What is our obligation to the poor?

[ding]

So the government should provide jobs for everyone. Got it. How many cars should the government provide?

The private sector is supposed to provide jobs for their capital gains preference.

And if that does not provide for the general welfare of all people, should the government step in and assume control?

We have a mixed market economy. No one is claiming we don't have our First World standard of living, due to our social safety nets.

We aren't discussing that. We are discussing your concept of a social contract for the general welfare of the people and what that means. Should the government guarantee employment and wages to provide for the general welfare of all the people?

Only minimum wages since we subscribe to capitalism. there is no upper limit to any market in theory.

Then obviously you must believe our government has failed to uphold their social contract with all of the people, right? Therefore, you must believe they should step in and immediately remedy the situation, right?

 

[ding]

It does to me. The role of the government is to do for the people what the people cannot do for themselves. Not what they can and should do for their self.

We already have the, before and after, metrics from last generation.

In 1870, almost 50 percent of the US population was employed in agriculture.[16] As of 2008, less than 2 percent of the population is directly employed in agriculture.--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture_in_the_United_States

The command economics required to get us there, has not lead to empty shelves.

Private charity can never solve official poverty. Only public charity can do that.

Getting back to your social contract for the general welfare of the people argument, if that can only be accomplished for all people by the government setting prices for everything, is that what we should do?

you are begging the question and special pleading your straw man scenario.

I believe we should merely Use capitalism for all of its worth, as that form of social, "goodwill toward men".

No. I am leading you to the logical conclusion of your social contract for the general welfare of the people argument.

It is about (social) contractual Terms. Both terms, promote and provide are in our Constitution in reference to the general welfare.

Excellent. I don't see how that changes what I am doing.

 

[ding]

The issue is what that means. That's what we are discussing now. Should the government redistribute wealth to promote the general welfare of the people?

Income redistribution is what it means. Pareto Optimality should be the goal.

Why is that the concern of the government? And how can they accomplish that without regulating wages, prices and profits?

It is in our social Contract to promote the general welfare.

In my opinion. all public policies should be Pareto Optimal.

That sounds like a ringing endorsement of communism.

we are not that moral. socialism requires social morals for free to achieve a Commune of Heaven on Earth.

Capital based morality is the best we can hope for, under Any form of capitalism.

There is no such thing as. chiliastic socialism. It does not exist. Socialism and socialists are rotten to the core. It and they seek to destroy the spirit of man. Socialism and communism are the antithesis of moral.

 

[danielpalos]

Only if we need the surety of socialism to bailout capitalism, like during real and not fake, times of war.

So you believe that during times of war it would be necessary for the government to establish wages? You do realize that in those times labor shortages would be the issue, right?

dear, only the true socialism of outright, communism, will do during real times of war.

I hope you don't mind if I disagree. Why are you crawfishing from your general welfare argument?

You are welcome to disagree. But, i can disagree with you, in that same manner.

Why not provide an argument for your disagreement?

An argument is not needed when history proves my point.

dear, only the true socialism of outright, communism, will do during real times of war.

you only appeal to ignorance, not history.

 

[danielpalos]

The private sector is supposed to provide jobs for their capital gains preference.

And if that does not provide for the general welfare of all people, should the government step in and assume control?

We have a mixed market economy. No one is claiming we don't have our First World standard of living, due to our social safety nets.

We aren't discussing that. We are discussing your concept of a social contract for the general welfare of the people and what that means. Should the government guarantee employment and wages to provide for the general welfare of all the people?

Only minimum wages since we subscribe to capitalism. there is no upper limit to any market in theory.

Then obviously you must believe our government has failed to uphold their social contract with all of the people, right? Therefore, you must believe they should step in and immediately remedy the situation, right?

Our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror, are all command economics. Any questions?

 

[danielpalos]

We already have the, before and after, metrics from last generation.

The command economics required to get us there, has not lead to empty shelves.

Private charity can never solve official poverty. Only public charity can do that.

Getting back to your social contract for the general welfare of the people argument, if that can only be accomplished for all people by the government setting prices for everything, is that what we should do?

you are begging the question and special pleading your straw man scenario.

I believe we should merely Use capitalism for all of its worth, as that form of social, "goodwill toward men".

No. I am leading you to the logical conclusion of your social contract for the general welfare of the people argument.

It is about (social) contractual Terms. Both terms, promote and provide are in our Constitution in reference to the general welfare.

Excellent. I don't see how that changes what I am doing.

The command economics required to get us there, has not lead to empty shelves.

Private charity can never solve official poverty. Only public charity can do that.

 

[danielpalos]

Income redistribution is what it means. Pareto Optimality should be the goal.

Why is that the concern of the government? And how can they accomplish that without regulating wages, prices and profits?

It is in our social Contract to promote the general welfare.

In my opinion. all public policies should be Pareto Optimal.

That sounds like a ringing endorsement of communism.

we are not that moral. socialism requires social morals for free to achieve a Commune of Heaven on Earth.

Capital based morality is the best we can hope for, under Any form of capitalism.

There is no such thing as. chiliastic socialism. It does not exist. Socialism and socialists are rotten to the core. It and they seek to destroy the spirit of man. Socialism and communism are the antithesis of moral.

no dear; socialism merely requires social morals for free to achieve a Commune of Heaven on Earth. You don't get it, because you enjoy "getting punished by lucre" on a for-profit basis.

 

[ding]

So you believe that during times of war it would be necessary for the government to establish wages? You do realize that in those times labor shortages would be the issue, right?

dear, only the true socialism of outright, communism, will do during real times of war.

I hope you don't mind if I disagree. Why are you crawfishing from your general welfare argument?

You are welcome to disagree. But, i can disagree with you, in that same manner.

Why not provide an argument for your disagreement?

An argument is not needed when history proves my point.

dear, only the true socialism of outright, communism, will do during real times of war.

you only appeal to ignorance, not history.

No. that is not socialism. That is sacrifice for survival. Two different motivations.

 

[danielpalos]

Sacrifice is a form of socialism, not capitalism.

 

[danielpalos]

dear, only the true socialism of outright, communism, will do during real times of war.

I hope you don't mind if I disagree. Why are you crawfishing from your general welfare argument?

You are welcome to disagree. But, i can disagree with you, in that same manner.

Why not provide an argument for your disagreement?

An argument is not needed when history proves my point.

dear, only the true socialism of outright, communism, will do during real times of war.

you only appeal to ignorance, not history.

No. that is not socialism. ThT is sacrifice for survival. Two different motivations.

Yes, it is socialism. You simply don't understand the concepts.

 

[ding]

Sacrifice is a form of socialism, not capitalism.

Sacrifice is voluntary.

 

[Votto]

Why is that the concern of the government? And how can they accomplish that without regulating wages, prices and profits?

It is in our social Contract to promote the general welfare.

In my opinion. all public policies should be Pareto Optimal.

That sounds like a ringing endorsement of communism.

we are not that moral. socialism requires social morals for free to achieve a Commune of Heaven on Earth.

Capital based morality is the best we can hope for, under Any form of capitalism.

There is no such thing as. chiliastic socialism. It does not exist. Socialism and socialists are rotten to the core. It and they seek to destroy the spirit of man. Socialism and communism are the antithesis of moral.

no dear; socialism merely requires social morals for free to achieve a Commune of Heaven on Earth. You don't get it, because you enjoy "getting punished by lucre" on a for-profit basis.

Socialism is a never ending pursuit of "social justice" that never materializes the way it should, which then encourages more government intervention. It's like a dog chasing it's tail as government keeps getting more powerful with every turn. This is because with every "wrong" in society, socialists seek government to "fix" it. Unfortunately, there are a never ending list of "wrongs" to be fixed, which means that government will get infinitely more powerful.

 

[ding]

Getting back to your social contract for the general welfare of the people argument, if that can only be accomplished for all people by the government setting prices for everything, is that what we should do?

you are begging the question and special pleading your straw man scenario.

I believe we should merely Use capitalism for all of its worth, as that form of social, "goodwill toward men".

No. I am leading you to the logical conclusion of your social contract for the general welfare of the people argument.

It is about (social) contractual Terms. Both terms, promote and provide are in our Constitution in reference to the general welfare.

Excellent. I don't see how that changes what I am doing.

The command economics required to get us there, has not lead to empty shelves.

Private charity can never solve official poverty. Only public charity can do that.

Subsidiarity is the only effective solution. Socialism is a subtle narcotic that destroys the spirit of man.

 

[ding]

I hope you don't mind if I disagree. Why are you crawfishing from your general welfare argument?

You are welcome to disagree. But, i can disagree with you, in that same manner.

Why not provide an argument for your disagreement?

An argument is not needed when history proves my point.

dear, only the true socialism of outright, communism, will do during real times of war.

you only appeal to ignorance, not history.

No. that is not socialism. ThT is sacrifice for survival. Two different motivations.

Yes, it is socialism. You simply don't understand the concepts.

Of course I understand the concepts that's why I reject socialism. Socialism is inherreintly evil.

 

[ding]

And if that does not provide for the general welfare of all people, should the government step in and assume control?

We have a mixed market economy. No one is claiming we don't have our First World standard of living, due to our social safety nets.

We aren't discussing that. We are discussing your concept of a social contract for the general welfare of the people and what that means. Should the government guarantee employment and wages to provide for the general welfare of all the people?

Only minimum wages since we subscribe to capitalism. there is no upper limit to any market in theory.

Then obviously you must believe our government has failed to uphold their social contract with all of the people, right? Therefore, you must believe they should step in and immediately remedy the situation, right?

Our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror, are all command economics. Any questions?

No. You can't even admit you would like a socialist revolution. Let me know when you can.

 

[ding]

Why is that the concern of the government? And how can they accomplish that without regulating wages, prices and profits?

It is in our social Contract to promote the general welfare.

In my opinion. all public policies should be Pareto Optimal.

That sounds like a ringing endorsement of communism.

we are not that moral. socialism requires social morals for free to achieve a Commune of Heaven on Earth.

Capital based morality is the best we can hope for, under Any form of capitalism.

There is no such thing as. chiliastic socialism. It does not exist. Socialism and socialists are rotten to the core. It and they seek to destroy the spirit of man. Socialism and communism are the antithesis of moral.

no dear; socialism merely requires social morals for free to achieve a Commune of Heaven on Earth. You don't get it, because you enjoy "getting punished by lucre" on a for-profit basis.

There is no such thing. You seek hell on earth.

 

[danielpalos]

Sacrifice is a form of socialism, not capitalism.

Sacrifice is voluntary.

not always.

 

[danielpalos]

It is in our social Contract to promote the general welfare.

In my opinion. all public policies should be Pareto Optimal.

That sounds like a ringing endorsement of communism.

we are not that moral. socialism requires social morals for free to achieve a Commune of Heaven on Earth.

Capital based morality is the best we can hope for, under Any form of capitalism.

There is no such thing as. chiliastic socialism. It does not exist. Socialism and socialists are rotten to the core. It and they seek to destroy the spirit of man. Socialism and communism are the antithesis of moral.

no dear; socialism merely requires social morals for free to achieve a Commune of Heaven on Earth. You don't get it, because you enjoy "getting punished by lucre" on a for-profit basis.

Socialism is a never ending pursuit of "social justice" that never materializes the way it should, which then encourages more government intervention. It's like a dog chasing it's tail as government keeps getting more powerful with every turn. This is because with every "wrong" in society, socialists seek government to "fix" it. Unfortunately, there are a never ending list of "wrongs" to be fixed, which means that government will get infinitely more powerful.

I would agree with you; but, there were Only ten religious commandments in truer, third world economies.

 

[danielpalos]

you are begging the question and special pleading your straw man scenario.

I believe we should merely Use capitalism for all of its worth, as that form of social, "goodwill toward men".

No. I am leading you to the logical conclusion of your social contract for the general welfare of the people argument.

It is about (social) contractual Terms. Both terms, promote and provide are in our Constitution in reference to the general welfare.

Excellent. I don't see how that changes what I am doing.

The command economics required to get us there, has not lead to empty shelves.

Private charity can never solve official poverty. Only public charity can do that.

Subsidiarity is the only effective solution. Socialism is a subtle narcotic that destroys the spirit of man.

not at all; socialism merely starts with a social Contract.

 

[rdean]

Ive been thinking about it this morning and I was wondering what our obligation to the poor is. Im not talking about what we should outsource to the government or what the government should do. But what do we as individuals have a responsibility to do?

I keep thinking of the words of a hymn:

"We'll go to the poor like our Captain of old. And visit the weary, the hungry, and cold. We'll cheer up their hearts with the news that he bore and point them to Zion and life evermore."

I believe we as individuals have a duty and privilege to serve the poor. And that when we try to outsource those responsibilities to the government and to others, than we fail to give and recieve the blessings we could otherwise have.

What do you think?

What does Jesus say?