desires. The remaining money is not spent and thus doesn't stimulate the economy (unless perhaps through capital investment). A poor person will spend every additional dollar he has on health care, food, basic appliances,... Because of that, this money will directly stimulate the economy. In turn, a growing economy provides jobs and lifts the poor out of poverty. These people won't need redistribution of wealth anymore, on the contrary they'll pay taxes, thus reducing government deficit. It's a win win situation!(Before someone mentions this doesn't belong in a tech forum, he's right. But if the person above can post political comments, so can I)[/citation]

That is NOT redistribution of wealth. That is humanitarinisum. Redstributions of wealth is the government forcefully taking form you money despite your situation and giving it to whoever they want.

Humanitarinisum is when people have more than they need chose to give it to those in need. Thats generosity, kindness, caring, concern.

Redistribution of welth removes all of those positive emotions and removed people freedom by forcing this upon them. Now we already know that a very very high percentage of people on welfare, housing assitance, food stamps consider that their income and don't aspire for more. they don't seek jobs they stay in the system forever and just leach without providing anything in return. If we go this step farther and freely provide a stable income to everybody who doesn't work then why should anybody work? Whats worse is if you become a doctor and can't make anymore money than those on welfare then why should you become a doctor?

That is the fear of how redistribution of welth will fundamentaly change our socitey and eventualy ruin it. BTW redistribution of welth is a big part of communisum and one of the main reasons it colapses. It consumes it's producers and does not breed more producers for the economyy.

If what you said is what happend on a regular basis then we would not need government run welfare of any kind.

I personaly make less that 20K a year but I still contribut 15% of my income every year to humanitarian efforts localy.

 

[garyshome]

Why is it that the government can take what belongs to a rich guy? Oh and who is the next guy the government is going to take something from? You? [don't think it will stop at the rich people] If i make millions[or less] then don't you think that i should be able to decide who I should give it to, Rarther then some bearuocrat who wants to give it to some lawyer buddies of his, or some alcholic who chooses not to work. I see these people waiting at the food bank if fact i know some of them personally

 

[2real]

[citation][nom]thlillyr[/nom]That is NOT redistribution of wealth. That is humanitarinisum. Redstributions of wealth is the government forcefully taking form you money despite your situation and giving it to whoever they want. Humanitarinisum is when people have more than they need chose to give it to those in need. Thats generosity, kindness, caring, concern.Redistribution of welth removes all of those positive emotions and removed people freedom by forcing this upon them. Now we already know that a very very high percentage of people on welfare, housing assitance, food stamps consider that their income and don't aspire for more. they don't seek jobs they stay in the system forever and just leach without providing anything in return. If we go this step farther and freely provide a stable income to everybody who doesn't work then why should anybody work? Whats worse is if you become a doctor and can't make anymore money than those on welfare then why should you become a doctor?That is the fear of how redistribution of welth will fundamentaly change our socitey and eventualy ruin it. BTW redistribution of welth is a big part of communisum and one of the main reasons it colapses. It consumes it's producers and does not breed more producers for the economyy.If what you said is what happend on a regular basis then we would not need government run welfare of any kind.I personaly make less that 20K a year but I still contribut 15% of my income every year to humanitarian efforts localy.[/citation]
i could contribute 1% of my income and it'd probably be more than your 15% lol i choose not to because i choose to work hard and earn it... i'm not giving any free hand outs

 

[Silmarunya]

[citation][nom]thlillyr[/nom]That is NOT redistribution of wealth. That is humanitarinisum. Redstributions of wealth is the government forcefully taking form you money despite your situation and giving it to whoever they want. Humanitarinisum is when people have more than they need chose to give it to those in need. Thats generosity, kindness, caring, concern.Redistribution of welth removes all of those positive emotions and removed people freedom by forcing this upon them. Now we already know that a very very high percentage of people on welfare, housing assitance, food stamps consider that their income and don't aspire for more. they don't seek jobs they stay in the system forever and just leach without providing anything in return. If we go this step farther and freely provide a stable income to everybody who doesn't work then why should anybody work? Whats worse is if you become a doctor and can't make anymore money than those on welfare then why should you become a doctor?That is the fear of how redistribution of welth will fundamentaly change our socitey and eventualy ruin it. BTW redistribution of welth is a big part of communisum and one of the main reasons it colapses. It consumes it's producers and does not breed more producers for the economyy.If what you said is what happend on a regular basis then we would not need government run welfare of any kind.I personaly make less that 20K a year but I still contribut 15% of my income every year to humanitarian efforts localy.[/citation]

The difference between what you consider 'humanitarianism' and 'redistribution of wealth' is slim. What I described is written in the law under the very name 'redistribution of wealth and social security' (I'm Belgian in case you'd wonder).

You seem to misinterpret communism, especially in its pure form as written down by Marx and Engels. They never imply a doctor shouldn't earn more than an unemployed person, nor do they argue that producers shouldn't be rewarded. They believed in a true meritocracy, as shown by the high funding for gifted scientists and musicians.

What communism says is that nobody should become wealthy by exploiting the work of others or by wealth he didn't earn himself (for example, wealth generated by an aristocratic title). The state should act as the sole owner of wealth because it's the only institution that's not driven by personal greed.

Of course, we all know this pure system doesn't work. Not because the idea itself is flawed or evil like many Americans seem to think, but because of the dictatorships that usurped the democratic ideals of communism (just google the meaning of 'Sovjet' for example).

Before anyone get the wrong idea, I'm not a communist. I wouldn't want to live in a communist society and don't believe in communism. However, people, especially in America, should stop having this weird image of communism as the very definition of evil.

 

[Silmarunya]

[citation][nom]2real[/nom]i could contribute 1% of my income and it'd probably be more than your 15% lol i choose not to because i choose to work hard and earn it... i'm not giving any free hand outs[/citation]

What job do you do? Clearly not one that requires even the most basic notion of polite, understandable and grammatically correct writing...

And taxes are not free hand outs. Unless you think building roads, maintaining an army and educating your children are free hand outs. And if you object to giving money to the disabled, elderly and other people unable to work you should really take a minute to think if you are a human being.

 

[dillyflump]

Bill Gates desrves this way more than Steve i've got my head up my own arse Jobs. Based solely on how much money gates donates to charity through the foundation he runs.

 

[Silmarunya]

[citation][nom]garyshome[/nom]Why is it that the government can take what belongs to a rich guy? Oh and who is the next guy the government is going to take something from? You? [don't think it will stop at the rich people] If i make millions[or less] then don't you think that i should be able to decide who I should give it to, Rarther then some bearuocrat who wants to give it to some lawyer buddies of his, or some alcholic who chooses not to work. I see these people waiting at the food bank if fact i know some of them personally[/citation]

I for one am happy there is a bureaucracy. Contrary to politicians, bureaucrats aren't populist idiots who want to get re-elected rather than taking unpopular decisions based on the views of millions of poorly educated people. I deeply respect Joe the Plummer, but I seriously question his ability to decide how education, health and safety, the economy and so on should be ran.

If not for government officials working hard behind the schemes to get a continuous policy based on science and rational policy, the Western world would collapse in days.

Of course, certain parts of the administration are inefficient, but that is something that can be remedied. And even if it isn't, I'd still rather have a bureaucracy with a few rotten apples than politicians or the absence of government.

 

[wildkitten]

[citation][nom]Silmarunya[/nom]You make redistribution of wealth sounds like a bad thing, while it's the cornerstone of a welfare state...Nobody expects Jobs to give everything away. But imagine this: you make a few million dollars a year. Your neighbour is ill, can't work and can't pay his bills. If you were to give him, say, 1k dollars, he could lead a life above the poverty limit. Not far above, but still liveable. You on the other hand wouldn't even notice it. That's redistribution at its best: take from those who can afford to give, give to those who need it.Nobody expects a working class person to support the poor, but it's reasonable for a millionaire to do so. Nobody expects a lazy ass that never did something productive in his life to be supported. But is it wrong to transfer money from the super rich to the disabled, elderly, poor and other groups of people who would otherwise be dangerously close to the poverty line?And how would that fundamentally transform society? The rich remain rich, so no change. The middle class doesn't receive or gives a lot in this model, so no change. The poor remain rather poor, they'll just be able to pay their bills and feed their children. Not a fundamental change, rather an incremental one.Also, redistribution of wealth supports the economy. A rich person can only buy so much before he has everything he desires. The remaining money is not spent and thus doesn't stimulate the economy (unless perhaps through capital investment). A poor person will spend every additional dollar he has on health care, food, basic appliances,... Because of that, this money will directly stimulate the economy. In turn, a growing economy provides jobs and lifts the poor out of poverty. These people won't need redistribution of wealth anymore, on the contrary they'll pay taxes, thus reducing government deficit. It's a win win situation!(Before someone mentions this doesn't belong in a tech forum, he's right. But if the person above can post political comments, so can I)[/citation]
That's not the cornerstone of a welfare state, that's the cornerstone of a socialist state where private property is not respected.

The only way that works as you describe it is if you believe that a person's money is not their own. If you do, then you have no right to take it. But if you believe what a person makes belongs to the government first and the government allows someone to keep it that's the only way your comment makes any sense. And since in your world a person's money belongs to the government you have to believe that ANYTHING a person has the government has a right to.

Money is personal property, no different than a person's house or car. If someone has 3 cars, for you to not be a hypocrite, you must believe the government has a right to step in and take one or more of those cars away and give them to someone who doesn't have a car.

The truth is you are a petty, jealous person who believes you have a right to have a say in what someone else has. You do not. Get out of other peoples wallet.

 

[davewolfgang]

[citation][nom]Silmarunya[/nom]That is insane in a lot of ways...1) A deficit is caused by spending more than you earn. Cutting spending is one way (an economically counter productive and asocial one by the way), increasing taxes is another. Both are equally well suited to cutting the deficit, but in truth the US is in such deep trouble it will need both. Spending can be cut, especially on military expenditure which is absurdly high. Taxes on the rich will have to be raised as well.2) Government can't simply spend less in the same way a family does. A family can cut back all non-essential expenditures if needed, but the government can't, because it has a responsibility to provide certain services. A family can postpone buying a TV, the government can postpone spending money on education. A family can sell their second car, the government can't sell its army. Governments have a long term obligation to do the things the people requires them to do (because they cannot be done by individuals or corporations), so any decrease in spending is equally long term.Besides, I'm curious as to where Tea Party'ers and co want to cut spending exactly. They keep talking about 'government largesse', but fail to mention concrete things. Okay, they want to ban earmarks and that's good, but earmarks are to the government what a penny is to you: nothing. Education, healthcare, science, infrastructure and other crucial areas are already underfunded. There is one area of government spending where large savings are possible without cutting back performance: the military (the US is responsible for over 50% of the world's military spending. Even if that figure were to be cut by, say, a quarter, the US would remain the uncontested world leader). Ironically, the Republicans want to ring fence that....Face it. No party can/dares to come up with a single proposal that cuts spending without cutting in essential government tasks. If you can't spend less, you'll need to earn more.[/citation]

The sad fact that you clearly bring it is the Military is actually money the Gubment is SUPPOSE to be spending. And you have the "audacity" to call it unnecessary? Please tell us what % of the entire budget is Military and then please explain how much MORE is wasted on things that Government isn't suppose to be doing in the first place.

Please check the Constitution on where it says my taxes are suppose to provide a retirement for anyone? Please check the Constitution on where it says my taxes are suppose to provide food and "unemployment" for anyone? (Hint: it ain't there - and they haven't Amended it yet to put it in there.)

Now of course you are going to bring up - "then who will do that". The place our Founding Fathers intended it to be - at the State and Local level where "The People" have MORE control. And in reality your Families and Churches are the ones that are ORIGINALLY suppose to do that (but you notice - government came in and fined and penalized them for doing it, didn't they??).

Now as for Steve Jobs - he is 100,000,000% entitled to every penny he EARNS. If you can make a product and/or offer a service that people want to pay for - more power to ya!!! That's what American is about. For anyone that's not the Business - Consumer, or Seller - Buyer, or Employer - Employee to have any say what-so-ever is the cost/pay of anything, is wrong.

That some people here (and more importantly - in our Government) "think" that some people don't "deserve" to be rich - is bordering on Immoral, if not Illegal.

 

[Silmarunya]

[citation][nom]wildkitten[/nom]That's not the cornerstone of a welfare state, that's the cornerstone of a socialist state where private property is not respected.The only way that works as you describe it is if you believe that a person's money is not their own. If you do, then you have no right to take it. But if you believe what a person makes belongs to the government first and the government allows someone to keep it that's the only way your comment makes any sense. And since in your world a person's money belongs to the government you have to believe that ANYTHING a person has the government has a right to.Money is personal property, no different than a person's house or car. If someone has 3 cars, for you to not be a hypocrite, you must believe the government has a right to step in and take one or more of those cars away and give them to someone who doesn't have a car.The truth is you are a petty, jealous person who believes you have a right to have a say in what someone else has. You do not. Get out of other peoples wallet.[/citation]

I live in a 'socialist state' and my private property has never been disrespected. A very poorly informed and irrational statement in other words.

Nobody, including the state, has a right to confiscate property without giving good motivation. That's something reserved for a dictatorship.

However, I am so petty and jealous that I prefer to live in a nation where being ill is not something that ruins you financially, where I can go to work on a well maintained road, where the children of my rather poor neighbour get the same excellent education those of my rich neighbour do and so on. If living in such a society involves paying taxes, than so be it.

And who are you calling jealous? Who should get out of someone else's wallet? I and my entire family are in good health and have white collar jobs. All of us have contributed more than we took from someone else - much more. And none of us is angry about that. In fact, we are all happy to do so. Because I know that if I were to have cancer one day, it wouldn't make me poor. And because it means my rather poor neighbour's children have a chance to lead a better life.

 

[wildkitten]

[citation][nom]Silmarunya[/nom]The difference between what you consider 'humanitarianism' and 'redistribution of wealth' is slim. What I described is written in the law under the very name 'redistribution of wealth and social security' (I'm Belgian in case you'd wonder).You seem to misinterpret communism, especially in its pure form as written down by Marx and Engels. They never imply a doctor shouldn't earn more than an unemployed person, nor do they argue that producers shouldn't be rewarded. They believed in a true meritocracy, as shown by the high funding for gifted scientists and musicians. What communism says is that nobody should become wealthy by exploiting the work of others or by wealth he didn't earn himself (for example, wealth generated by an aristocratic title). The state should act as the sole owner of wealth because it's the only institution that's not driven by personal greed.Of course, we all know this pure system doesn't work. Not because the idea itself is flawed or evil like many Americans seem to think, but because of the dictatorships that usurped the democratic ideals of communism (just google the meaning of 'Sovjet' for example).Before anyone get the wrong idea, I'm not a communist. I wouldn't want to live in a communist society and don't believe in communism. However, people, especially in America, should stop having this weird image of communism as the very definition of evil.[/citation]
And how does a government give funding to scientists and musicians? They take money from one person and give it to another. Keep in mind, no government has any money of it's own. What it has is what it takes from it's citizens.

This is why a communist, and for that matter any socialist system, is evil. It has no respect for private property rights. It's fundamental principle is that what a person has belongs first and foremost to the government. That stifles creativity and productivity. Why produce when you it will be taken from you to give to people who don't produce.

And there is NO democratic ideals in communism. Democracy is the people in control of their own lives, communism is the government in control of a person's life.

 

[Silmarunya]

[citation][nom]davewolfgang[/nom]The sad fact that you clearly bring it is the Military is actually money the Gubment is SUPPOSE to be spending. And you have the "audacity" to call it unnecessary? Please tell us what % of the entire budget is Military and then please explain how much MORE is wasted on things that Government isn't suppose to be doing in the first place.Please check the Constitution on where it says my taxes are suppose to provide a retirement for anyone? Please check the Constitution on where it says my taxes are suppose to provide food and "unemployment" for anyone? (Hint: it ain't there - and they haven't Amended it yet to put it in there.)Now of course you are going to bring up - "then who will do that". The place our Founding Fathers intended it to be - at the State and Local level where "The People" have MORE control. And in reality your Families and Churches are the ones that are ORIGINALLY suppose to do that (but you notice - government came in and fined and penalized them for doing it, didn't they??).Now as for Steve Jobs - he is 100,000,000% entitled to every penny he EARNS. If you can make a product and/or offer a service that people want to pay for - more power to ya!!! That's what American is about. For anyone that's not the Business - Consumer, or Seller - Buyer, or Employer - Employee to have any say what-so-ever is the cost/pay of anything, is wrong. That some people here (and more importantly - in our Government) "think" that some people don't "deserve" to be rich - is bordering on Immoral, if not Illegal.[/citation]

The U.S. Department of Defense budget accounted in fiscal year 2010 for about 19% of the United States federal budgeted expenditures and 28% of estimated tax revenues. Including non-DOD expenditures, defense spending was approximately 28–38% of budgeted expenditures and 42–57% of estimated tax revenues. According to the Congressional Budget Office, defense spending grew 9% annually on average from fiscal year 2000–2009.

That makes it one of the largest expenditures of the government. And let's be honest: will America be less safe it it were to spend a quarter less? No. There isn't a single nation in the entire world that could contend with the US army, even if it were halved. And don't forget a lot of money is wasted on endlessly delayed projects that only ever benefit the arms industry. Also take into account nobody would want to wage a conventional war against the US. It's mighty, has allies in Europe and is destroying itself anyway...

Okay, let's assume your government doesn't provide a retirement. It would certainly fix overpopulation rather quickly. But that makes you no better than a Nazi wanting to kill every handicapped person in the world. The only difference is that a Nazi actively pulls the trigger and you would passively let people die of poverty.

I'm all for more control in the hands of the people. But there are a few issues with that:
1) It's terribly inefficient. Economies of scale apply to governments too.
2) Some things have to be done at a larger scale. Do you want a local army or a local road?
3) It's an unworkable system - poor regions get no influx of money and thus remain poor. That's bad for the economy and the people. Not to mention the riots it would cause (if you claim the government can't help poor regions, I suggest you take a look at the EU local development projects).

Of course Steve Jobs and every other person in the world deserves to be rich. However, some people cannot be rich due to problems beyond their power. Such people don't deserve to be poor. A tiny part of Steve Jobs' wealth can lift someone over the poverty threshold. If that's evil and communist, I guess some of the world's most successful societies are evil.

 

[davewolfgang]

The sad thing there silm is you "think" that people actually CAN'T do it on their own. How in the world do you think American got to where is was - because it got here LONG before Government was providing any of the stuff it does today.

1) The Private sector and Private citizen have done MORE in "efficiency" in the WORLD than any Governments - and if you think otherwise you are blind. And no - that's not a joke. I've worked for both the Government and Private Industry and there is no match.

2) /sigh at lack of education - National Defence - i.e. the Army IS the Federal Governments JOB. Get it?? Because your "local army" comment shows the either you are trying to present a Strawman or you really don't get it. Roads are the STATES jobs, which they do - but the Fed has also stuck it's nose in THAT too - hasn't it - and made it worse. (if you don't do their bidding - they don't give the states back the money they TOOK from the states in the first place - in most places that's called Extortion - except when the Gubment does it.)

3) And if your so called "poor" regions what to get better, they can do what all the "other" regions have done - get better themselves. And no, I won't look at the EU - This ain't the EU and in case you didn't notice the EU is out of money and that "system" you want all of us too look at and you uphold is falling apart at the seems - because as PM Thatcher said - you eventually run out of other peoples money - and those that have been living off of other peoples money don't like it when that flow is stopped.

If locals want to develop stuff, then they can raise the money at the local level. It's sad that way to many people have come to the belief that somehow "The Government" is the be-all and end-all of everything. Tell Greece and Iceland how that's working out - and to the person that brought up England - they are about a step behind those other two countries. Sorry - I don't want that in my country.

 

[2real]

[citation][nom]Silmarunya[/nom]What job do you do? Clearly not one that requires even the most basic notion of polite, understandable and grammatically correct writing...And taxes are not free hand outs. Unless you think building roads, maintaining an army and educating your children are free hand outs. And if you object to giving money to the disabled, elderly and other people unable to work you should really take a minute to think if you are a human being.[/citation]
it's not my fault they're unable to work
everyone's survivability drops to 0% at some point it's natural way of life
also have you heard of a pension or 401k? you use it to save for when you're old