Yesterday Bill O’Reilly indicated that half our country are moochers for taking government assistance, but then he qualified it by stating, some for good reasons and some for not. The first part of what he says is most likely a fact when one considers certain factors, the second, which is also true, might be totally misleading. Let me explain.
People on the right don’t distinguish ‘need’ from ‘greed’ in their argument (as they also do with ‘cannabis’ and ‘hard drugs’). Then they wait for the opponent to react in a way in which they are prepared for, i.e., an argument only in terms of ‘lazy’ people taking hard earned tax money. But this is true about only a portion of those receiving public assistance.
The O’Reilly’s of the world are literally ‘acting in ignorance’ by basing their argument on the assumption that a large percent of those receiving government assistance would be self-sufficient if not given assistance. Yet, for all they know, many military, retired, children, mentally ill, sick, etc., will end up being the vast majority of those receiving benefits.
Without knowing the truth about how many people are actually ‘mooching off’ their earnings they have no reason to oppose public assistance except for not wanting to be taxed more. By agreeing that they are at least partially right (after all, a portion do mooch) we take care of their ‘concern’ by finding out how much real mooching is going on and then eliminating it as best we can. But there is nothing to argue about until an unbiased measurement of mooching is made!
The O’Reilly’s are ignorant of the facts they base their argument on and yet qualify it in a way that backs them out of blame when the facts come out (“I said only ‘some’ do”). In the mean time they do a lot of damage to compassion.