They have seen how ineffective government employees are at doing the same thing?
They have seen government rules that would rather pay unemployment for two years, rather tha support training for the jobs that exist?
How, government has been managing the poor for 40 years, and the number have increased every year.
Are we against the concept, or the total ineffectiveness? (except for insuring job security for government employees)
The desired result I've already stated, combining our tax and benefits programs; in short ending all taxes and entitlement program other than the NIT, a single entity to replace the hoards of various tax collecting and benefit paying organization (ie IRS, medicare, medicaid, social security etc)
Part of the reason government exists is to provide for the general welfare, this plan is a radical simplification and a massive reduction in the size of government. Your rant was sadly lacking any real rebuttal, just an emotional splurge about governmental inefficiencies. Congratulations on stating the obvious.rant
I'm disappointed that instead of attacking the NIT you decided to go on an emotional tirade.
I didn't say anyone was the enemy, stop with the idiotic characterization that completely miss the point of the conversation. It was stated that conservatives in particular dislike the NIT because of certain features, none of which you've addressed, instead you elected to spew rhetorical bile. At the same time, the benefits of it are in line with core right wing tenants, particularly smaller government.You attach conservatives as the enemy, and ignore the real problem.
If you bother responding again, try to put together something coherent.
NIT, as you describe it, would substantially improve the efficiency of government by eliminating duplicate, and competing programs. What is keeping the talking heads on the media from talking about it?
What specific features do conservatives dislike about NIT?
Does NIT penalize someone for getting a job? Or, earning over a arbitrary amount?