No, but I think if someone else is giving you money and you didn't earn it, the person giving it has the right to say what you can and can't do with it.
It's retaliatory intrusiveness for taking my money.So you want a more intrusive government?
It's retaliatory intrusiveness for taking my money.
So you don't mind if the government is intrusive as long as it is on behalf of people who pay lots of tax, yeah?
If the government wants to use my tax dollars, then I should have a say in what they use it for.
It certainly makes government intervention a lot less palatable, no?So you don't mind if the government is intrusive as long as it is on behalf of people who pay lots of tax, yeah?
Well, for one thing, they will take many more of your tax dollars in order to do that. And in the second place, having a government policy designed to fail to accomplish the nominal reason for its existence is just plain dumb.
If the government wants to use my tax dollars, then I should have a say in what they use it for.
Where do you get off saying that someones government policy is designed fail. That would seem to imply malice towards the OP.
Many policies are designed to fail. It's pretty damned common in American politics. Attaching a lot of conditions to welfare means that welfare will be much less effective in getting people out of dependency. Or keeping them alive and housed if they can't get out of dependency. Nixon tried to design OSHA and EPA to fail. They succeeded despite the program design. Insisting that sex education only talk about abstinence is a design to fail to prevent pregnancy, STDs, and sex in general.
@B)
Sex ed is bad! Sex ed is bad! Bad bad bad! Okay FINE we'll have sex ed. Abstinence-only sex ed! Ahhh crap it doesn't work! Sex ed is bad!
You don't like an idea, so pretend to go along with it but design the actual implementation to fail. Then claim you were right all along. It's not a difficult concept.