There is a moral responsibility to provide for the unfortunate

[Againsheila]

They are not "unfortunate". They themselves made some piss poor decisions in their lives, luck had nothing to do with it.

Some, yes, others, no.

 

[Al_Fundie]

They are not "unfortunate". They themselves made some piss poor decisions in their lives, luck had nothing to do with it.

Yes, I've heard that some people CHOOSE to be born mentally handicapped, or choose to go through a life altering event that permanently scars them.

Why some even CHOOSE to be born outside of the US. What idiots, I'd choose to be born here and rich every time I could.

Not every welfare recipient is a bum, much as some would like to believe that so they can pretend to feel superior to any and all of them.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

They are not "unfortunate". They themselves made some piss poor decisions in their lives, luck had nothing to do with it.

Some, yes, others, no.

I agree with Againsheila here.

However we definately should be drug testing ALL receipients of govt checks and taking measures to ensure people who, for example, are on SS disability are truly disabled to the point they really can't work.

There is way too much fraud right now.

 

[Againsheila]

They are not "unfortunate". They themselves made some piss poor decisions in their lives, luck had nothing to do with it.

Some, yes, others, no.

I agree with Againsheila here.

However we definately should be drug testing ALL receipients of govt checks and taking measures to ensure people who, for example, are on SS disability are truly disabled to the point they really can't work.

There is way too much fraud right now.

You try to drug test my son, you're gonna end up with something broken. He has to be knocked out just to have his teeth cleaned.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Some, yes, others, no.

I agree with Againsheila here.

However we definately should be drug testing ALL receipients of govt checks and taking measures to ensure people who, for example, are on SS disability are truly disabled to the point they really can't work.

There is way too much fraud right now.

You try to drug test my son, you're gonna end up with something broken. He has to be knocked out just to have his teeth cleaned.

he can refuse the test and then he gets no check

 

[there4eyeM]

Existential freedom is one thing.
Compassionate understanding is another.
People are more important than doctrines, at least for post people.

 

[Againsheila]

I agree with Againsheila here.

However we definately should be drug testing ALL receipients of govt checks and taking measures to ensure people who, for example, are on SS disability are truly disabled to the point they really can't work.

There is way too much fraud right now.

You try to drug test my son, you're gonna end up with something broken. He has to be knocked out just to have his teeth cleaned.

he can refuse the test and then he gets no check

He doesn't really get a check now. Oh it comes in his name, but it goes to the organization housing him. It doesn't even make a dent in the cost of his care.

 

[gallantwarrior]

First, you're making an assumption that poverty leads to crime. It's usually the exact opposite. Being criminal leads to poverty.

Second, Conservatives dont have a problem providing for the less fortunate. We just believe the individuals and private sector should do it because they do it better, more efficiently and without the use of violence like the government does.

What evidence do you have that government handouts have lead to less crime and turned those who recieve them all their life into productive members of society?

Helping is a good idea, but let's stop doing things that dont work and find out what does.

I agree that being criminal leads to poverty. So what problem leads to being criminal?

I believe that the problem is anger management. I'm thinking of the senseless violent crimes such as domestic violence, fights in bars or on the street, etc.

Is there a public sector verses a private sector approach to facilitating anger management in individuals likely to commit violent acts?

Or should society simply identify those individuals who are at risk of losing their self control because of anger related issues and keep them heavily sedated on mind numbing drugs?

Why do some people have anger issues? Before you can plan something to alleviate the problem, it would help to identify why the problem exists in the first place.

 

[gallantwarrior]

If the 'private sector' had been doing it, there would never have been a question of government being involved.

The private sector is much more capable of identifying and treating those truly in need of help. The government, on the other hand, has a vested interest in cultivating an entire subculture of "needy" who will, in turn, support such a government that would provide their every want. Need has little to do with what the dwellers on the government reservation view as "needs" and demand as their "right".

 

[gallantwarrior]

They are not "unfortunate". They themselves made some piss poor decisions in their lives, luck had nothing to do with it.

Some, yes, others, no.

And government is a notoriously poor judge of character.

 

[gallantwarrior]

I agree with Againsheila here.

However we definately should be drug testing ALL receipients of govt checks and taking measures to ensure people who, for example, are on SS disability are truly disabled to the point they really can't work.

There is way too much fraud right now.

You try to drug test my son, you're gonna end up with something broken. He has to be knocked out just to have his teeth cleaned.

he can refuse the test and then he gets no check

I believe she's mentioned that her adult son is handicapped and requires full-time care.

 

[jillian]

Think so?

-How so?
-According to whom?
-Who are you to force everyone to act according to your version of morality?

who are you to force me to pay for wars of choice based on lies?

who was the last president to force me to pay for abstinence only education when it's stupid and a failure?

that's life... sometimes we pay for things we agree with...sometimes we don't.

and it's just a little difficult to say we're "the best" if we're the ony civilized nation that doesn't take care of its own.

 

[Darkwind]

"Using the force of government to either enforce your morality or to punish the perceived immorality of others is disingenuous and dangerous and is an immoral act itself."

So, what is ignoring the needlessly suffering? Not immoral? Not dangerous?

It is certainly not the perview of government to steal from some in order to provide for others. When government takes from some, they remove the means that the individual may have intended to used to voluntarily alleviate the suffering of others. Additionally, government has proven that it is a deficient arbiter when choosing the beneficiaries and administering programs.

So you think they steal by taxing you? What country can you live in, that is modern, that you will pay no tax?

False premise.

 

[Intense]

If the 'private sector' had been doing it, there would never have been a question of government being involved.

That's not true. Both have rolls to play. Take the Tsunami that hit Indonesia a couple of years back, or the Earth Quake in Haiti. US Military played a fundamental role in Rescue and Relief. Private funds multiplied the effect, as it should have. Those were good deeds, both public and private. It's not always about Us and Them. We do a lot around the Planet.

 

[Intense]

Think so?

-How so?
-According to whom?
-Who are you to force everyone to act according to your version of morality?

who are you to force me to pay for wars of choice based on lies?

who was the last president to force me to pay for abstinence only education when it's stupid and a failure?

that's life... sometimes we pay for things we agree with...sometimes we don't.

and it's just a little difficult to say we're "the best" if we're the ony civilized nation that doesn't take care of its own.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Maybe a better litmus test is in what and how much pain and suffering we alleviate, as opposed to how much we cause. Just a thought.

 

[there4eyeM]

If the 'private sector' had been doing it, there would never have been a question of government being involved.

The private sector is much more capable of identifying and treating those truly in need of help. The government, on the other hand, has a vested interest in cultivating an entire subculture of "needy" who will, in turn, support such a government that would provide their every want. Need has little to do with what the dwellers on the government reservation view as "needs" and demand as their "right".

Nice explanation, perhaps, except it is not a response to my quoted post, which placed the argument anterior to government involvement. If the 'private sector' had been functioning so well, as you claim, the government would not have gotten involved.

 

[gallantwarrior]

If the 'private sector' had been doing it, there would never have been a question of government being involved.

The private sector is much more capable of identifying and treating those truly in need of help. The government, on the other hand, has a vested interest in cultivating an entire subculture of "needy" who will, in turn, support such a government that would provide their every want. Need has little to do with what the dwellers on the government reservation view as "needs" and demand as their "right".

Nice explanation, perhaps, except it is not a response to my quoted post. It places the argument anterior to government involvement. If the 'private sector' had been functioning so well, as you claim, the government would not have gotten involved.

The government did get involved. It created entirely new categories and classes of "needy", "disadvantaged", "poor", etc, all of whom are now entrenched in their government sanctioned victim hood. Additionally, we have to pay to support the bloated government bureaucracy needed to perpetrate the dependency of this government created and wholly unwarranted "need".

 

[there4eyeM]

If the 'private sector' had been doing it, there would never have been a question of government being involved.

That's not true. Both have rolls to play. Take the Tsunami that hit Indonesia a couple of years back, or the Earth Quake in Haiti. US Military played a fundamental role in Rescue and Relief. Private funds multiplied the effect, as it should have. Those were good deeds, both public and private. It's not always about Us and Them. We do a lot around the Planet.

Look at the quoted post, folks! It doesn't say the government should or should not or that private does or does not. It says that the state we are in would not have occurred if the poor and needy had been adequately cared for in the period before government became involved.

Emergencies are another question, of course.

The quoted post also promotes neither one (private), nor the other (government). Private, I think, would be better, but the essential is that help be available.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Think so?

-How so?
-According to whom?
-Who are you to force everyone to act according to your version of morality?

who are you to force me to pay for wars of choice based on lies?

who was the last president to force me to pay for abstinence only education when it's stupid and a failure?

that's life... sometimes we pay for things we agree with...sometimes we don't.

and it's just a little difficult to say we're "the best" if we're the ony civilized nation that doesn't take care of its own.

Your avoidance of the issue is noted.

 

[midcan5]

Think so?

-How so?
-According to whom?
-Who are you to force everyone to act according to your version of morality?

Depends on how one defines unfortunate, how one decides how much support should be given and in what form, and who gets it and for how long. And also the best way to provide aid, through the gov't or private means.

Here's another question: is it moral to borrow money for this purpose that future generations will have to pay for? How will support for future unfortunates be funded, or does anyone think this can go on forever?

Why do people continue to ask such stupid questions? Everyone was provided for, none, except the very wealthy (where did their wealth come from? Nothing?) did not borrow on the future, no moral person could stand by while another has nothing and think this is right. No one picks their life or their abilities, they come with the entry into this world of sometimes pain and sometimes beauty. You people have lost your soul, soul as a sense of living in the real world. You're just sad humans.

Taming the Savage Market

On the intrinsic value of each of us » 3:AM Magazine


"Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke. They stand four-square for the American home -but not for housing. They are strong for labor - but they are stronger for restricting labor's rights. They favor minimum wage - the smaller the minimum wage the better. They endorse educational opportunity for all - but they won't spend money for teachers or for schools. They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine - for people who can afford them. They consider electrical power a great blessing - but only when the private power companies get their rake-off. They think American standard of living is a fine thing - so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it." Harry S. Truman