Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Interesting that you would interpret the Op this way. By contrast, I saw the message as "wealth is derived from society, and as part of the social contract, we provide sustenance for the members unable to care for themselves, such as children and the elderly".
Whichever, way you view it, do you truely desire to live somewhere that the poor are allowed to starve, even the children? If so, it can be arranged boedicca....such places exist.
The underlying message in the OP is collectivist.
And your post is undeserving of any response other than to say a government whose purpose is Forced Charity does so by enslaving the productive.
Wealth accumulation is a "collectivist" activity. All societies are inherently "collectivist". Damning the social programs we rely on to prevent undue loss of life via starvation, etc. as "charity" begs the question.
IMO, these programs (the ones we should have, not the ones we actually have) are a legitimate expense of living together and serve the needs of us all. There is greater peace and security in a society in which no one (or very few) are left to starve, and that not only benefits all members, it benefits the wealthiest members disproportionately.
The underlying message is that we as individuals and as a society can all be judged by what we do for the least among us.
Would you say Jesus of Nazareth was a good man for feeding the poor and healing the sick?
You are NOT arguing for charity you are arguing that the Government should seize private citizens property and wealth.
No, RGS. I at least am arguing that the wealthy enjoy far greater benefits from living amongst us and therefore, it is reasonable to expect them to pay more for the cost of maintenance of the society. IMO, preventing hunger is as legitimate a government function as paving roads.....possibly moreso.
I do so love listening to hateful, pessimistic leftists telling us how convinced they are that the American people are selfish, self-absorbed pigs who would all gladly allow children to starve in the streets while stepping over them on their way to their limos if they were not forced by the all-wise, all-caring government to reluctantly let fall a few dollars from their greedy, grasping fingers.
Personally, I think this view of humanity - and Americans in particular - says a lot more about the sorts of people leftists are than it does about the sorts of people the rest of us are.
History already addressed this. Prior to reforms, the establishment of social programs, and worker-protection laws, that's exactly what happened, with very few exceptions.
Furthermore, that's exactly what the bourgeoisie- including those who happen to be American citizens- do around the world to this day. They call it 'outsourcing' now.
I would hardly call the average American "selfish" and "willing to step over starving children". IMO, the average American is horrified by images of hunger in America and wants it eradicated -- but most of us realize this is an essential government function.
I don't get as many benefits from government someone earning $14,500 does.
No, you get more. I assume you meant to imply you earn substantially more, and the reason you need not pay a guard to stand outside your home at night is because the poor where you live are not without resources or hope. I could go on, but hopefully this conveys my point....none of us lives in a vacuum. The well-being of our neighbors directly and substantially affects us.
History already addressed this. Prior to reforms, the establishment of social programs, and worker-protection laws, that's exactly what happened, with very few exceptions.
Furthermore, that's exactly what the bourgeoisie- including those who happen to be American citizens- do around the world to this day. They call it 'outsourcing' now.
I would hardly call the average American "selfish" and "willing to step over starving children". IMO, the average American is horrified by images of hunger in America and wants it eradicated -- but most of us realize this is an essential government function.
Too bad, it's the most inefficient vehicle for it.
Case in point, you don't actually give more to government programs than your tax return tells you do you?
I don't get as many benefits from government someone earning $14,500 does.
No, you get more. I assume you meant to imply you earn substantially more, and the reason you need not pay a guard to stand outside your home at night is because the poor where you live are not without resources or hope. I could go on, but hopefully this conveys my point....none of us lives in a vacuum. The well-being of our neighbors directly and substantially affects us.
The Progressive perspective in a nutshell: "Give them what they demand or else they are going to come after it themselves."
Must feel good to know you've "earned" your right to not be one of those lowly people - but at the same time you project what you'd do if you were.
History already addressed this. Prior to reforms, the establishment of social programs, and worker-protection laws, that's exactly what happened, with very few exceptions.
Furthermore, that's exactly what the bourgeoisie- including those who happen to be American citizens- do around the world to this day. They call it 'outsourcing' now.
I would hardly call the average American "selfish" and "willing to step over starving children". IMO, the average American is horrified by images of hunger in America and wants it eradicated -- but most of us realize this is an essential government function.
Too bad, it's the most inefficient vehicle for it.
Case in point, you don't actually give more to government programs than your tax return tells you do you?
I would hardly call the average American "selfish" and "willing to step over starving children". IMO, the average American is horrified by images of hunger in America and wants it eradicated -- but most of us realize this is an essential government function.
Too bad, it's the most inefficient vehicle for it.
Case in point, you don't actually give more to government programs than your tax return tells you do you?
Most goods and services are related to tax, surcharge, and subsidy in one way or another. We contribute every time money changes hands, more so than not.
No, you get more. I assume you meant to imply you earn substantially more, and the reason you need not pay a guard to stand outside your home at night is because the poor where you live are not without resources or hope. I could go on, but hopefully this conveys my point....none of us lives in a vacuum. The well-being of our neighbors directly and substantially affects us.
The Progressive perspective in a nutshell: "Give them what they demand or else they are going to come after it themselves."
Must feel good to know you've "earned" your right to not be one of those lowly people - but at the same time you project what you'd do if you were.
I dun even know where to begin, asterism. Your contempt for the poor is clouding your judgment.
I would hardly call the average American "selfish" and "willing to step over starving children". IMO, the average American is horrified by images of hunger in America and wants it eradicated -- but most of us realize this is an essential government function.
Too bad, it's the most inefficient vehicle for it.
Case in point, you don't actually give more to government programs than your tax return tells you do you?
Government is inefficient, but hardly "most inefficient", asterism. Let's take food, just for starters. If all government feeding programs ceased tomorrow, what do you envision happening that would suffice to feed people without the means to do so themselves? There is not a food bank, shelter or meals program in my area that is not overburdened and underfunded. I doubt there are many such anywhere in the US.
Before we had government programs like food stamps, we had much greater levels of hunger in the US. How do you explain this?
I would hardly call the average American "selfish" and "willing to step over starving children". IMO, the average American is horrified by images of hunger in America and wants it eradicated -- but most of us realize this is an essential government function.
Too bad, it's the most inefficient vehicle for it.
Case in point, you don't actually give more to government programs than your tax return tells you do you?
Government is inefficient, but hardly "most inefficient", asterism. Let's take food, just for starters. If all government feeding programs ceased tomorrow, what do you envision happening that would suffice to feed people without the means to do so themselves? There is not a food bank, shelter or meals program in my area that is not overburdened and underfunded. I doubt there are many such anywhere in the US.
Before we had government programs like food stamps, we had much greater levels of hunger in the US. How do you explain this?
A man has a right to the fruits of his labour. Yet a man also has a right to his life and, by extension, to that which he needs to sustain it- water, shelter, food, and clothing. The just society allows men to keep what they have rightfully earned by their own hand after it has been seen to it that none among its people- most especially the elderly, the children, the ill and infirm-those who cannot provide or care for themselves- are tended to and that none who is willing to work and contribute as he is able is left to starve, to freeze, to die of thirst, or to be left as a dog in the alleyway. The first priority of the good society is to see to it that all the People are afforded the ability to achieve a good standard of living and socio-political parity with his fellows. Those who have accumulated wealth are morally obligated, as they are able, to contribute to this effort. Once this most fundamental objective, this commandment which is placed upon us from a higher source of morality and justice is seen to, then the second priority of the good society is to see to it that those who earn for themselves are not robbed of what is rightfully theirs to satiate the greed of the envious.
Too bad, it's the most inefficient vehicle for it.
Case in point, you don't actually give more to government programs than your tax return tells you do you?
Government is inefficient, but hardly "most inefficient", asterism. Let's take food, just for starters. If all government feeding programs ceased tomorrow, what do you envision happening that would suffice to feed people without the means to do so themselves? There is not a food bank, shelter or meals program in my area that is not overburdened and underfunded. I doubt there are many such anywhere in the US.
Before we had government programs like food stamps, we had much greater levels of hunger in the US. How do you explain this?
Is "there are government programs for that" the reason you aren't out there handing out food tonight?
A man has a right to the fruits of his labour. Yet a man also has a right to his life and, by extension, to that which he needs to sustain it- water, shelter, food, and clothing. The just society allows men to keep what they have rightfully earned by their own hand after it has been seen to it that none among its people- most especially the elderly, the children, the ill and infirm-those who cannot provide or care for themselves- are tended to and that none who is willing to work and contribute as he is able is left to starve, to freeze, to die of thirst, or to be left as a dog in the alleyway. The first priority of the good society is to see to it that all the People are afforded the ability to achieve a good standard of living and socio-political parity with his fellows. Those who have accumulated wealth are morally obligated, as they are able, to contribute to this effort. Once this most fundamental objective, this commandment which is placed upon us from a higher source of morality and justice is seen to, then the second priority of the good society is to see to it that those who earn for themselves are not robbed of what is rightfully theirs to satiate the greed of the envious.
Unfortunately government is that higher source of morality for many people.
A man has a right to the fruits of his labour. Yet a man also has a right to his life and, by extension, to that which he needs to sustain it- water, shelter, food, and clothing. The just society allows men to keep what they have rightfully earned by their own hand after it has been seen to it that none among its people- most especially the elderly, the children, the ill and infirm-those who cannot provide or care for themselves- are tended to and that none who is willing to work and contribute as he is able is left to starve, to freeze, to die of thirst, or to be left as a dog in the alleyway. The first priority of the good society is to see to it that all the People are afforded the ability to achieve a good standard of living and socio-political parity with his fellows. Those who have accumulated wealth are morally obligated, as they are able, to contribute to this effort. Once this most fundamental objective, this commandment which is placed upon us from a higher source of morality and justice is seen to, then the second priority of the good society is to see to it that those who earn for themselves are not robbed of what is rightfully theirs to satiate the greed of the envious.
Unfortunately government is that higher source of morality for many people.
Like who, Pix?
Government is inefficient, but hardly "most inefficient", asterism. Let's take food, just for starters. If all government feeding programs ceased tomorrow, what do you envision happening that would suffice to feed people without the means to do so themselves? There is not a food bank, shelter or meals program in my area that is not overburdened and underfunded. I doubt there are many such anywhere in the US.
Before we had government programs like food stamps, we had much greater levels of hunger in the US. How do you explain this?
Is "there are government programs for that" the reason you aren't out there handing out food tonight?
No, it isn't, asterism. Of course not.
Is "there are government programs for that" the reason you aren't out there handing out food tonight?
No, it isn't, asterism. Of course not.
Then why? Your posts describe a person who deeply cares about those less fortunate, so much that you demand everyone else pay more money to the government.
No, it isn't, asterism. Of course not.
Then why? Your posts describe a person who deeply cares about those less fortunate, so much that you demand everyone else pay more money to the government.
My word, but you make a huge number of assumptions, asterism. Where have I said I wanted to increase the budget for social programs? Have I not said some are poorly designed and should be halted?
The debate is not about the existing federal budget....it's more philosophical. Should we, as members of this society, underwrite the cost of social programs for the poor? I say we should. You seem to be saying we should not.
Then why? Your posts describe a person who deeply cares about those less fortunate, so much that you demand everyone else pay more money to the government.
My word, but you make a huge number of assumptions, asterism. Where have I said I wanted to increase the budget for social programs? Have I not said some are poorly designed and should be halted?
The debate is not about the existing federal budget....it's more philosophical. Should we, as members of this society, underwrite the cost of social programs for the poor? I say we should. You seem to be saying we should not.
Not true. I say we should and I do myself what I ask others to do. I do not think the government should be the entity providing this relief.
