There is a moral responsibility to provide for the unfortunate

I don't see how Jillian avoided the issue. If "morality" in its simplest terms is defined as "doing the right thing" "or treating others as you wish to be treated" then providing for the "general welfare" of our citizens is a moral obligation.

Jillian and I may disagree on what constitutes "general welfare" or how to achieve that, but providing for our most vulnerable citizens is a moral imperative. (Notice I said "citizens") the problem is not whether or not we take care of the poor, disabled, or elderly, the problem is how do we define that. What kind of country would we have if we didn't?

There are people who
want everything for everyone. There are people who know that's impossible. We need lawmakers who can balance "wants" vs. "needs".
 

Forum List

Back
Top