CDZ Should Government Benefits be Earned By Able-Bodied Adults?

[warf]

So this begs the question: Should Government benefits be earned?

Is it moral for the Government to take wealth from those who have earned it....and then redistribute that wealth to millions of able-bodied adults who have not earned it?

What is our social obligation (it any) to give wealth to those who have not earned it?

You asked a question and then want to limit the answers to a very narrow agenda.

It's not unlike asking if I stopped beating my wife and disallow responses that deny that I ever beat my wife.

Are government benefits only that given to the poor? Why not call low tax rates, government subsidies and tax payer financed infrastructure government benefits? Do General Dynamics stock holders deserve the benefit they get from endless war?

The question is too broad to be limited like you are trying to do.

 

[Moonglow]

Those who support government programs for the poor never want to look at, much less admit the downside of that. Yes, a hungry family can be helped by a government program dispensing money or food or a private charity dispensing money or food, but the effect on that family can be very different depending on the source.

If the government gives the money/food no strings attached and judges the poverty level as the justification for giving it, being poor is transformed into an advantage and entitlement. And it can remove much of the incentive for doing what we have to do to get ourselves out of poverty. Is it true benevolence when 'charity' reduces incentive, increases dependency, and makes poverty so comfortable that it becomes a choice? And also an advantage to politicians who depend on the votes of those receiving government aid.

Then there is the organization that offers food, a bed for the night, or help for a family but expects reciprocation--wash dishes or sweep up or scrub the graffiti off the fence so that there is dignity in receiving assistance. Working with the family to help them clean up, find a job, get off the sauce or drugs, manage their resources more effectively, and develop pride and dignity that they are becoming more self reliant and need less help is true charity. It requires a lot of one on one interaction and a lot of patience and a lot of work because there is usually two steps back for every three steps forward. Success is measured by those who become self sufficient and not by how many are being helped.

Being charitable with somebody else's money is not charity. Being charitable with no concern for the negative consequences of what we do is not charity. And when we hurt people more than we help them, that does move the whole thing into the arena of immorality.

Really? Where in the rural areas are there these places?

 

[Josf]

"Maybe by demanding work in exchange for Government Benefits the paradigm changes and things get better. Why not try it?"

People employing other people are called employers. That can work both ways when "employees" change their mindset and go looking for someone to employ, rather than looking for an employer. If I sell skilled labor, for example, then I'm looking for someone who sells access to work that must be done by a skilled laborer, so the master/slave, or employee/employer, or government/citizen mindset is not the only mindset on the open source free market of ideas.

People can try to use government (so called) as their means by which they decide to employ other people. How does that actually work? There is work to be done by someone skilled at that work.

"Maybe by demanding work in exchange for Government Benefits the paradigm changes and things get better. Why not try it?"

Why not try it? Go right ahead. You have a lot of work to do as you try it. So what is on your list of things to do as you have this work load you have volunteered to take on?

1. Communicate the idea to other people and other people might be inspired to share the work load as other people join the work force, employing their time and energy, in order to demand work in exchange for benefits that are no longer yours to give to anyone.

2. Communicate the idea to the people who have the power to steal anything they want from anyone, and ask them to demand work in exchange for some of the loot they stole.

I think you may be taking on this work load on your own.

So you give time and energy to govern the so called government according to your idea that someone, somewhere, is going to demand work in exchange for what you call Government Benefits, and the obvious obstacles in your way are people who either do not want to demand such things from anyone, or the obstacles in your way are people who demand from you whatever you may have earned with your ability to create wealth and those people do whatever they want with whatever they demand from you according to their exclusive pleasure, not yours.

 

[WelfareQueen]

So this begs the question: Should Government benefits be earned?

Is it moral for the Government to take wealth from those who have earned it....and then redistribute that wealth to millions of able-bodied adults who have not earned it?

What is our social obligation (it any) to give wealth to those who have not earned it?

You asked a question and then want to limit the answers to a very narrow agenda.

It's not unlike asking if I stopped beating my wife and disallow responses that deny that I ever beat my wife.

Are government benefits only that given to the poor? Why not call low tax rates, government subsidies and tax payer financed infrastructure government benefits? Do General Dynamics stock holders deserve the benefit they get from endless war?

The question is too broad to be limited like you are trying to do.

That is how the CDZ works. If you don't like the debate questions posed.....you don't have to answer. k.

 

[Foxfyre]

Those who support government programs for the poor never want to look at, much less admit the downside of that. Yes, a hungry family can be helped by a government program dispensing money or food or a private charity dispensing money or food, but the effect on that family can be very different depending on the source.

If the government gives the money/food no strings attached and judges the poverty level as the justification for giving it, being poor is transformed into an advantage and entitlement. And it can remove much of the incentive for doing what we have to do to get ourselves out of poverty. Is it true benevolence when 'charity' reduces incentive, increases dependency, and makes poverty so comfortable that it becomes a choice? And also an advantage to politicians who depend on the votes of those receiving government aid.

Then there is the organization that offers food, a bed for the night, or help for a family but expects reciprocation--wash dishes or sweep up or scrub the graffiti off the fence so that there is dignity in receiving assistance. Working with the family to help them clean up, find a job, get off the sauce or drugs, manage their resources more effectively, and develop pride and dignity that they are becoming more self reliant and need less help is true charity. It requires a lot of one on one interaction and a lot of patience and a lot of work because there is usually two steps back for every three steps forward. Success is measured by those who become self sufficient and not by how many are being helped.

Being charitable with somebody else's money is not charity. Being charitable with no concern for the negative consequences of what we do is not charity. And when we hurt people more than we help them, that does move the whole thing into the arena of immorality.

Really? Where in the rural areas are there these places?

They have been in every small town--and we have lived in a LOT of small towns--in the three states we have lived over a number of decades. Sometimes formal operations, sometimes informal, but nobody had to go hungry in any of those places. And there are massive services for the poor in all the cities.

 

[BULLDOG]

There is no doubt that the government takes money from those that earn it and give to those that didn't. In light of Citizens United, where corporations are now considered people, they deserve consideration under the outline of the OP questions. Much more is given to corporations than is given to the working poor. Why isn't there as much concern about those unearned benefits being given as there is about helping a struggling family feed their kids?

Off topic with no supporting evidence. Entitlements make up the bulk of Federal spending. Subsidies to Corporations do not remotely approach entitlement spending.

If you are asking if Corporations should receive subsidies....in my opinion no. But your response does not address the parameters of the outlined debate.

I have to disagree with you. Corporations being granted the rights of an individual certainly qualifies them for this discussion.
In 2012, the average American taxpayer making $50,000 per year paid just $36 towards the food stamps program. That's just ten cents a day. And when it comes to funding the rest of America's social safety net programs, the average American taxpayer making $50,000 a year pays just over six dollars a year.
The average American family pays $6,000 a year in subsidies to big business.

If you are concerned with taking from those that earn it and giving to those that haven't, it's silly to worry about the tiny amount that the poor get compared to the huge amount thrown at corporations.
Food Stamps Are Affordable Corporate Welfare Is Not

 

[WelfareQueen]

There is no doubt that the government takes money from those that earn it and give to those that didn't. In light of Citizens United, where corporations are now considered people, they deserve consideration under the outline of the OP questions. Much more is given to corporations than is given to the working poor. Why isn't there as much concern about those unearned benefits being given as there is about helping a struggling family feed their kids?

Off topic with no supporting evidence. Entitlements make up the bulk of Federal spending. Subsidies to Corporations do not remotely approach entitlement spending.

If you are asking if Corporations should receive subsidies....in my opinion no. But your response does not address the parameters of the outlined debate.

I have to disagree with you. Corporations being granted the rights of an individual certainly qualifies them for this discussion.
In 2012, the average American taxpayer making $50,000 per year paid just $36 towards the food stamps program. That's just ten cents a day. And when it comes to funding the rest of America's social safety net programs, the average American taxpayer making $50,000 a year pays just over six dollars a year.
The average American family pays $6,000 a year in subsidies to big business.

If you are concerned with taking from those that earn it and giving to those that haven't, it's silly to worry about the tiny amount that the poor get compared to the huge amount thrown at corporations.
Food Stamps Are Affordable Corporate Welfare Is Not

Interesting. Why is the Government giving out any subsidies? As I said....I do not support subsidies to business, period. Per your link, these are some of the things you are calling Corporate welfare.

"includes cash payments to farmers and research funds to high-tech companies, as well as indirect subsidies, such as funding for overseas promotion of specific U.S. products and industries...It does not include tax preferences or trade restrictions."

It does include payments to 374 individuals on the plush Upper East Side of New York City, and others who own farms, including Bruce Springsteen, Bon Jovi, and Ted Turner. Wealthy heir Mark Rockefeller received $342,000 to NOT farm, to allow his Idaho land to return to its natural state."


I find it fascinating liberal icons like Bruce Springsteen and Bon Jovi are taking these subsidies....don't you? Interesting info, but still off topic to the debate questions. Please stay on topic. Thank you.

 

[warf]

. Entitlements make up the bulk of Federal spending. Subsidies to Corporations do not remotely approach entitlement spending.

The interesting thing about this is that a big chunk of entitlements, Social Security and Medicare, are paid for with payroll taxes on the potential recipients.

Corporate subsidies, on the other hand, are paid for by all the tax payers.

 

[WelfareQueen]

A reminder of the debate topic and CDZ rules. Please stay on topic. If the specific debate questions are ignored you are not on topic.

Thank you.


CDZ Rules:


No Name Calling Or Putting Down Posters
No Trolling and/or Troll Threads
No Hijacking
No Personal Attacks
No Neg Repping



For a reminder...this is the OP. All posters are asked to stay on topic.
Thanks.


The question of distribution of benefits goes to the heart of our American System right now.

President Obama has talked openly about "spreading the wealth around." Basically, his vision of social justice is to take money from those who have earned it....and then giving that money to those who have not earned it....essentially a vast redistribution of wealth where the Government gets to decide who the winners and loser are.

So this begs the question: Should Government benefits be earned?

Is it moral for the Government to take wealth from those who have earned it....and then redistribute that wealth to millions of able-bodied adults who have not earned it?

What is our social obligation (it any) to give wealth to those who have not earned it?

And keep in mind....if you have not worked for something....you have earned nothing....that point cannot be argued.

All clean debate rules apply. No ad hominem attacks. No profanity. No off topic. Any posts of that nature will not be tolerated.

For those of you who support Obama's vision of social justice....please explain why logically and coherently. For those of you who do not....the same rules apply. I appreciate the debate and input.

 

[WelfareQueen]

. Entitlements make up the bulk of Federal spending. Subsidies to Corporations do not remotely approach entitlement spending.

The interesting thing about this is that a big chunk of entitlements, Social Security and Medicare, are paid for with payroll taxes on the potential recipients.

Corporate subsidies, on the other hand, are paid for by all the tax payers.

Off topic. The debate questions and thread has nothing to do with Corporate subsidies. Start your own thread on the topic if you would like...but not here.

 

[Josf]

"The question of distribution of benefits goes to the heart of our American System right now."

Repeating lies, or repeating campaign promises meant to be broken, or repeating an ongoing fraud, never makes the actual meaning of the words true: ever.

Repetition of lies only works incrementally on those who are defenseless against it.

"It's not unlike asking if I stopped beating my wife and disallow responses that deny that I ever beat my wife."

The claim that "benefits" exist is precisely the same thing as claiming that those benefits were gathered up by some process, such as wife beating, as the analogy intends to offer to you, or to anyone else, who actually wants to gain accurate answers to vital questions.

The emperor has fine cloths today, says one to another, and then someone dares to point out that the emperor has no clothes at all, and then you censure the one pointing out the obvious fact, as you claim that the topic has to do with the beautiful clothes worn by the emperor?

Really?

And you do so with a straight face?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

. Entitlements make up the bulk of Federal spending. Subsidies to Corporations do not remotely approach entitlement spending.

The interesting thing about this is that a big chunk of entitlements, Social Security and Medicare, are paid for with payroll taxes on the potential recipients.

Corporate subsidies, on the other hand, are paid for by all the tax payers.

Yes, exactly. Often ignored is that they're called "entitlements" because people are entitled to them.

And corporations and Big Oil are most certainly "able bodied". Why should they be paid enormous welfare amounts, paid for by the poor and working class?

 

[BULLDOG]

There is no doubt that the government takes money from those that earn it and give to those that didn't. In light of Citizens United, where corporations are now considered people, they deserve consideration under the outline of the OP questions. Much more is given to corporations than is given to the working poor. Why isn't there as much concern about those unearned benefits being given as there is about helping a struggling family feed their kids?

Off topic with no supporting evidence. Entitlements make up the bulk of Federal spending. Subsidies to Corporations do not remotely approach entitlement spending.

If you are asking if Corporations should receive subsidies....in my opinion no. But your response does not address the parameters of the outlined debate.

I have to disagree with you. Corporations being granted the rights of an individual certainly qualifies them for this discussion.
In 2012, the average American taxpayer making $50,000 per year paid just $36 towards the food stamps program. That's just ten cents a day. And when it comes to funding the rest of America's social safety net programs, the average American taxpayer making $50,000 a year pays just over six dollars a year.
The average American family pays $6,000 a year in subsidies to big business.

If you are concerned with taking from those that earn it and giving to those that haven't, it's silly to worry about the tiny amount that the poor get compared to the huge amount thrown at corporations.
Food Stamps Are Affordable Corporate Welfare Is Not

Interesting. Why is the Government giving out any subsidies? As I said....I do not support subsidies to business, period. Per your link, these are some of the things you are calling Corporate welfare.

"includes cash payments to farmers and research funds to high-tech companies, as well as indirect subsidies, such as funding for overseas promotion of specific U.S. products and industries...It does not include tax preferences or trade restrictions."

It does include payments to 374 individuals on the plush Upper East Side of New York City, and others who own farms, including Bruce Springsteen, Bon Jovi, and Ted Turner. Wealthy heir Mark Rockefeller received $342,000 to NOT farm, to allow his Idaho land to return to its natural state."


I find it fascinating liberal icons like Bruce Springsteen and Bon Jovi are taking these subsidies....don't you? Interesting info, but still off topic to the debate questions. Please stay on topic. Thank you.

Should Government benefits be earned?

Is it moral for the Government to take wealth from those who have earned it....and then redistribute that wealth to millions of able-bodied adults who have not earned it?

What is our social obligation (it any) to give wealth to those who have not earned it?

Should Government benefits be earned?

Is it moral for the Government to take wealth from those who have earned it....and then redistribute that wealth to millions of able-bodied adults who have not earned it?

What is our social obligation (it any) to give wealth to those who have not earned it?

I'm sorry if you worded your OP poorly and allowed discussion that you didn't want, but you asked the questions and it is certainly on subject to answer your questions.

1.Should Government benefits be earned?
Corporate give aways and subsidies certainly aren't earned, but they are greedily accepted.

2.Is it moral for the Government to take wealth from those who have earned it....and then redistribute that wealth to millions of able-bodied adults who have not earned it?
There is no question of where the money for those giveaways comes from. It comes from every tax payer in the country, and corporations don't any insurmountable disabilities that prevent them from supporting themselves, yet it is lavishly distributed to them.

3.What is our social obligation (it any) to give wealth to those who have not earned it? [/QUOTE]

My remarks fall well within the area defined by your questions, and if it's not what you intended, then that is your fault. If you don't care to remark on my post, you don't have to, but you can't prevent me from putting my 2 cents worth in. Choose your questions better next time.

 

[BULLDOG]

A reminder of the debate topic and CDZ rules. Please stay on topic. If the specific debate questions are ignored you are not on topic.

Thank you.


CDZ Rules:


No Name Calling Or Putting Down Posters
No Trolling and/or Troll Threads
No Hijacking
No Personal Attacks
No Neg Repping



For a reminder...this is the OP. All posters are asked to stay on topic.
Thanks.


The question of distribution of benefits goes to the heart of our American System right now.

President Obama has talked openly about "spreading the wealth around." Basically, his vision of social justice is to take money from those who have earned it....and then giving that money to those who have not earned it....essentially a vast redistribution of wealth where the Government gets to decide who the winners and loser are.

So this begs the question: Should Government benefits be earned?

Is it moral for the Government to take wealth from those who have earned it....and then redistribute that wealth to millions of able-bodied adults who have not earned it?

What is our social obligation (it any) to give wealth to those who have not earned it?

And keep in mind....if you have not worked for something....you have earned nothing....that point cannot be argued.

All clean debate rules apply. No ad hominem attacks. No profanity. No off topic. Any posts of that nature will not be tolerated.

For those of you who support Obama's vision of social justice....please explain why logically and coherently. For those of you who do not....the same rules apply. I appreciate the debate and input.

Good. I'm glad to see we agree on what the subject of conversation is. Of course we have a social obligation to help the less fortunate among us, and it's a shame that so much is given to corporations who are very fortunate, and there is so much whining about any help that the truly less fortunate receive. Yes we give away enough money to help those that need help, but the fact that we give it doesn't mean the right ones get it. We are wasting our resources and not getting the social benefit It should bring. It's like being penny wise and pound foolish.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

There is no doubt that the government takes money from those that earn it and give to those that didn't. In light of Citizens United, where corporations are now considered people, they deserve consideration under the outline of the OP questions. Much more is given to corporations than is given to the working poor. Why isn't there as much concern about those unearned benefits being given as there is about helping a struggling family feed their kids?

Off topic with no supporting evidence. Entitlements make up the bulk of Federal spending. Subsidies to Corporations do not remotely approach entitlement spending.

If you are asking if Corporations should receive subsidies....in my opinion no. But your response does not address the parameters of the outlined debate.

I have to disagree with you. Corporations being granted the rights of an individual certainly qualifies them for this discussion.
In 2012, the average American taxpayer making $50,000 per year paid just $36 towards the food stamps program. That's just ten cents a day. And when it comes to funding the rest of America's social safety net programs, the average American taxpayer making $50,000 a year pays just over six dollars a year.
The average American family pays $6,000 a year in subsidies to big business.

If you are concerned with taking from those that earn it and giving to those that haven't, it's silly to worry about the tiny amount that the poor get compared to the huge amount thrown at corporations.
Food Stamps Are Affordable Corporate Welfare Is Not

Interesting. Why is the Government giving out any subsidies? As I said....I do not support subsidies to business, period. Per your link, these are some of the things you are calling Corporate welfare.

"includes cash payments to farmers and research funds to high-tech companies, as well as indirect subsidies, such as funding for overseas promotion of specific U.S. products and industries...It does not include tax preferences or trade restrictions."

It does include payments to 374 individuals on the plush Upper East Side of New York City, and others who own farms, including Bruce Springsteen, Bon Jovi, and Ted Turner. Wealthy heir Mark Rockefeller received $342,000 to NOT farm, to allow his Idaho land to return to its natural state."


I find it fascinating liberal icons like Bruce Springsteen and Bon Jovi are taking these subsidies....don't you? Interesting info, but still off topic to the debate questions. Please stay on topic. Thank you.

Should Government benefits be earned?

Is it moral for the Government to take wealth from those who have earned it....and then redistribute that wealth to millions of able-bodied adults who have not earned it?

What is our social obligation (it any) to give wealth to those who have not earned it?

Should Government benefits be earned?

Is it moral for the Government to take wealth from those who have earned it....and then redistribute that wealth to millions of able-bodied adults who have not earned it?

What is our social obligation (it any) to give wealth to those who have not earned it?

I'm sorry if you worded your OP poorly and allowed discussion that you didn't want, but you asked the questions and it is certainly on subject to answer your questions.

1.Should Government benefits be earned?
Corporate give aways and subsidies certainly aren't earned, but they are greedily accepted.

2.Is it moral for the Government to take wealth from those who have earned it....and then redistribute that wealth to millions of able-bodied adults who have not earned it?
There is no question of where the money for those giveaways comes from. It comes from every tax payer in the country, and corporations don't any insurmountable disabilities that prevent them from supporting themselves, yet it is lavishly distributed to them.

3.What is our social obligation (it any) to give wealth to those who have not earned it?

My remarks fall well within the area defined by your questions, and if it's not what you intended, then that is your fault. If you don't care to remark on my post, you don't have to, but you can't prevent me from putting my 2 cents worth in. Choose your questions better next time.[/QUOTE]


I said the same thing but he still has not made it clear just what his question is.

Does "able-bodied" include the elderly? Children? Vets with PTSD? Welfare ranchers? Big Oil? Other huge corp's (".. are people too, my friend") who get tax subsidies?

Is he just talking about making poor children clean school bathrooms?

The OP was very disjointed and didn't make a lot of sense so I was hoping he would be more clear. So far, not so much.

IWHO is he talking about?

Until that is known, there can be no meaningful conversation.

 

[BULLDOG]

There is no doubt that the government takes money from those that earn it and give to those that didn't. In light of Citizens United, where corporations are now considered people, they deserve consideration under the outline of the OP questions. Much more is given to corporations than is given to the working poor. Why isn't there as much concern about those unearned benefits being given as there is about helping a struggling family feed their kids?

Off topic with no supporting evidence. Entitlements make up the bulk of Federal spending. Subsidies to Corporations do not remotely approach entitlement spending.

If you are asking if Corporations should receive subsidies....in my opinion no. But your response does not address the parameters of the outlined debate.

I have to disagree with you. Corporations being granted the rights of an individual certainly qualifies them for this discussion.
In 2012, the average American taxpayer making $50,000 per year paid just $36 towards the food stamps program. That's just ten cents a day. And when it comes to funding the rest of America's social safety net programs, the average American taxpayer making $50,000 a year pays just over six dollars a year.
The average American family pays $6,000 a year in subsidies to big business.

If you are concerned with taking from those that earn it and giving to those that haven't, it's silly to worry about the tiny amount that the poor get compared to the huge amount thrown at corporations.
Food Stamps Are Affordable Corporate Welfare Is Not

Interesting. Why is the Government giving out any subsidies? As I said....I do not support subsidies to business, period. Per your link, these are some of the things you are calling Corporate welfare.

"includes cash payments to farmers and research funds to high-tech companies, as well as indirect subsidies, such as funding for overseas promotion of specific U.S. products and industries...It does not include tax preferences or trade restrictions."

It does include payments to 374 individuals on the plush Upper East Side of New York City, and others who own farms, including Bruce Springsteen, Bon Jovi, and Ted Turner. Wealthy heir Mark Rockefeller received $342,000 to NOT farm, to allow his Idaho land to return to its natural state."


I find it fascinating liberal icons like Bruce Springsteen and Bon Jovi are taking these subsidies....don't you? Interesting info, but still off topic to the debate questions. Please stay on topic. Thank you.

Should Government benefits be earned?

Is it moral for the Government to take wealth from those who have earned it....and then redistribute that wealth to millions of able-bodied adults who have not earned it?

What is our social obligation (it any) to give wealth to those who have not earned it?

Should Government benefits be earned?

Is it moral for the Government to take wealth from those who have earned it....and then redistribute that wealth to millions of able-bodied adults who have not earned it?

What is our social obligation (it any) to give wealth to those who have not earned it?

I'm sorry if you worded your OP poorly and allowed discussion that you didn't want, but you asked the questions and it is certainly on subject to answer your questions.

1.Should Government benefits be earned?
Corporate give aways and subsidies certainly aren't earned, but they are greedily accepted.

2.Is it moral for the Government to take wealth from those who have earned it....and then redistribute that wealth to millions of able-bodied adults who have not earned it?
There is no question of where the money for those giveaways comes from. It comes from every tax payer in the country, and corporations don't any insurmountable disabilities that prevent them from supporting themselves, yet it is lavishly distributed to them.

3.What is our social obligation (it any) to give wealth to those who have not earned it?

My remarks fall well within the area defined by your questions, and if it's not what you intended, then that is your fault. If you don't care to remark on my post, you don't have to, but you can't prevent me from putting my 2 cents worth in. Choose your questions better next time.

I said the same thing but he still has not made it clear just what his question is.

Does "able-bodied" include the elderly? Children? Vets with PTSD? Welfare ranchers? Big Oil? Other huge corp's (".. are people too, my friend") who get tax subsidies?

Is he just talking about making poor children clean school bathrooms?

The OP was very disjointed and didn't make a lot of sense so I was hoping he would be more clear. So far, not so much.

IWHO is he talking about?

Until that is known, there can be no meaningful conversation.[/QUOTE]

No reason to halt discussion. The questions are self explanatory, and if they weren't worded as hoped, that's not my fault. The OP started the thread, but that doesn't mean he can change the rules on a whim..
There is certainly some fraud and abuse inherent in any program, and it makes sense to be vigilant to prevent as much of that as possible. It's pretty dumb to slash and burn the smallest recipients of help when we are throwing money at the largest recipients who obviously haven't earned it, and don't need it.

 

[WelfareQueen]

For a reminder...this is the OP. All posters are asked to stay on topic.
Thanks.


The question of distribution of benefits goes to the heart of our American System right now.

President Obama has talked openly about "spreading the wealth around." Basically, his vision of social justice is to take money from those who have earned it....and then giving that money to those who have not earned it....essentially a vast redistribution of wealth where the Government gets to decide who the winners and loser are.

So this begs the question: Should Government benefits be earned?

Is it moral for the Government to take wealth from those who have earned it....and then redistribute that wealth to millions of able-bodied adults who have not earned it?

What is our social obligation (it any) to give wealth to those who have not earned it?

And keep in mind....if you have not worked for something....you have earned nothing....that point cannot be argued.

All clean debate rules apply. No ad hominem attacks. No profanity. No off topic. Any posts of that nature will not be tolerated.

For those of you who support Obama's vision of social justice....please explain why logically and coherently. For those of you who do not....the same rules apply. I appreciate the debate and input.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Thread closed at OP'S request.