Your thoughts on this passage?

[RadiomanATL]

I think it's pretty self evident. I also think many here are seeing the words "society" and "government" as synonyms. A worthy ATL post

 

[Cecilie1200]

I do so love listening to hateful, pessimistic leftists telling us how convinced they are that the American people are selfish, self-absorbed pigs who would all gladly allow children to starve in the streets while stepping over them on their way to their limos if they were not forced by the all-wise, all-caring government to reluctantly let fall a few dollars from their greedy, grasping fingers.

Personally, I think this view of humanity - and Americans in particular - says a lot more about the sorts of people leftists are than it does about the sorts of people the rest of us are.

History already addressed this. Prior to reforms, the establishment of social programs, and worker-protection laws, that's exactly what happened, with very few exceptions.

Furthermore, that's exactly what the bourgeoisie- including those who happen to be American citizens- do around the world to this day. They call it 'outsourcing' now.

I would hardly call the average American "selfish" and "willing to step over starving children". IMO, the average American is horrified by images of hunger in America and wants it eradicated -- but most of us realize this is an essential government function.

Ahhh, yes. "Most of us" are convinced that the government must care for the poor, because that's the only way they'll be helped, but that doesn't equate to thinking that regular people are too selfish to help the poor without the government. Goodness, no.



I would submit that "most of us" realize the government makes a dog's dinner of helping the poor, which is why the left's redistributionist schemes keep failing so miserably at the ballot box, no matter how hard they try to attribute their defeats to "selfish, greedy rich people".

 

[Madeline]

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.

 

[Revere]

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.

 

[Madeline]

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.

 

[Revere]

I don't get as many benefits from government someone earning $14,500 does.

 

[Revere]

Are you "middle class" if you are a single earner parent of 3 who makes $14,500 a year yet get more from government as a family that earns $60,000?

 

[Madeline]

I don't get as many benefits from government someone earning $14,500 does.

No, you get more. I assume you meant to imply you earn substantially more, and the reason you need not pay a guard to stand outside your home at night is because the poor where you live are not without resources or hope. I could go on, but hopefully this conveys my point....none of us lives in a vacuum. The well-being of our neighbors directly and substantially affects us.

 

[Revere]

I don't get as many benefits from government someone earning $14,500 does.

No, you get more. I assume you meant to imply you earn substantially more, and the reason you need not pay a guard to stand outside your home at night is because the poor where you live are not without resources or hope. I could go on, but hopefully this conveys my point....none of us lives in a vacuum. The well-being of our neighbors directly and substantially affects us.

No, you don't get more. You don't qualify for anywhere near the number of handouts.

The dependency class is sucking the middle class dry.

 

[Madeline]

I don't get as many benefits from government someone earning $14,500 does.

No, you get more. I assume you meant to imply you earn substantially more, and the reason you need not pay a guard to stand outside your home at night is because the poor where you live are not without resources or hope. I could go on, but hopefully this conveys my point....none of us lives in a vacuum. The well-being of our neighbors directly and substantially affects us.

No, you don't get more. You don't qualify for anywhere near the number of handouts.

The dependency class is sucking the middle class dry.

There are certainly social relief programs we could agree are wasteful or worth eliminating, Revere. However, the unemployment rates, housing crisis, environmental damage and general economic malaise we now find ourselves swimming in were not caused by the poor or by any social program intended to meet their needs. They were all caused by the wealthy -- please redirect your ire at the actual evil doers.

 

[Revere]

Here we go.

 

[Madeline]

This is already the subject of a thread, Revere. Please stop hijacking JB's Op.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/145833-single-parent-of-3-earning-14k-has-more-disposable-income-than-30k-60k-familes.html

 

[Revere]

The welfare state is collapsing, and the fanatics want more welfare.

 

[Madeline]

The welfare state is collapsing, and the fanatics want more welfare.

Who the hell "wants more welfare", Revere? Not me, not JB, prolly not TM. The "collapse" we all see around us was caused by wealthy people, not the poor. Should they pay no portion of the cost of getting past this crisis?

 

[Harry Dresden]

" 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

Rik you may have a point.....but let me ask you....who are the people who shell out a weeks salary to go see the kid put that ball through a hoop?....throw a football?....hit a little white ball?......these people....secretaries, janitors, mechanics and others like them.....are responsible for these people... tiger woods,phil mickelson, randy moss, tom brady, derek jeter and peyton manning......who should i feel sorry for?....

 

[asterism]

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.

 

[asterism]

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

Warts and all, better jobs than were available without their efforts.

 

[asterism]

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.

"Undue" is the subjective measure. Now go show me some people with actual wealth willing to sacrifice their fortunes who advocate the same thing.

 

[asterism]

The OP promotes a destructive form of altruism in which one is allowed to keep the dregs of one's productivity only after all those in NEED first feed off of him.

No thank you.

Interesting that you would interpret the Op this way. By contrast, I saw the message as "wealth is derived from society, and as part of the social contract, we provide sustenance for the members unable to care for themselves, such as children and the elderly".

Whichever, way you view it, do you truely desire to live somewhere that the poor are allowed to starve, even the children? If so, it can be arranged boedicca....such places exist.

You live pretty well. You can voluntarily give that up if you believe your lifestyle is derived from society and more is needed. Why don't you lead and start paying off the debt?

http://pay.gov

 

[Intense]

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?