CDZ Why do Conservatives believe that America is no longer great?

[Correll]

I don't really understand how a hybrid mixture of libertarianism and social conservationism is going to make America great. This isn't what built our economy during the early to mid 20th century...Hell, I'd go as far as to say that the opposite did.

It wasn't social liberalism that built it.

And don't underestimate the role of individual economic activities in building the nation in the early days.

Single family farms had a LOT to do with the growth of this nation in it's early days.

 

[Si modo]

....

I believe that all of the contributors to this thread have agreed that America is currently the greatest nation on Earth.

....

I disagree.

This sums my viewpoint up perfectly:

 

[Correll]

More empty promises from Trump
He has never explained how he intends to do that
He has nothing in his background that shows he has brought jobs to poor communities

It has never been his job, up to now.

And his promises to deport illegals and restrict immigration would reduce supply of labor, thus improving job and wages for the Working Poor.

AND his promises to renegotiate bad trade deals, specifically with China are likely to reduce or reverse outsourcing and improve jobs and wages for the Working POor.

Trump has no capability to deport 11 million illegals

Another empty promise

You assume.

Otherwise you'd have to deal with what I pointed out about Trump being the only one addressing the problem you raised.

Cause you certainly CAN'T cite any promises from Hillary or Sanders that would do anything for it.

it would be unconstitutional. there has to be some type of administrative due process. so yes. that's settled law. it is reasonable to assume that he can't do what he's promising the bigots.

we're more in danger from home grown terrorists here.

We seem to have lost the subject of this thread so let's see if we can get back of track.

The basic question implied by the original proposition was "Is America currently great"?

I believe that all of the contributors to this thread have agreed that America is currently the greatest nation on Earth. Therefore America is currently "great" and the slogan "Make America great again" is nonsense.

The real question that seems to follow from that is "Was America greater at some point in the past and are we currently declining in greatness".

In order to have a coherent discussion of that question we need to do 2 things:

1. Define what it means to be great
2. Identify some point in the past when our greatness peaked based on that definition

Anybody want to take a shot?

YOu are trying to start with the assumption that the viewpoint of your ideological enemies is wrong and then start the debate.

You have learned your lib lessons well.

Many conservative in the past would have fallen for that.

Establishment Republicans still are willing to play that game.

Me? NOt so much.

 

[the_human_being]

More empty promises from Trump
He has never explained how he intends to do that
He has nothing in his background that shows he has brought jobs to poor communities

It has never been his job, up to now.

And his promises to deport illegals and restrict immigration would reduce supply of labor, thus improving job and wages for the Working Poor.

AND his promises to renegotiate bad trade deals, specifically with China are likely to reduce or reverse outsourcing and improve jobs and wages for the Working POor.

Trump has no capability to deport 11 million illegals

Another empty promise

You assume.

Otherwise you'd have to deal with what I pointed out about Trump being the only one addressing the problem you raised.

Cause you certainly CAN'T cite any promises from Hillary or Sanders that would do anything for it.

it would be unconstitutional. there has to be some type of administrative due process. so yes. that's settled law. it is reasonable to assume that he can't do what he's promising the bigots.

we're more in danger from home grown terrorists here.

We seem to have lost the subject of this thread so let's see if we can get back of track.

The basic question implied by the original proposition was "Is America currently great"?

I believe that all of the contributors to this thread have agreed that America is currently the greatest nation on Earth. Therefore America is currently "great" and the slogan "Make America great again" is nonsense.

The real question that seems to follow from that is "Was America greater at some point in the past and are we currently declining in greatness".

In order to have a coherent discussion of that question we need to do 2 things:

1. Define what it means to be great
2. Identify some point in the past when our greatness peaked based on that definition

Anybody want to take a shot?

It might depend upon how one reads the polling data. Most polls indicate that most Americans believe the country is headed in the wrong direction. I would have to submit that most Americans see a marked change in America or at minimum see a change coming which they do not like.

 

[the_human_being]

Now let us get to the issue of refugees:

 

[jillian]

More empty promises from Trump
He has never explained how he intends to do that
He has nothing in his background that shows he has brought jobs to poor communities

It has never been his job, up to now.

And his promises to deport illegals and restrict immigration would reduce supply of labor, thus improving job and wages for the Working Poor.

AND his promises to renegotiate bad trade deals, specifically with China are likely to reduce or reverse outsourcing and improve jobs and wages for the Working POor.

Trump has no capability to deport 11 million illegals

Another empty promise

You assume.

Otherwise you'd have to deal with what I pointed out about Trump being the only one addressing the problem you raised.

Cause you certainly CAN'T cite any promises from Hillary or Sanders that would do anything for it.

it would be unconstitutional. there has to be some type of administrative due process. so yes. that's settled law. it is reasonable to assume that he can't do what he's promising the bigots.

we're more in danger from home grown terrorists here.

Most all SCOTUS decisions have been 5 to 4. The next President will probably appoint at least three new justices. If that President happens to be Trump then guess what? Suck it up.

and? that's how the court works. *shrug*

 

[the_human_being]

It has never been his job, up to now.

And his promises to deport illegals and restrict immigration would reduce supply of labor, thus improving job and wages for the Working Poor.

AND his promises to renegotiate bad trade deals, specifically with China are likely to reduce or reverse outsourcing and improve jobs and wages for the Working POor.

Trump has no capability to deport 11 million illegals

Another empty promise

You assume.

Otherwise you'd have to deal with what I pointed out about Trump being the only one addressing the problem you raised.

Cause you certainly CAN'T cite any promises from Hillary or Sanders that would do anything for it.

it would be unconstitutional. there has to be some type of administrative due process. so yes. that's settled law. it is reasonable to assume that he can't do what he's promising the bigots.

we're more in danger from home grown terrorists here.

Most all SCOTUS decisions have been 5 to 4. The next President will probably appoint at least three new justices. If that President happens to be Trump then guess what? Suck it up.

and? that's how the court works. *shrug*

Exactly. So all your little snide points can easily come tumbling down. If Trump is elected, most all of Obama's executive orders will go quickly away. Obamacare is toast.

 

[jillian]

Trump has no capability to deport 11 million illegals

Another empty promise

You assume.

Otherwise you'd have to deal with what I pointed out about Trump being the only one addressing the problem you raised.

Cause you certainly CAN'T cite any promises from Hillary or Sanders that would do anything for it.

it would be unconstitutional. there has to be some type of administrative due process. so yes. that's settled law. it is reasonable to assume that he can't do what he's promising the bigots.

we're more in danger from home grown terrorists here.

Most all SCOTUS decisions have been 5 to 4. The next President will probably appoint at least three new justices. If that President happens to be Trump then guess what? Suck it up.

and? that's how the court works. *shrug*

Exactly. So all your little snide points can easily come tumbling down. If Trump is elected, most all of Obama's executive orders will go quickly away. Obamacare is toast.

What are you babbling about? decisions are often 5-4. that's meaningless. the decisions are what they are and the law is what it is. the fact that it's 5-4 makes it no less effective.

if i'm snide it's because you sound ridiculous. that isn't my fault.

 

[SingleVoyce]

....

I believe that all of the contributors to this thread have agreed that America is currently the greatest nation on Earth.

....

I disagree.

This sums my viewpoint up perfectly:

You are the first person in this thread to express that opinion. So, if America is not the greatest country on Earth, which country is?

 

[Si modo]

....

I believe that all of the contributors to this thread have agreed that America is currently the greatest nation on Earth.

....

I disagree.

This sums my viewpoint up perfectly:

You are the first person in this thread to express that opinion. So, if America is not the greatest country on Earth, which country is?

I can't answer that for you as "great" is subjective, or, at least, relative.

 

[jasonnfree]

Myself, I think USA started really going downhill after the drugs started coming here in mid '60s. When I was in school in the late 50's, there were no drugs, and you'd maybe hear about a party the last weekend where some kids smoked weed, that's all. Then came the drugs big time. Then the factories started leaving to low wage countries, and little by little, we stopped complaining about all those foreign countries owing us money, and started hearing about how much in debt we were to other countries.

 

[oldsoul]

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Karl Marx said that right? Or was it Lenin? Don't remember for sure. Point is, it's communism.

Doesn't every nation on earth follow that quote "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" ?

Can you name a country that doesn't?

Does that make it right? If every nation was declaring war on each other, would that be allthe justifacation you would need to do the same? This country was founded, as became great, BECAUSE we do things differently. Individuality (AKA diversity) is not a dirty word, or concept. Why do liberals never seem to understand this?

Of course it makes it right. It is basic common sense and basic humanity

You do not make someone in abject poverty pay the same as a multi-billionaire.......From each according to his abilities

You do not give welfare money to billionaires just because you give money to the poor......To each according to his needs

And there enlies the fundamental difference between you and I. I do not subscribe to any "herd mentality". Ideas must stand on their merits, or fail on them. I reject the notion that it is right because "every nation on earth" does it. No, it is not common sense and basic humanity. Basic humanity would be to TEACH the man to fish, not just GIVE the man A fish. If you take a fish, that I caught, and give it to someone who did not go fishing, that is theft, and redistribution of wealth. Let the man go fishing, if he is unsuccessful and hungry, I will give him what I beleive I can. YOU need to stay out of it.

How about sometimes you should do things because they're the right thing to do?

That is what I just said. The difference is, for me, it's MY decision, not the governments.

 

[jillian]

I think the problem these days is that we hear folks like Warren Buffett say they can afford to pay higher taxes and we think, "yes, well, he can; he's got billions." What we need to hear is the folks who are not that well off, but who are nonetheless in the 1%, saying the same thing...because, quite frankly, it's true for them too. But most folks in that position aren't about to say that because, IMO, they are just plain greedy...that or they genuinely believe that "he who dies with the most wins."

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Karl Marx said that right? Or was it Lenin? Don't remember for sure. Point is, it's communism.

Doesn't every nation on earth follow that quote "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" ?

Can you name a country that doesn't?

Does that make it right? If every nation was declaring war on each other, would that be allthe justifacation you would need to do the same? This country was founded, as became great, BECAUSE we do things differently. Individuality (AKA diversity) is not a dirty word, or concept. Why do liberals never seem to understand this?

Of course it makes it right. It is basic common sense and basic humanity

You do not make someone in abject poverty pay the same as a multi-billionaire.......From each according to his abilities

You do not give welfare money to billionaires just because you give money to the poor......To each according to his needs

And there enlies the fundamental difference between you and I. I do not subscribe to any "herd mentality". Ideas must stand on their merits, or fail on them. I reject the notion that it is right because "every nation on earth" does it. No, it is not common sense and basic humanity. Basic humanity would be to TEACH the man to fish, not just GIVE the man A fish. If you take a fish, that I caught, and give it to someone who did not go fishing, that is theft, and redistribution of wealth. Let the man go fishing, if he is unsuccessful and hungry, I will give him what I beleive I can. YOU need to stay out of it.

how about it's just the right thing to do regardless, but given that the right keeps insisting we are the greatest nation on earth, shouldn't we treat our people with the dignity befitting that?

the greatness of a nation is gauged by how it treats its poorest, its sickest, it's oldest and youngest... not by a wild west mentality which says screw everyone who is left behind. that's just absurd.

and you didn't address his point about corporate welfare and subsidizing agriculture while letting children starve.

 

[jillian]

Doesn't every nation on earth follow that quote "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" ?

Can you name a country that doesn't?

Does that make it right? If every nation was declaring war on each other, would that be allthe justifacation you would need to do the same? This country was founded, as became great, BECAUSE we do things differently. Individuality (AKA diversity) is not a dirty word, or concept. Why do liberals never seem to understand this?

Of course it makes it right. It is basic common sense and basic humanity

You do not make someone in abject poverty pay the same as a multi-billionaire.......From each according to his abilities

You do not give welfare money to billionaires just because you give money to the poor......To each according to his needs

And there enlies the fundamental difference between you and I. I do not subscribe to any "herd mentality". Ideas must stand on their merits, or fail on them. I reject the notion that it is right because "every nation on earth" does it. No, it is not common sense and basic humanity. Basic humanity would be to TEACH the man to fish, not just GIVE the man A fish. If you take a fish, that I caught, and give it to someone who did not go fishing, that is theft, and redistribution of wealth. Let the man go fishing, if he is unsuccessful and hungry, I will give him what I beleive I can. YOU need to stay out of it.

How about sometimes you should do things because they're the right thing to do?

That is what I just said. The difference is, for me, it's MY decision, not the governments.

no you didn't. you gave a shopping list of reasons to tell people to get lost. and no, you elect government. that government is charged by the constitution to act for "the general welfare". YOU don't decide unilaterally what that is anymore than i could have stopped baby bush from giving one million dollars to study whether prayer is effective even though it made me gag that our tax money, and not private funds, was used for that.

 

[320 Years of History]

I think the problem these days is that we hear folks like Warren Buffett say they can afford to pay higher taxes and we think, "yes, well, he can; he's got billions." What we need to hear is the folks who are not that well off, but who are nonetheless in the 1%, saying the same thing...because, quite frankly, it's true for them too. But most folks in that position aren't about to say that because, IMO, they are just plain greedy...that or they genuinely believe that "he who dies with the most wins."

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Karl Marx said that right? Or was it Lenin? Don't remember for sure. Point is, it's communism.

Doesn't every nation on earth follow that quote "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" ?

Can you name a country that doesn't?

Does that make it right? If every nation was declaring war on each other, would that be allthe justifacation you would need to do the same? This country was founded, as became great, BECAUSE we do things differently. Individuality (AKA diversity) is not a dirty word, or concept. Why do liberals never seem to understand this?

Of course it makes it right. It is basic common sense and basic humanity

You do not make someone in abject poverty pay the same as a multi-billionaire.......From each according to his abilities

You do not give welfare money to billionaires just because you give money to the poor......To each according to his needs

And there enlies the fundamental difference between you and I. I do not subscribe to any "herd mentality". Ideas must stand on their merits, or fail on them. I reject the notion that it is right because "every nation on earth" does it. No, it is not common sense and basic humanity. Basic humanity would be to TEACH the man to fish, not just GIVE the man A fish. If you take a fish, that I caught, and give it to someone who did not go fishing, that is theft, and redistribution of wealth. Let the man go fishing, if he is unsuccessful and hungry, I will give him what I beleive I can. YOU need to stay out of it.

Fine, but if the man cannot afford to take your fishing class, regardless of why he cannot, then what? Give him a fish? Let him starve because you've neither given him a fish nor taught him how to fish? Rely on someone else to give him a fish or teach him for free? And what happens when nobody (other than the government) is willing to give him a fish?

While there are myriad answers and approaches to resolving the dilemma of the questions above, when it comes to other human beings, and assuming as a nation we concur that no man should be left to starve or be homeless because, as a nation, we are more than adequately wealthy to make sure that never happens, the ones we (the nation) implement must, if one is to be humane to one's countrymen, be the ones (or one) that has the greatest likelihood of working. That is, the one that at the very least is capable of making sure no man starves or goes homeless. Might some approaches have the potential to achieve more than feeding and housing a man? Sure, but if they potentially less adept at achieving the bare minimum for the the greatest number of folks who need it, they are worse choices because they result in more people starving and being homeless.

There's nothing wrong with the human capital development goal you identified above -- teach a man to fish -- indeed it's an excellent and worthy one for which to strive. In setting that as the desired outcome of one's beneficence, one must also consider whether so doing folks are "left behind," so to speak. If one is okay with leaving some behind, fine, but if that's so, own it and tell the citizenry that's the case, that of those who are "left behind," the government's take on that is "Tough. You had your chance and you blew it, or perhaps you didn't, but either way, starve and/or freeze. Best of luck finding individuals who'll take kindly on you and help you out."

The other thing to consider carefully is that when addressing what amount to handouts, one must view the approach differently than were one providing goods and services for a fee. With the handouts, a program strives to achieve its end(s) -- leave nobody hungry, leave nobody homeless, leave nobody uneducated, whatever... -- as inexpensively as possible. To do so, the focus is on what approaches have the greatest potential to achieve those ends, not which approaches have the greatest potential to achieve something over and above them. Again, however, if one wants to define the ends in accordance with human capital development objectives rather than subsistence objectives, fine. There again, one must own it. All that's different is the message: "If you are poor or destitute, the government will give you an education, food, shelter, etc. and those who are not poor/destitute will not receive those things from the government, but instead will pay for them."

Do both sets of ends result in "ticked off" citizens? Yes. In the former, irked folks will come from all levels of society...the poor as well as the "not poor" who feel for them. In the latter, it's going to largely be folks of some means being irked because their taxes are being used to help their fellow citizens rather than their being allowed to "pick and choose" whom to help when they want to.

In light of the preceding, I ask this.

• What should be/is the United States' stance regarding its citizens who, again for whatever reason, need food, clothing, shelter and education and who cannot pay for it one their own?
• Are you okay with allowing any of your fellow citizens to starve and/or go homeless and unclothed? If so, to what extent, that is, at what point does it not become "okay" to let that happen?
• If you don't find it acceptable to allow folks to go hungry and homeless, of the various solutions that exist or that you can design anew, which of them has the greatest potential to ensure the fewest number of people at any given point in time are hungry and homeless?

 

[rightwinger]

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Karl Marx said that right? Or was it Lenin? Don't remember for sure. Point is, it's communism.

Doesn't every nation on earth follow that quote "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" ?

Can you name a country that doesn't?

Does that make it right? If every nation was declaring war on each other, would that be allthe justifacation you would need to do the same? This country was founded, as became great, BECAUSE we do things differently. Individuality (AKA diversity) is not a dirty word, or concept. Why do liberals never seem to understand this?

Of course it makes it right. It is basic common sense and basic humanity

You do not make someone in abject poverty pay the same as a multi-billionaire.......From each according to his abilities

You do not give welfare money to billionaires just because you give money to the poor......To each according to his needs

And there enlies the fundamental difference between you and I. I do not subscribe to any "herd mentality". Ideas must stand on their merits, or fail on them. I reject the notion that it is right because "every nation on earth" does it. No, it is not common sense and basic humanity. Basic humanity would be to TEACH the man to fish, not just GIVE the man A fish. If you take a fish, that I caught, and give it to someone who did not go fishing, that is theft, and redistribution of wealth. Let the man go fishing, if he is unsuccessful and hungry, I will give him what I beleive I can. YOU need to stay out of it.

Fine, but if the man cannot afford to take your fishing class, regardless of why he cannot, then what? Give him a fish? Let him starve because you've neither given him a fish nor taught him how to fish? Rely on someone else to give him a fish or teach him for free? And what happens when nobody (other than the government) is willing to give him a fish?

While there are myriad answers and approaches to resolving the dilemma of the questions above, when it comes to other human beings, and assuming as a nation we concur that no man should be left to starve or be homeless because, as a nation, we are more than adequately wealthy to make sure that never happens, the ones we (the nation) implement must, if one is to be humane to one's countrymen, be the ones (or one) that has the greatest likelihood of working. That is, the one that at the very least is capable of making sure no man starves or goes homeless. Might some approaches have the potential to achieve more than feeding and housing a man? Sure, but if they potentially less adept at achieving the bare minimum for the the greatest number of folks who need it, they are worse choices because they result in more people starving and being homeless.

There's nothing wrong with the human capital development goal you identified above -- teach a man to fish -- indeed it's an excellent and worthy one for which to strive. In setting that as the desired outcome of one's beneficence, one must also consider whether so doing folks are "left behind," so to speak. If one is okay with leaving some behind, fine, but if that's so, own it and tell the citizenry that's the case, that of those who are "left behind," the government's take on that is "Tough. You had your chance and you blew it, or perhaps you didn't, but either way, starve and/or freeze. Best of luck finding individuals who'll take kindly on you and help you out."

The other thing to consider carefully is that when addressing what amount to handouts, one must view the approach differently than were one providing goods and services for a fee. With the handouts, a program strives to achieve its end(s) -- leave nobody hungry, leave nobody homeless, leave nobody uneducated, whatever... -- as inexpensively as possible. To do so, the focus is on what approaches have the greatest potential to achieve those ends, not which approaches have the greatest potential to achieve something over and above them. Again, however, if one wants to define the ends in accordance with human capital development objectives rather than subsistence objectives, fine. There again, one must own it. All that's different is the message: "If you are poor or destitute, the government will give you an education, food, shelter, etc. and those who are not poor/destitute will not receive those things from the government, but instead will pay for them."

Do both sets of ends result in "ticked off" citizens? Yes. In the former, irked folks will come from all levels of society...the poor as well as the "not poor" who feel for them. In the latter, it's going to largely be folks of some means being irked because their taxes are being used to help their fellow citizens rather than their being allowed to "pick and choose" whom to help when they want to.

In light of the preceding, I ask this.

• What should be/is the United States' stance regarding its citizens who, again for whatever reason, need food, clothing, shelter and education and who cannot pay for it one their own?
• Are you okay with allowing any of your fellow citizens to starve and/or go homeless and unclothed? If so, to what extent, that is, at what point does it not become "okay" to let that happen?
• If you don't find it acceptable to allow folks to go hungry and homeless, of the various solutions that exist or that you can design anew, which of them has the greatest potential to ensure the fewest number of people at any given point in time are hungry and homeless?

Our society works differently
You fish all day and turn all your catch over to the wealthy. The wealthy takes what they want and allow you to share a fish with your fellow fishermen

 

[320 Years of History]

Doesn't every nation on earth follow that quote "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" ?

Can you name a country that doesn't?

Does that make it right? If every nation was declaring war on each other, would that be allthe justifacation you would need to do the same? This country was founded, as became great, BECAUSE we do things differently. Individuality (AKA diversity) is not a dirty word, or concept. Why do liberals never seem to understand this?

Of course it makes it right. It is basic common sense and basic humanity

You do not make someone in abject poverty pay the same as a multi-billionaire.......From each according to his abilities

You do not give welfare money to billionaires just because you give money to the poor......To each according to his needs

And there enlies the fundamental difference between you and I. I do not subscribe to any "herd mentality". Ideas must stand on their merits, or fail on them. I reject the notion that it is right because "every nation on earth" does it. No, it is not common sense and basic humanity. Basic humanity would be to TEACH the man to fish, not just GIVE the man A fish. If you take a fish, that I caught, and give it to someone who did not go fishing, that is theft, and redistribution of wealth. Let the man go fishing, if he is unsuccessful and hungry, I will give him what I beleive I can. YOU need to stay out of it.

Fine, but if the man cannot afford to take your fishing class, regardless of why he cannot, then what? Give him a fish? Let him starve because you've neither given him a fish nor taught him how to fish? Rely on someone else to give him a fish or teach him for free? And what happens when nobody (other than the government) is willing to give him a fish?

While there are myriad answers and approaches to resolving the dilemma of the questions above, when it comes to other human beings, and assuming as a nation we concur that no man should be left to starve or be homeless because, as a nation, we are more than adequately wealthy to make sure that never happens, the ones we (the nation) implement must, if one is to be humane to one's countrymen, be the ones (or one) that has the greatest likelihood of working. That is, the one that at the very least is capable of making sure no man starves or goes homeless. Might some approaches have the potential to achieve more than feeding and housing a man? Sure, but if they potentially less adept at achieving the bare minimum for the the greatest number of folks who need it, they are worse choices because they result in more people starving and being homeless.

There's nothing wrong with the human capital development goal you identified above -- teach a man to fish -- indeed it's an excellent and worthy one for which to strive. In setting that as the desired outcome of one's beneficence, one must also consider whether so doing folks are "left behind," so to speak. If one is okay with leaving some behind, fine, but if that's so, own it and tell the citizenry that's the case, that of those who are "left behind," the government's take on that is "Tough. You had your chance and you blew it, or perhaps you didn't, but either way, starve and/or freeze. Best of luck finding individuals who'll take kindly on you and help you out."

The other thing to consider carefully is that when addressing what amount to handouts, one must view the approach differently than were one providing goods and services for a fee. With the handouts, a program strives to achieve its end(s) -- leave nobody hungry, leave nobody homeless, leave nobody uneducated, whatever... -- as inexpensively as possible. To do so, the focus is on what approaches have the greatest potential to achieve those ends, not which approaches have the greatest potential to achieve something over and above them. Again, however, if one wants to define the ends in accordance with human capital development objectives rather than subsistence objectives, fine. There again, one must own it. All that's different is the message: "If you are poor or destitute, the government will give you an education, food, shelter, etc. and those who are not poor/destitute will not receive those things from the government, but instead will pay for them."

Do both sets of ends result in "ticked off" citizens? Yes. In the former, irked folks will come from all levels of society...the poor as well as the "not poor" who feel for them. In the latter, it's going to largely be folks of some means being irked because their taxes are being used to help their fellow citizens rather than their being allowed to "pick and choose" whom to help when they want to.

In light of the preceding, I ask this.

• What should be/is the United States' stance regarding its citizens who, again for whatever reason, need food, clothing, shelter and education and who cannot pay for it one their own?
• Are you okay with allowing any of your fellow citizens to starve and/or go homeless and unclothed? If so, to what extent, that is, at what point does it not become "okay" to let that happen?
• If you don't find it acceptable to allow folks to go hungry and homeless, of the various solutions that exist or that you can design anew, which of them has the greatest potential to ensure the fewest number of people at any given point in time are hungry and homeless?

Our society works differently
You fish all day and turn all your catch over to the wealthy. The wealthy takes what they want and allow you to share a fish with your fellow fishermen

Whatever its ills, our society is not feudal.

 

[rightwinger]

Does that make it right? If every nation was declaring war on each other, would that be allthe justifacation you would need to do the same? This country was founded, as became great, BECAUSE we do things differently. Individuality (AKA diversity) is not a dirty word, or concept. Why do liberals never seem to understand this?

Of course it makes it right. It is basic common sense and basic humanity

You do not make someone in abject poverty pay the same as a multi-billionaire.......From each according to his abilities

You do not give welfare money to billionaires just because you give money to the poor......To each according to his needs

And there enlies the fundamental difference between you and I. I do not subscribe to any "herd mentality". Ideas must stand on their merits, or fail on them. I reject the notion that it is right because "every nation on earth" does it. No, it is not common sense and basic humanity. Basic humanity would be to TEACH the man to fish, not just GIVE the man A fish. If you take a fish, that I caught, and give it to someone who did not go fishing, that is theft, and redistribution of wealth. Let the man go fishing, if he is unsuccessful and hungry, I will give him what I beleive I can. YOU need to stay out of it.

Fine, but if the man cannot afford to take your fishing class, regardless of why he cannot, then what? Give him a fish? Let him starve because you've neither given him a fish nor taught him how to fish? Rely on someone else to give him a fish or teach him for free? And what happens when nobody (other than the government) is willing to give him a fish?

While there are myriad answers and approaches to resolving the dilemma of the questions above, when it comes to other human beings, and assuming as a nation we concur that no man should be left to starve or be homeless because, as a nation, we are more than adequately wealthy to make sure that never happens, the ones we (the nation) implement must, if one is to be humane to one's countrymen, be the ones (or one) that has the greatest likelihood of working. That is, the one that at the very least is capable of making sure no man starves or goes homeless. Might some approaches have the potential to achieve more than feeding and housing a man? Sure, but if they potentially less adept at achieving the bare minimum for the the greatest number of folks who need it, they are worse choices because they result in more people starving and being homeless.

There's nothing wrong with the human capital development goal you identified above -- teach a man to fish -- indeed it's an excellent and worthy one for which to strive. In setting that as the desired outcome of one's beneficence, one must also consider whether so doing folks are "left behind," so to speak. If one is okay with leaving some behind, fine, but if that's so, own it and tell the citizenry that's the case, that of those who are "left behind," the government's take on that is "Tough. You had your chance and you blew it, or perhaps you didn't, but either way, starve and/or freeze. Best of luck finding individuals who'll take kindly on you and help you out."

The other thing to consider carefully is that when addressing what amount to handouts, one must view the approach differently than were one providing goods and services for a fee. With the handouts, a program strives to achieve its end(s) -- leave nobody hungry, leave nobody homeless, leave nobody uneducated, whatever... -- as inexpensively as possible. To do so, the focus is on what approaches have the greatest potential to achieve those ends, not which approaches have the greatest potential to achieve something over and above them. Again, however, if one wants to define the ends in accordance with human capital development objectives rather than subsistence objectives, fine. There again, one must own it. All that's different is the message: "If you are poor or destitute, the government will give you an education, food, shelter, etc. and those who are not poor/destitute will not receive those things from the government, but instead will pay for them."

Do both sets of ends result in "ticked off" citizens? Yes. In the former, irked folks will come from all levels of society...the poor as well as the "not poor" who feel for them. In the latter, it's going to largely be folks of some means being irked because their taxes are being used to help their fellow citizens rather than their being allowed to "pick and choose" whom to help when they want to.

In light of the preceding, I ask this.

• What should be/is the United States' stance regarding its citizens who, again for whatever reason, need food, clothing, shelter and education and who cannot pay for it one their own?
• Are you okay with allowing any of your fellow citizens to starve and/or go homeless and unclothed? If so, to what extent, that is, at what point does it not become "okay" to let that happen?
• If you don't find it acceptable to allow folks to go hungry and homeless, of the various solutions that exist or that you can design anew, which of them has the greatest potential to ensure the fewest number of people at any given point in time are hungry and homeless?

Our society works differently
You fish all day and turn all your catch over to the wealthy. The wealthy takes what they want and allow you to share a fish with your fellow fishermen

Whatever its ills, our society is not feudal.

All one has to do is look at our distribution of wealth to realize that it is

 

[320 Years of History]

Of course it makes it right. It is basic common sense and basic humanity

You do not make someone in abject poverty pay the same as a multi-billionaire.......From each according to his abilities

You do not give welfare money to billionaires just because you give money to the poor......To each according to his needs

And there enlies the fundamental difference between you and I. I do not subscribe to any "herd mentality". Ideas must stand on their merits, or fail on them. I reject the notion that it is right because "every nation on earth" does it. No, it is not common sense and basic humanity. Basic humanity would be to TEACH the man to fish, not just GIVE the man A fish. If you take a fish, that I caught, and give it to someone who did not go fishing, that is theft, and redistribution of wealth. Let the man go fishing, if he is unsuccessful and hungry, I will give him what I beleive I can. YOU need to stay out of it.

Fine, but if the man cannot afford to take your fishing class, regardless of why he cannot, then what? Give him a fish? Let him starve because you've neither given him a fish nor taught him how to fish? Rely on someone else to give him a fish or teach him for free? And what happens when nobody (other than the government) is willing to give him a fish?

While there are myriad answers and approaches to resolving the dilemma of the questions above, when it comes to other human beings, and assuming as a nation we concur that no man should be left to starve or be homeless because, as a nation, we are more than adequately wealthy to make sure that never happens, the ones we (the nation) implement must, if one is to be humane to one's countrymen, be the ones (or one) that has the greatest likelihood of working. That is, the one that at the very least is capable of making sure no man starves or goes homeless. Might some approaches have the potential to achieve more than feeding and housing a man? Sure, but if they potentially less adept at achieving the bare minimum for the the greatest number of folks who need it, they are worse choices because they result in more people starving and being homeless.

There's nothing wrong with the human capital development goal you identified above -- teach a man to fish -- indeed it's an excellent and worthy one for which to strive. In setting that as the desired outcome of one's beneficence, one must also consider whether so doing folks are "left behind," so to speak. If one is okay with leaving some behind, fine, but if that's so, own it and tell the citizenry that's the case, that of those who are "left behind," the government's take on that is "Tough. You had your chance and you blew it, or perhaps you didn't, but either way, starve and/or freeze. Best of luck finding individuals who'll take kindly on you and help you out."

The other thing to consider carefully is that when addressing what amount to handouts, one must view the approach differently than were one providing goods and services for a fee. With the handouts, a program strives to achieve its end(s) -- leave nobody hungry, leave nobody homeless, leave nobody uneducated, whatever... -- as inexpensively as possible. To do so, the focus is on what approaches have the greatest potential to achieve those ends, not which approaches have the greatest potential to achieve something over and above them. Again, however, if one wants to define the ends in accordance with human capital development objectives rather than subsistence objectives, fine. There again, one must own it. All that's different is the message: "If you are poor or destitute, the government will give you an education, food, shelter, etc. and those who are not poor/destitute will not receive those things from the government, but instead will pay for them."

Do both sets of ends result in "ticked off" citizens? Yes. In the former, irked folks will come from all levels of society...the poor as well as the "not poor" who feel for them. In the latter, it's going to largely be folks of some means being irked because their taxes are being used to help their fellow citizens rather than their being allowed to "pick and choose" whom to help when they want to.

In light of the preceding, I ask this.

• What should be/is the United States' stance regarding its citizens who, again for whatever reason, need food, clothing, shelter and education and who cannot pay for it one their own?
• Are you okay with allowing any of your fellow citizens to starve and/or go homeless and unclothed? If so, to what extent, that is, at what point does it not become "okay" to let that happen?
• If you don't find it acceptable to allow folks to go hungry and homeless, of the various solutions that exist or that you can design anew, which of them has the greatest potential to ensure the fewest number of people at any given point in time are hungry and homeless?

Our society works differently
You fish all day and turn all your catch over to the wealthy. The wealthy takes what they want and allow you to share a fish with your fellow fishermen

Whatever its ills, our society is not feudal.

All one has to do is look at our distribution of wealth to realize that it is

Your earlier remarks all but characterize at a high level a feudal system. While the distribution of wealth may or may not be similar between our society and feudal ones, that similarly (or lack thereof) is incidental, not unavoidably characteristic or causal. Feudal economies and polities may have the depicted wealth distribution, but they are hardly the only ones that can and do; therefore, the distribution of wealth measure isn't germane to establishing whether ours (or another) is or is not a feudal society.

Quite simply, that which looks like a duck is not necessarily a duck.

 

[rightwinger]

And there enlies the fundamental difference between you and I. I do not subscribe to any "herd mentality". Ideas must stand on their merits, or fail on them. I reject the notion that it is right because "every nation on earth" does it. No, it is not common sense and basic humanity. Basic humanity would be to TEACH the man to fish, not just GIVE the man A fish. If you take a fish, that I caught, and give it to someone who did not go fishing, that is theft, and redistribution of wealth. Let the man go fishing, if he is unsuccessful and hungry, I will give him what I beleive I can. YOU need to stay out of it.

Fine, but if the man cannot afford to take your fishing class, regardless of why he cannot, then what? Give him a fish? Let him starve because you've neither given him a fish nor taught him how to fish? Rely on someone else to give him a fish or teach him for free? And what happens when nobody (other than the government) is willing to give him a fish?

While there are myriad answers and approaches to resolving the dilemma of the questions above, when it comes to other human beings, and assuming as a nation we concur that no man should be left to starve or be homeless because, as a nation, we are more than adequately wealthy to make sure that never happens, the ones we (the nation) implement must, if one is to be humane to one's countrymen, be the ones (or one) that has the greatest likelihood of working. That is, the one that at the very least is capable of making sure no man starves or goes homeless. Might some approaches have the potential to achieve more than feeding and housing a man? Sure, but if they potentially less adept at achieving the bare minimum for the the greatest number of folks who need it, they are worse choices because they result in more people starving and being homeless.

There's nothing wrong with the human capital development goal you identified above -- teach a man to fish -- indeed it's an excellent and worthy one for which to strive. In setting that as the desired outcome of one's beneficence, one must also consider whether so doing folks are "left behind," so to speak. If one is okay with leaving some behind, fine, but if that's so, own it and tell the citizenry that's the case, that of those who are "left behind," the government's take on that is "Tough. You had your chance and you blew it, or perhaps you didn't, but either way, starve and/or freeze. Best of luck finding individuals who'll take kindly on you and help you out."

The other thing to consider carefully is that when addressing what amount to handouts, one must view the approach differently than were one providing goods and services for a fee. With the handouts, a program strives to achieve its end(s) -- leave nobody hungry, leave nobody homeless, leave nobody uneducated, whatever... -- as inexpensively as possible. To do so, the focus is on what approaches have the greatest potential to achieve those ends, not which approaches have the greatest potential to achieve something over and above them. Again, however, if one wants to define the ends in accordance with human capital development objectives rather than subsistence objectives, fine. There again, one must own it. All that's different is the message: "If you are poor or destitute, the government will give you an education, food, shelter, etc. and those who are not poor/destitute will not receive those things from the government, but instead will pay for them."

Do both sets of ends result in "ticked off" citizens? Yes. In the former, irked folks will come from all levels of society...the poor as well as the "not poor" who feel for them. In the latter, it's going to largely be folks of some means being irked because their taxes are being used to help their fellow citizens rather than their being allowed to "pick and choose" whom to help when they want to.

In light of the preceding, I ask this.

• What should be/is the United States' stance regarding its citizens who, again for whatever reason, need food, clothing, shelter and education and who cannot pay for it one their own?
• Are you okay with allowing any of your fellow citizens to starve and/or go homeless and unclothed? If so, to what extent, that is, at what point does it not become "okay" to let that happen?
• If you don't find it acceptable to allow folks to go hungry and homeless, of the various solutions that exist or that you can design anew, which of them has the greatest potential to ensure the fewest number of people at any given point in time are hungry and homeless?

Our society works differently
You fish all day and turn all your catch over to the wealthy. The wealthy takes what they want and allow you to share a fish with your fellow fishermen

Whatever its ills, our society is not feudal.

All one has to do is look at our distribution of wealth to realize that it is

Your earlier remarks all but characterize at a high level a feudal system. While the distribution of wealth may or may not be similar between our society and feudal ones, that similarly (or lack thereof) is incidental, not unavoidably characteristic or causal. Feudal economies and polities may have the depicted wealth distribution, but they are hardly the only ones that can and do; therefore, the distribution of wealth measure isn't germane to establishing whether ours (or another) is or is not a feudal society.

Quite simply, that which looks like a duck is not necessarily a duck.

When you look at the distribution of wealth, you can see that 80% of the population controls 15% of the wealth. As a worker, you may be able to move about within that 15% slice of the pie through initiative, but your ability to eat from the 85% remaining is limited

It is a feudal system that allows the workers to think they have some control over their well being