Politics: Too much bitching, not enough doing.

[Elderberry]

If we would expect as much from our children growing up as we seem to expect from our politicians, we'd be throwing them all out too!

(think about it.)

JK

Expectations,,,, from politicians should be nothing more than protecting our liberty by keeping gubmint out of our lives and do it within the tax revenues actually received.

This tweaking the economy, healing little Johnny's booboo, dictating what, how and when to learn and making sure granny has her pacemaker are not what I EXPECT from a politician.

You are wrong about this. I don't have time to go into detail, but let's just hit a few highlights...

tweaking the economy: had "gubment" not acted, and you had your facts right, we'd be in a depression right now, worse than the world has ever seen. Sad, but true. Like it or not.

dictating what, how and when to learn: So you'd rather leave this up to state and local "gubment" and we'd have all our kids home schooled and taught that creation and that the world is 6,000 years old and we walked with dinosaurs. We'd be dead last in education compared to the world rather than our pathetic 21st place.

healing little Johnny's booboo: We are the only major country that hasn't provided health care for our people. It is what I expect from our 'gubment'. Think for a minute what this country would be like if we didn't provide food, clothing, shelter, basic health care for our less fortunate citizens. Life as you know it would disappear. People can be pushed only so far, and if they are hungry they will stop at nothing--breaking down your front door, mugging you in the street, whatever it takes to eat and feed their families. Think of "entitlement" programs as insurance.

Speaking of which do you know why they are called "entitlement" programs? This does not refer to the social welfare I refer to above, but to the programs set up by "gubment" like social security, which you and I have paid into for all of our lives--consequently, we are "entitled" to get this money back.

Stop being so short sighted. Where are your "Christian" values?

JK

[theCryptofishist]

I am so looking forward to the time when there's no social welfare spending and we have corpses in the street.


Oh wait, I'm not. I'm not a fan, but read some Dickens. The treacly endings are wretched but the poverty was real. And since we don't tan hides with dog shit anymore, we won't have a job for little old ladies without a pension.

[ygmir]

isn't that the challenge:

to balance between "let 'em starve and die in the streets"
and
"Don't worry about working, the government will provide all you need, and, someone else will have to pay for it"

[Elderberry]

isn't that the challenge:

to balance between "let 'em starve and die in the streets"
and
"Don't worry about working, the government will provide all you need, and, someone else will have to pay for it"

Actually, that's really not the challenge. And (excuse me for using this reference twice in this thread) frankly, how can caring for the less fortunate even be a point of contention if this is truly a Christian country. That is one of the first tenants of the faith.

Christians willingly tithe their earnings their church, who I thought, would use those donation to take care of the less fortunate. And don't use what I consider the specious argument that the government shouldn't or can't do it; the problem is too big for the church, though I would entertain the argument of taxing the churches so that there was more money for the government to spend on the less fortunate.

And think about this, the welfare stipend is really not that much. Do you really think that anybody willing to live on it for their entire life would be employable anyway?

The reason I like throwing out the Christian card, is that I, as an atheist, find my self thinking in more Christian ways than most die hard Christians. I think I'd be totally embarrassed if I were a Christian.

Now, that is not to say that there are not people taking advantage of the system, but the number of people that are taking advantage of social services is a surprisingly small fraction of those that are receiving assistance. Unfortunately, to often, it's the exceptions that too many people try to use to prove the rule.

Now, if you wanted to talk about ways of improving the system and curtailing the abuse...

JK

[Trishntek]

And think about this, the welfare stipend is really not that much. Do you really think that anybody willing to live on it for their entire life would be employable anyway?

And thus, that is exactly how the gubmint keeps people dependent on them.

[Elderberry]

And think about this, the welfare stipend is really not that much. Do you really think that anybody willing to live on it for their entire life would be employable anyway?

And thus, that is exactly how the gubmint keeps people dependent on them.

Poor choice of words, I should have said that type of person would be unemployable--i.e. nobody would hire anyone with that mentality. There would be no work for them to do, and that wouldn't be the 'gubment's fault. But again, I gave the solution in another thread...Euthanize them...Problem solved. Otherwise, why go on discussing it? It's all semantics from there.

JK

[knowmad]

wow. kinda glad most of yall are just talking and not doing.

jk? poor choice of words? fer real? how about giving Goering the credit at least for "your" Endlösung?

[Elderberry]

wow. kinda glad most of yall are just talking and not doing.

jk? poor choice of words? fer real? how about giving Goering the credit at least for "your" Endlösung?

My choice of words was deliberate. The choice, to me, is simple and obvious if we are truly the enlightened/caring/Christian society we all seem to claim we are.

JK

[geekster]

Nothing to see ... move along

[geekster]

Move along, move along, nothing to see ... keep moving!

[geekster]

dangit, wrong thread! Those two were supposed to be in The Long Cold Winter thread.

[geekster]

Actually, that's really not the challenge. And (excuse me for using this reference twice in this thread) frankly, how can caring for the less fortunate even be a point of contention if this is truly a Christian country. That is one of the first tenants of the faith.

That is beside the point. Nobody is saying one shouldn't care for the less fortunate. The problem is that isn't the role of government to care for the less fortunate. It is not the job of government to play Robin Hood to take from the rich and give to the poor.

Charitable giving is one thing. Having your earnings taken from you at gunpoint to be distributed to others is something completely different. And if you don't believe that it is "at gunpoint" then simply refuse to pay your taxes for a while. The guys with the guns will eventually show up to collect.

The constitution of the United States does not grant anywhere in it the right of the federal government to provide one single penny for any, no matter how benevolent, cause. The state governments DO have that right under the constitution but the federal government does not. The federal government has the responsibility to "promote the general welfare", it doesn't say to "provide for the general welfare". The "general welfare" in that case is the overall health of the country, not the condition of individuals within it.

Currently about 47% of Americans pay no taxes whatsoever. That is wrong. Everyone should have some personal investment in what is going on. The bottom 50% of wage earners (that's half of Americans who work, for those of you smoking) pay about 5% of the taxes.

Now there is absolutely nothing stopping a state from providing cradle to grave welfare and taxing the living crap out of its citizens. If you want these programs, the place to go is your state capital, not Washington, DC.


But you are probably better off not trying to make government your religion.

This comes from a simply basic misunderstanding of the US constitution. The federal government has NO powers except those explicitly granted by the constitution. The state governments have ALL powers EXCEPT those explicitly prohibited by the constitution or given to the federal government. So the federal government has no power and must be granted authority, the state government has all powers and must be explicitly prohibited authority.

This was done on purpose to prevent a tyrannical federal government from attempting to become Robin Hood.

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic. " -- Benjamin Franklin

[geekster]

Another fundamental quote from Franklin is:

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. -- Benjamin Franklin

So "liberty" has nothing at all do to with "majority rules". Liberty is allowing one to make their own way and allowing them to do so, even if it isn't the way you would have them choose.

Stop trying to force shit down people's throats. Just because you think something should be one way or another doesn't mean you have the right to force others to make that so.

This is always nice to review once every few years:

http://jpetrie.myweb.uga.edu/poor_richard.html

[ygmir]

Actually, that's really not the challenge. And (excuse me for using this reference twice in this thread) frankly, how can caring for the less fortunate even be a point of contention if this is truly a Christian country. That is one of the first tenants of the faith.

That is beside the point. Nobody is saying one shouldn't care for the less fortunate. The problem is that isn't the role of government to care for the less fortunate. It is not the job of government to play Robin Hood to take from the rich and give to the poor.

Charitable giving is one thing. Having your earnings taken from you at gunpoint to be distributed to others is something completely different. And if you don't believe that it is "at gunpoint" then simply refuse to pay your taxes for a while. The guys with the guns will eventually show up to collect.

The constitution of the United States does not grant anywhere in it the right of the federal government to provide one single penny for any, no matter how benevolent, cause. The state governments DO have that right under the constitution but the federal government does not. The federal government has the responsibility to "promote the general welfare", it doesn't say to "provide for the general welfare". The "general welfare" in that case is the overall health of the country, not the condition of individuals within it.

Currently about 47% of Americans pay no taxes whatsoever. That is wrong. Everyone should have some personal investment in what is going on. The bottom 50% of wage earners (that's half of Americans who work, for those of you smoking) pay about 5% of the taxes.

Now there is absolutely nothing stopping a state from providing cradle to grave welfare and taxing the living crap out of its citizens. If you want these programs, the place to go is your state capital, not Washington, DC.


But you are probably better off not trying to make government your religion.

This comes from a simply basic misunderstanding of the US constitution. The federal government has NO powers except those explicitly granted by the constitution. The state governments have ALL powers EXCEPT those explicitly prohibited by the constitution or given to the federal government. So the federal government has no power and must be granted authority, the state government has all powers and must be explicitly prohibited authority.

This was done on purpose to prevent a tyrannical federal government from attempting to become Robin Hood.

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic. " -- Benjamin Franklin

this should be required reading.