People pay into social security and medicare over the course of their lives.
Obama paid his yearly federal taxes over the course of the year.
How is that any different?
You honestly can't see why? I'll give you a hint: No one is demanding that Obama *not* receive government benefits he's due from his taxes. What they are arguing is the opposite. If Obama (liberals in general) think that the government should provide more benefits than it is
, then perhaps they should be the ones to pay for those extra things. As I said earlier, there's at least some logic to this on the grounds that those extra benefits are charity (intended for people other than those who pay for it), so why not let people choose which extra benefits they care about and let those people pay for them?
Surely you can see the massive logical gulf between that and arguing that people should give up benefits that they paid for themselves, right? So because I think that if you want to help out some specific group of people, that you should be the one to pay for it, that it's fair in return for me to give up something I paid for as well? How does that even work logically? It doesn't.
The better argument is that the government shouldn't be in the charity business in the first place. Then we don't have this problem at all.
We've tried it and were much worse off as a society.
Really? Care to be more specific about that?
I can only assume you're working on a response right now, correct?
Um. Sure. To be honest, I went home for the weekend and I've been busy today and haven't had a chance to read very many threads. Not like I'm ignoring you or anything.