"those that want to pursue a path that is not deemed economically viable."
Choosing paths that are not economically viable is completely fine. Kobe, for instance, commutes by helicopter frequently. Probably not economically viable, but he has the right to make that choice for himself in America. What he doesn't get to do is ask the tax payers to cover it. There's no connection between those two things, blowing money and the right to get it back for free, no matter what end of the spectrum you're on.
I get that you're like a "rebel against society" type, but I really think if you stepped back and thought about the entire world and its future, you would be able to identify the problem with your logic; specifically, supporting everyone who is "to dumb or lazy to get a job."
I don't really get how supporting the current system of welfare makes me a "rebel against society". I was called a sheep who believes everything that the government tells me before. Can you kooks please make up your mind?
The majority of people don't want to live on welfare. They don't want to live in a shit house. They want to work to get that car and that tv. These welfare recipients live a shit existence. But its their existence to do what they want. And if you want to look at the entire world I would say that outside the west there is very little in welfare payments (this is a guess, I am not sure) and look how well Africa and the middle east and india are going. Look outside your middle class sheltered existence and maybe try to empathise with those beyond what you know.
And I think you misinterpreted my economically viable point. I meant career paths that are not viable such as poets, musicians etc but have a tremendous cultural impact need to be propped up by society/welfare. Alot if these are the stoners and dropouts that you and Limbaugh get so angry about.
Anyway fuck you right wing reactionary scumbags. I'm done talking tax and welfare on a skateboard forum.