The bad news is that there are despicable and evil people seeking to kill innocents.
The worse news is that some of these pathetic excuses for protoplasm are subsidized by taxpayers.
It’s happened in France, Australia, and the United Kingdom.
And we now know that the Tsarnaev family was on he dole as well.
Which makes this cartoon funny, but at the same time not funny at all.
I used to think it was outrageous that the welfare state funded bad behavior (as illustrated by this humorous poster), as well as general laziness and moral depravity.
But there should be a special wing of the Moocher Hall of Fame for taxpayer-subsidized terrorists.
[…] the United States, by contrast, we import them and give them welfare. I’m not sure which approach is more […]
[…] the United States, by contrast, we import them and give them welfare. I’m not sure which approach is more […]
[…] the United States, by contrast, we import them and give them welfare. I’m not sure which approach is more […]
[…] the United States, by contrast, we import them and give them welfare. I’m not sure which approach is more […]
[…] the United States, by contrast, we import them and give them welfare. I’m not sure which approach is more […]
[…] the United States, by contrast, we import them and give them welfare. I’m not sure which approach is more […]
[…] the United States, by contrast, we import them and give them welfare. I’m not sure which approach is more […]
[…] https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2013/04/28/are-you-happy-that-your-tax-dollars-subsidized-the-… […]
[…] see little hope of fixing a refugee program that lures newcomers into welfare dependency (and may breed terrorism by creating a dispiriting environment of […]
[…] see little hope of fixing a refugee program that lures newcomers into welfare dependency (and may breed terrorism by creating a dispiriting environment of […]
Jeremy wrote: “If such a difference did not exist, by your logic we could also publically lambast Starbucks for making the Tsarnaev brothers a frappucino and thereby contributing to their lifestyle and criminality.”
That logic has been not only applied, but taken further: Australia arrested and charged a doctor for giving an unexpired SIM card to his ill-chosen second cousin before a different cousin was involved in a botched terrorist attack: http://www.grputland.com/2007/07/haneef-so-much-for-separation-of-powers.html
The taxpayers paid for that too – and for compensating the doctor after the charge was withdrawn.
[…] as we saw with the Tsarnaev brothers, the welfare state in America also subsidizes terrorist […]
[…] like the Tsarnaev brothers. Just like the deadbeat scrounger from Australia, the nutjob moocher from the United Kingdom, and […]
[…] Are You Happy that Your Tax Dollars Subsidized the Tsarnaev Family? […]
[…] These are encouraging numbers. And here’s another bit of good news. A recent poll by Fox News found that a plurality of Americans would not give up personal freedoms to reduce the threat of terrorism. What’s especially remarkable is that this poll took place immediately following the bombing of the Boston Marathon by the welfare-sponging Tsarnaev brothers. […]
No, I’m unhappy about it, especially if the public benefits were obtained through fraudulent means, for which some evidence is emerging: 1) As non-citizens, the Tsarnaev family may have been ineligible to receive some of the benefits unless they claimed asylum status, which they did. The only problem is, they returned to the country which they original fled from. Doesn’t that undercut their claim that they were receiving asylum in the U.S.? 2) The timing is a little unclear, but Tamerlan and Katherine Russell Tsarnaev may have exceeded the income requirements to receive certain public benefits. Eventually, Mass. ended their benefits due to income, but I’m not sure this happened quickly enough. 3) Dzhokhar Tsarnaev almost certainly did not report the income he made from marijuana sales & the possible commissions he received for referring friends to Junior’s Auto Body in Cambridge in his financial aid/scholarship applications to UMass Dartmouth.
Over all it’s small beer that they were users. It is worse to me that the NFL is tax exempt.
taking money from people that have earned it….. and giving it to people who have not earned it… is not a legitimate function of government…
Oh, good grief. To collect taxes at all is to redistribute wealth. Do you believe in government at all? (I do.)
I agree and would argue that Freedom is often times less than free. It hard work. Jimhodgeallied.com
American tax dollars should not be subsidizing any family… the idea that democrat and republican politicians have the wisdom… intellect… or moral acumen to redistribute the wealth of the nation in the best long term interests of individual Americans… or the Republic as a whole…. is a flawed concept… and one that is epically distasteful when resources are given to people who would do us harm…
[…] Are You Happy that Your Tax Dollars Subsidized the Tsarnaev Family? […]
Better them than government employees.
Jeremy, I think the main underlying point here is that when we, through the bureaucratic blob of government, blindly subsidize the masses, we will subsidize a considerable number of undeserving. It is better to get government out of the welfare business and leave it in the hands of people closest to those who need assistance.
For starters, all we have is one anonymous source that they were on welfare. That is hardly proof that they were receiving “benefits” — though if there is actual proof that is released, I will certainly accept it.
Secondly, regardless of how you feel about the welfare state, there is a difference between knowingly subsidizing a criminal and unknowingly subsidizing one. If such a difference did not exist, by your logic we could also publically lambast Starbucks for making the Tsarnaev brothers a frappucino and thereby contributing to their lifestyle and criminality. I can see your headline now: “Are you happy [insert company here] is making money off the Tsarnaev Family?”