Your thoughts on this passage?

[Cecilie1200]

Cecilie, show me a nation which has no social programs to alleviate the suffering of the poor and yet the wealthy care for them voluntarially and adequately? Or such a nation which has a substantial middle class?

None exists, nor ever has, nor ever will.

Clients of government are not middle class.

They are by Mad's definition of "adequate".

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Kind of like your contempt for humanity - and outright hatred of the wealthy - clouds yours.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

Well, tell us. If all government food programs ceased tomorrow, would the government be returning that money back to the taxpayers, or would it be keeping it and spending it on some other program? The answer does affect the scenario.

Second of all, were you aware that the government actually directs its poor clients to private charities - at least half of which are operated by religious organizations, by the way - for aid the government cannot give them? Yes, it's true that they could always use more money, but that leads us back to the first paragraph.

Third, why do you imagine that if government food programs ended, the situation in regards to the number of people relying on them would remain static? Why do you and your kind always insist on believing that government action takes place in a vacuum, having no effect whatsoever on people's behavior?

Fourth, while we're on the subject of imagining that things remain static, your analogy to previous times seems to assume that nothing else has changed between then and now EXCEPT the existence of government food programs. Does that seem logical or likely to you?

 

[Madeline]

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?

Well, tell us. If all government food programs ceased tomorrow, would the government be returning that money back to the taxpayers, or would it be keeping it and spending it on some other program? The answer does affect the scenario.

Feel free to assume either, both, or any combo thereof.

Second of all, were you aware that the government actually directs its poor clients to private charities - at least half of which are operated by religious organizations, by the way - for aid the government cannot give them? Yes, it's true that they could always use more money, but that leads us back to the first paragraph.

How does it relate to this first paragragh? Are you assuming all tax relief will be driven into the hands of private charities? If the American wealthy get the tax relief they are now clamoring for, will American charities see a $700 Billion uptick in contributions?

Third, why do you imagine that if government food programs ended, the situation in regards to the number of people relying on them would remain static? Why do you and your kind always insist on believing that government action takes place in a vacuum, having no effect whatsoever on people's behavior?

I don't. Some poor would doubtless die of malnutrition and starvation. I just don't happen to think that would be a good thing.

Fourth, while we're on the subject of imagining that things remain static, your analogy to previous times seems to assume that nothing else has changed between then and now EXCEPT the existence of government food programs. Does that seem logical or likely to you?

No, I'll concede there have been other changes. The attitudes of the wealthy, for one. I doubt many really want to live among starving people, but once, such people were accepted as a fact of life. These days, we expect everyone, wealthy or not, to at least pay lip service to the notion that each of us has a value as a human and as an American.

 

[JBeukema]

Cecilie, show me a nation which has no social programs to alleviate the suffering of the poor and yet the wealthy care for them voluntarially and adequately? Or such a nation which has a substantial middle class?

None exists, nor ever has, nor ever will.

Clients of government are not middle class.

Snappy, but meaningless. We are all "clients of government", Revere.

The government is to be an agent of the People, never the other way around. Else there is tyranny, for the government in question is no longer of the People.

The government belong to the People. The People are not subservient to the State.

 

[JBeukema]

Not for nothing, Revere, but what exactly is it you think a Rockefeller or Dupont heir has "produced"?

" but what exactly is it you think a Rockefeller or Dupont heir has "produced"?"


or tiger woods?
or phil mickelson?
or randy moss?
or tom brady?
or derek jeter?
or peyton manning?

some kid is good at putting a ball through a hoop and next thing you know he's a multimillionaire...

meanwhile, people who do REAL WORK (secretaries, janitors, mechanics etc)
make barely enough to put food on the table for their kids....


our priorities are all twisted

Maybe they are, but what do you propose? That a man should be prevented from being payed for competing in a sport or performing on a stage? Sure that can't be what you have in mind.

 

[JBeukema]

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.

My morals compel me to take care of those less fortunate, my reward for doing well is the true gift of the life I am able to live doing so.

Nowhere does my moral foundation compel me to outsource that role to the government, nor tolerate its ineffectiveness at doing so. It also does not provide any means to listen to those commanding something of me that which they have not done themselves.

Firstly, who said anything about government?

Secondly, why do you assume the People and the Government are two wholly distinct things? If that is the case, then thing are already very wrong with the society in question.

 

[JBeukema]

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.

I find it flawed and manipulative. We are not pet's, we are not property. Why should the whole reward bad decision making of the individual or group without consequence?

Who said they should? And since when is being an ill child a decision. Since when is starving to death not a consequence?

I find it frightening that you picture a starving child or an old and ill man as somehow deserving of their suffering because they simply must have been lazy and should have known better than to be born poor or to get ill.

I can only think of a single word to describe such thinking. Such maliciousness is simply evil. From where does such malice and darkness of thought come?

 

[JBeukema]

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.

I find it revealing that so many on the right can not imagine a poor man or a sick child being aided or shown compassion by any agent other than the State. I never mentioned the State, yet you can only imagine the State acting to aid the poor- not a person here has imagined themselves, their neighbor, or even the Salvation Army fulfilling this role in society.

Why is that?

 

[JBeukema]

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.

Okay. Now can you please explain why?

First, can you two define 'government'? Because when boiled down to its fundamental nature, is not 'government' merely an organized body of persons and the machinations, bodies, and procedures they establish for collective decision and action?

 

[Madeline]

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.

I find it flawed and manipulative. We are not pet's, we are not property. Why should the whole reward bad decision making of the individual or group without consequence?

Who said they should? And since when is being an ill child a decision. Since when is starving to death not a consequence?

I find it frightening that you picture a starving child or an old and ill man as somehow deserving of their suffering because they simply must have been lazy and should have known better than to be born poor or to get ill.

I can only think of a single word to describe such thinking. Such maliciousness is simply evil. From where does such malice and darkness of thought come?

I can easily dream up various fact patterns that involve foolishness, JB. T'aint hard, and no one needs to be malicious to oppose underwriting the costs or rewarding the conduct. For example, if it were up to me, fertile females receiving any sort of government assistance would have to get semi-permanent birth control to prevent them from conceiving whilst on aid. (There are doubtless many potential problems with this, but for argument's sake please let's ignore them.)

There are people who present challenges because their poor choices are likely the result of impaired thinking abilities....the mentally ill, etc. I'm willing for them to slide. But if you are in distress already and need help, seems only reasonable that, at a minimum, you not deepen your need or create new little people you cannot support until you get your shit together.

 

[JBeukema]

So Maddie want to sterilize people on welfare?

Didn't we do that in the 20's?

 

[Father Time]

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.

I'd sooner go with this man than all of that

[youtube]LTnZu0mOSko[/youtube]

 

[Madeline]

So Maddie want to sterilize people on welfare?

Didn't we do that in the 20's?

Not sterilize, JB. Use norplant or whatnot so that for a period of time, they cannot conceive. Does that make me a monster?

Mebbe it does....but I look around at all the 12 year old with Mommies in their 20's, and see a collection of people with very little chance of ever escaping poverty. Born to a single teen mom is pretty much the end of hope.....why not prevent it, if we can?

 

[chanel]

That passage sums up my thoughts on welfare perfectly. Basic necessities for our most vulnerable citizens should be the goal of any just society. However when basic necessities start to include luxury items like cars, cable TV, and internet, it disincentivizes (sp?) people to improve their circumstances. That is one of the most challenging obstacles in teaching. How do you motivate teens to improve their lives when they think they don't need any improvement?

And Madeline - I do agree with you. There has got to be a better way to help these girls break the cycle of poverty. What we're doing just ain't workin'. Maybe it's time to think outside the box.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Not for nothing, Revere, but what exactly is it you think a Rockefeller or Dupont heir has "produced"?

What right have you to take what is theirs simply because you think you should?

A society that permits undue concentrations of wealth via inheritance will eventually cannabalize itself. I have a legitimate interest in preventing that from occurring.

Madeline, you are advocating what you are trying to prevent.
Then again I might be misunderstanding the point you are trying to make.

 

[editec]

I didn't hear anybody bitching about collectivism when my generation was getting drafted to go to Viet Nam, folks.

We had an obligation to our society and we paid the bill.

Now suddenly nobody has any obligation to the society that spawned them?

Selfish children.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

Okay. Now can you please explain why?

First, can you two define 'government'? Because when boiled down to its fundamental nature, is not 'government' merely an organized body of persons and the machinations, bodies, and procedures they establish for collective decision and action?

You don't get to play semantics. You ARE arguing that the Government should take from those that can to give to those that won't or can't. Then you pretend otherwise in other posts. It is NOT the Federal Governments job and they do not have the Authority from "we the people" to do so. It may be a State power but that is up to the individual States and the people that control those Governments.

 

[Truthmatters]

I didn't hear anybody bitching about collectivism when my generation was getting drafted to go to Viet Nam, folks.

We had an obligation to our society and we paid the bill.

Now suddenly nobody has any obligation to the society that spawned them?

Selfish children.

How true

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I didn't hear anybody bitching about collectivism when my generation was getting drafted to go to Viet Nam, folks.

We had an obligation to our society and we paid the bill.

Now suddenly nobody has any obligation to the society that spawned them?

Selfish children.

Not the same thing at all, but then you are pretty damn stupid sometimes.