Budget - War on the Poor

[John Terry]

I see the budgets a proper classic again!

More subsidies/welfare for the rich (special intrest groups etc) and less for the poor. Bush should be really proud of his achievemnt - slashing funding for health care for poor children, the disabled and the elderly, cutting back on education and medical research and claiming fiscal responsibility while spending more on weapons which are invariably used to kill other poor people arond the world. :clap2:

[Sponsored Links]

[Angie]

Or weapons which aren't used at all (Star Wars) but are based on a defuct, no longer existing cold war (not to mention they never worked) but whose place in the budget is strictly to support the, was it Truman who called something like the industrial war complex?

[John Terry]

military-industrial complex? but I like your version too.

[Zero Punch]

Dwight D. Eisenhower (http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html) Speech

[Angie]

military-industrial complex? but I like your version too.

Thanks John and Zero Punch too. I remembered the concept but sort of have senior moments on details sometimes. I'm not against spending money and know a lot of military and social spending are controversial but being in debt AND spending it downright stupidly just drives me NUTS! To have so many needs not being met and throwing money away..... :blah: :blah: :blah:

[jdm]

But a war on the poor is so much easier that one on the rich.

And war itself is a good thing because it gives a president carte blance to run roughshod over the constitution.

[Angie]

But a war on the poor is so much easier that one on the rich.

And war itself is a good thing because it gives a president carte blance to run roughshod over the constitution.

Course - the rich run the country and protect their interests. And war is such an effective way to use fear and hate to control people, keep them worried about something else rather than advocating for their interests. The magic game of keeping the people you want to control looking where you point them rather than where much of the action is actually occurring.

[jdm]

But ol' W. is such a down-to-earth, means-what-he-says, likeable guy!

And a mandate of 53% said so.

[LGB]

My goodness, how in the world did this country become the world power that it is before FDR drug us into this welfare state we live in today? Social programs are the responsibility of the states not the fed...

BTW, tax receipts are way up since the tax breaks took effect. Capital gains have almost doubled even though the tax rate was reduced by 25%. :twitch:

[Angie]

BTW, tax receipts are way up since the tax breaks took effect. Capital gains have almost doubled even though the tax rate was reduced by 25%. :twitch:

I guess that means I was misinformed about our having a deficit? Because they've certainly passed a deficit reduction bill so we should spending less and I guess we're collecting more money according to the above so the budget must be balanced? If not it is still not working. More needs to be cut, more money raised or both. I confess I'm a liberal about social programs but first and foremost I believe we should be paying our way and somebody/everybody at the feds need more guts to do what needs to be done one way or the other. But mostly they're spineless and will do neither.

[LGB]

No, there is a deficit. They just keep spending and spending. But that doesn't mean that there can't be a gain in receipts. If you gain 10% in receipts and increase spending by 15% you will still have a deficit. Get it?

[davem]

I guess tax cuts work, but not enough so don't do them at all? All a republican has to do is try to taper the rate of growth of any social program and the democrats will scream bloody murder about the evil republican is trying to destroy:

Education
Social Security
Health Care
The Environment

That makes it kind of tough for anybody to put real cuts in place.

[Angie]

C'mon. The republicans alway blame the democrats. When GW wanted to privatize social security he had just as much resistance from the republicans as from the democrats. On education, if the republicans want to trim funds why do they work so hard to authorize all the additional spending on No child left behind? Granted they didn't fully fund it but they did fund it and they did push the mandate to the states. If the republicans are against additional spending why do they start, lobby and vote for these programs? Why do they resist the cuts to social security? The democrats they at least have a philosophy of supporting social programs and their actions are consistent with their philiosophy. My problem with republicans is not their cutting of programs, but their blaming democrats for supporting spending and their claiming to be against the spending while creating the programs themselves, lobbying for them and voting for them. Also remember food stamps and a bunch of other social programs were created by Nixon...Republicans hold the house, the senate, and the whitehouse...if they want to cut spending, they are in a position to. If they are not, it is because the republicans are not in line, not because the democrats are forcing it thru.

[LGB]

Angie, would you vote for a dem that wanted to cut social programs 25% across the board?

[RubberFrog]

I was for the tax cut before I was against it.

[Angie]

Angie, would you vote for a dem that wanted to cut social programs 25% across the board?


I don't find across the board to be effective ever. And why only social programs? why not business subsidies and tax subsidies? But I don't believe those are all bad either and I wouldn't want those cut across the board either.To cut calories to loose wait would you cut across the board....no...you don't cut fruit and vegetables the same extent you cut candy, fat, etc...And I confessed I'm a liberal when it comes to social programs. To balance the budget (really not just in the scam reduction bill of their) I would stomach a lot more than I would to subsidize the rich, corporations, or wars and I do think it should all be on the table. For instance - you could cut social security 25% across the board and seniors who are barely making it would be starving in the streets....but you could could also phase it out for upper income people who don't need it to keep afloat. I don't know what that percentage would look like. It might be over or under 25%. I also wouldn't have problems with raising additional revenues for it. I might fall into it or I might not. I don't really like "entitlements" but I don't really like to see people who worked hard all their lives starving in the streets and I gotta think there's a middle ground. I'm willing to feel some pain for a balanced budget both on the cut and the pay side.

[jgleason]

As has been pointed out, the problem is not with tax cuts. The money flowing into the federal government's hands has been going up, even with the tax cuts in effect.

The real problem is spending. Neither party has been able to control federal spending and I don't see that changing anytime soon. It's rather unfortunate really.

All the blustering about the deep cuts in various social programs do is ensure that nothing will ever truly get cut. Let's not forget that most of what is being harped on as cuts in spending are really not cuts at all, just reductions in the amount the politicians were planning on spending.

The sky is falling, the sky is falling. Bullshit!

[Zero Punch]

I bet most of the congressional men and women can't balance their own checkbooks and are probably deep in debt. Why should we exspect them to do any better with our money?

When they spend more than they got they're placing the burden on future generations, but to say that every deadbeat deserves this that or something else is bull waddle.

Social programs should only be temporary no one should live off them. the constitution only promises the opportunity of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness NOT a guarantee.

John

[LGB]

The problem is, there will be no solution until we get out of the mentality that the government is the solution to all of our ills. Where is the personal responsibility to take care of ones self? It's all about power in Washington. The pubs will not be in power for long if they make the hard decisions necessary to fix things and the dems, in my opinion, are the root of the problem. The bulk of the federal budget is entitlement programs. Most of these were initiated by democrats.

You do know that the first social programs (railroad retirement act to be exact) were found to be unconstitutional by the supreme court? The only reason the SS program passed was because FDR threatened to pack the supreme court by adding additional justices.

As far as subsidizing the rich, I have to just laugh. If they say it enough it must be true. It's the rich that are subsidizing the government... I know where my bread is coming from. If corporate America is not making money, where are the jobs coming from? Andif people don't have jobs how are they going to pay me to tile their floors... :D

[davem]

Leon, everybody knows the rich don't pay taxes, why they're positively evil. :blah:
Oh wait, maybe they do. ;) In fact the top 1% of wage earners paid over 34% of income tax in 2003 according to the irs' latest figgers. Huh.

I agree the republicans in congress better grow a collective set and start acting like conservatives. :)

[flatfloor]

The line item budget bill is up again for a vote. It will not pass once again just like it has not whether Dems or Pubs are in.

Gotta have that pork. :think:

[sdaniels7114]

Before you get your hopes up on that line item veto bill, keep in mind that some think its unconstitutional. I don't understand all the ins and outs, but the reasoning is that if the prez can just cut individual stuff out, then congress is abdicating its responsibility under the Constitution. The document says they have decide spending, they can't permit someone else to do it for them. At least without another amendment.

[Shaughnn]

Angie,
You DO know that the "Star Wars" program was an excercise in misinformation, don't you. How do you think we got our fabulously commercial GPS technology? Everybody knew that putting laserbeams into space wasn't practical. The unspoken question was, "what are they really hatching with that money". GPS is just a little of the technology that was developed under that program. The rest may not see the public marketplace for a longer while to come?
Shaughnn

[sdaniels7114]

The GPS program (http://spaceflightnow.com/delta/d303/) predated Reagan by quite a bit. Not that we didn't get some as yet unknown technology out of the Star Wars program, but GPS wasn't it. It took a long time to get enough satellites into space.

[jgleason]

then congress is abdicating its responsibility under the Constitution

Kind of like how congress has been abdicating its responsibility to declare war, eh?

Section 8 - Powers of Congress
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water

They pass the buck to the President on this and then they can conveniently play Pontius Pilate and wash their hands of anything the President does that they don't like. (Dems & Repubs alike)

[John Terry]

The whole system is a shameful disgrace. The only time the governemnt/rich want anything to do with poor or less well off people is when they want them to go and die for them (then its a case of 'heros doing their duty for the American people'). And as soon as they have done their duty [dying] then they dont give a shite. Disappeared, out-of-site-out-of-mind.

And all that from a president that claims to be a 'war president' when in reality he was to scared and to cowardly to go and fight when it was his generations 'turn' and got his ol' pa to get him a posting in a Champaigne unit.

I think it really shows when an injured soldier has to pay for his/her own food while in hospital!!

http://www.veteransforpeace.org/Dishonorable_discharge_112603.htm

[Shaughnn]

Joe,
Didn't the White House press very hard, on all fronts, for Congress to give him all the powers that *he* asked for? I don't think this is a case of Pontius Pilate as mucyh as it's a case of giving little Jimmy a BB-gun for Christmas and then finding out he's out shooting all of the neighborhood cats by New Years Day.
Steve,
I'm sure the program pre-dated Reagan. I'm just saying that when budgeting got tight, the "Star Wars Program" was inspired as a means of continuing confidential defence programs under the guise of "space lazers".
Shaughnn

[Angie]

Where is the personal responsibility to take care of ones self?

The flaw in this statement is just that it assumes if you play by the rules you'll win the game. I guess if you eat right, exercise and take your vitamins you won't get ill. If you get a good job, show up every day and it do it well, you will always have a job and you will make a good living. If you live responsibly and save your money, you will have enough to pay your bills, health care and retirement. And if you're a good tilesetter you get good jobs, good customers and never get screwed. Do you guys really live in this world? Is your world really all about taking care of yourself? and not each other? I do take care of myself. I'm also quite proud of trying to care of my parents and parent-in-law and trying to care of my neighbors too. Is this bad? Isn't the government really just us in the end? and government helping people is just an extension of neighbor helping neighbor? that we're stronger together than we are individually? Is United We Stand a liberal concept?

[Shaughnn]

Angie,
"Neighbor helping neighbor" is exactly what a society should aspire to, but the purpose and the mandate of our government is not to be the most generous of all our neighbors. It is to provide a stability of society and a security of borders. I think that's about it. Into this purpose, we've folded public schooling, social safety-net programs, economic regulations and safeguards and a bunch of other programs which benefit all of society by limiting the impact of the "bottom-feeders"* on the rest of us.
I think that much of the resistance to these programs and regulations comes from those who do not immediately recognize the benefits afforded to them by these programs, or who feel that such limitations restrict their ability to persue profits "at all costs". Somewhere between "The Welfare State"(tm) and "every man for himself", is a balance that keeps society on an even keel. Public discourse and regular adjustements to the status quo keep these extremes in check and service us all. Compassion isn't the purview of the "sensitive Left" any more than vanity and avarice are the domain of the "callous Right".
Shaughnn :)

*I use the term "bottom-feeders" not as a condemnation of people in financial or social destitution, but as a broad term to describe both individual and corporate entities which thrive at the expence of others. It's probably not the best term to describe my point but it's the one I'm gonna use for now, unless someone has another that's more "catchy". :)

[davem]

Neighbor helping neighbor is charity and an individual choice; the way things should be.
Government confiscating our money and distributing it as they see fit is very far from that, and yes it is a liberal idea. It's not only inefficient, it breeds corruption in the government and dependence among the people the goverment claims to be "helping".

Just one point in the news now is the hurricane victims and their free hotel housing. If the government never cut off the free housing, there would be a large number of people who would happily keep taking the money forever. As soon as they are cut off they scream and cry about how evil the goverment is to the poor. The evil thing the government does to the poor is make them dependent.

[LGB]

The flaw in this statement is just that it assumes if you play by the rules you'll win the game. I guess if you eat right, exercise and take your vitamins you won't get ill. If you get a good job, show up every day and it do it well, you will always have a job and you will make a good living. If you live responsibly and save your money, you will have enough to pay your bills, health care and retirement. And if you're a good tilesetter you get good jobs, good customers and never get screwed. Do you guys really live in this world? Is your world really all about taking care of yourself? and not each other? I do take care of myself. I'm also quite proud of trying to care of my parents and parent-in-law and trying to care of my neighbors "htoo. Is this bad? Isn't the government really just us in the end? and government helping people is just an extension of neighbor helping neighbor? that we're stronger together than we are individually? Is United We Stand a liberal concept?

OMG, where to begin? THIS IS NOT A COUNTRY BUILT ON SOCIALIST IDEAS. It's not the governments job to take care of everyone that has a downfall along the way. You say you help with your family, great, that's the way it should be. But I shouldn't be required to take care of your family. If we all took care of our own why would the government need to be involved? Your way of thinking contradicts everything this country was founded on.

Now don't get me wrong. I don'thave a problem helping people that truely need it and I do. But in this country I should have the right to choose who or what organization gets my help.

[John Terry]

Isn't the government really just us in the end? and government helping people is just an extension of neighbor helping neighbor? that we're stronger together than we are individually? Is United We Stand a liberal concept?


I agree with you. The ruling class has, over time destroyed any sense of solidarity and compassion to your fellow citezens. It suits there needs having eveyone fight over a few scraps while they enjoy the banquet.

the only time they ruling class ever want solidarity is when (after years of ideological programming and brain washing) they whip the common man up into a drooling, glazey eyed frenzy and pack em off to go and die in a war.

It doesn't really matter wether its a Repub. or a Demo. thats controlling the show, their intrests are pretty much aligned, give the public a few partisan spats to argue about while they get on with the realpolitik of maintaining their own power and wealth at any cost, even at the cost of eveyone else in the country or world.

Now I hope no-one gets me wrong I think people should pay their own way but, what type of society leaves 45 million people without health care. America in many ways is a third world country and getting worse - regressing.

[John Terry]

[QUOTE=LGB]OMG, where to begin? THIS IS NOT A COUNTRY BUILT ON SOCIALIST IDEAS.QUOTE]


The country as exeplified by the constitution i.e. was written for and by, very rich, powerful, white male land-owners for their own benifit.


Certainly not socialist more like - Totalitarian, Fascist, Colonialist, Imperialist, Ultra-right wing....

[Angie]

I don't believe it's government's job to take care of everyone. I do believe it's a government's role to ensure a stable and productive society and I do believe we are more stable without people starving in the streets and that we are more productive with an educated citizenry. I don't believe my helping my neighbor is charity. It is to some point an obligation. Just as I do not believe that voting is priviledge. This is a democracy and I believe participation is (or should be) an obligation. Likewise, aside from government's role, I live in a society and that has obligations too. I guess I identify the government not as an entity outside of myself but as an entity including myself and all of us and what our mutual obligations to each other ought to be. That's on an optimistic day. Then there are the skeptical days when I just say hey the next generation is gonna pay the price for all this and I don't have any kids so why should I care. Cut it all. Not my problem. I can live with that but it's sad.

[LGB]

Now I hope no-one gets me wrong I think people should pay their own way but, what type of society leaves 45 million people without health care. America in many ways is a third world country and getting worse - regressing.

That 45 million is a lie. The figure represents everyone that were uninsured for ANY period of time during the year. It does not tell you how many simply choose not to carry insurance. 1/5 of the uninsured make more than 50K a year.

Edit to add- The number is actually declining. source (http://www.meps.ahrq.gov/papers/st45/stat45.htm)

[jgleason]

Didn't the White House press very hard, on all fronts, for Congress to give him all the powers that *he* asked for?

Well, my point wasn't intended to be limited to just one event. There has not been a formal declaration of war by Congress since World War II, yet our military has been committed to engaging in war at many times since then. There have been no shortages of protesters for most of these engagements either.

I don't have a problem with the current war in Afghanistan (voted on by Congress - Senate 98-0, House 420-1) or the one in Iraq (Senate 77-23, House 296-133). These strike me as having been sufficiently debated and authorized even if there was no formal declaration of war.

Now of course, many of those that voted for the war in Iraq are claiming they were duped, lied to, deceived, etc. by the current President. Although I think their protests ring hollow, I have no problem at all with them expressing their opinions. If they really believed what they said they would shut the legislative branch down to get action. The Dems may not have a majority but there are certainly enough of them to force more debate and votes on the issue of withdrawing the troops and ending the conflict in Iraq.

[John Terry]

That 45 million is a lie. The figure represents everyone that were uninsured for ANY period of time during the year. It does not tell you how many simply choose not to carry insurance. 1/5 of the uninsured make more than 50K a year.

Edit to add- The number is actually declining. source (http://www.meps.ahrq.gov/papers/st45/stat45.htm)

Its not really a lie is it:

'In 2002, 61.7 million non-elderly individuals were uninsured at some point during the year, 45.9 million were uninsured throughout the first half of the year, and 32.0 million were uninsured all year.'

And it dosn't tell you how many simply choose not to carry insurance (I cant imagine many people would choose not to have insurance, unless that choice was maybe for thier children to have insurance instead of themsleves) but neither does it say that that 20% of the un-insured earn more than $50K.


But anyway

'The number and percentage of children covered by public only insurance increased between 1996 and 2002 by 5.2 million, from 10.9 million to 16.1 million and from 16.2 percent to 23.3 percent.'

'.......the percentage of children with private insurance declined between 1998 and 2002, from 60.3 percent to 56.3 percent.'

Like I said 3rd world.

The richest most powerful country ever.............

[LGB]

I don't believe it's government's job to take care of everyone. I do believe it's a government's role to ensure a stable and productive society and I do believe we are more stable without people starving in the streets and that we are more productive with an educated citizenry. I don't believe my helping my neighbor is charity. It is to some point an obligation. Just as I do not believe that voting is priviledge. This is a democracy and I believe participation is (or should be) an obligation. Likewise, aside from government's role, I live in a society and that has obligations too. I guess I identify the government not as an entity outside of myself but as an entity including myself and all of us and what our mutual obligations to each other ought to be. That's on an optimistic day. Then there are the skeptical days when I just say hey the next generation is gonna pay the price for all this and I don't have any kids so why should I care. Cut it all. Not my problem. I can live with that but it's sad.

Angie, we are going to have to agree to disagree. Yes we have obligations as human beings, but they are exactly that, individual obligations.

[LGB]

Its not really a lie is it:

'In 2002, 61.7 million non-elderly individuals were uninsured at some point during the year, 45.9 million were uninsured throughout the first half of the year, and 32.0 million were uninsured all year.'

And it dosn't tell you how many simply choose not to carry insurance (I cant imagine many people would choose not to have insurance, unless that choice was maybe for thier children to have insurance instead of themsleves) but neither does it say that that 20% of the un-insured earn more than $50K.


But anyway

'The number and percentage of children covered by public only insurance increased between 1996 and 2002 by 5.2 million, from 10.9 million to 16.1 million and from 16.2 percent to 23.3 percent.'

'.......the percentage of children with private insurance declined between 1998 and 2002, from 60.3 percent to 56.3 percent.'

Like I said 3rd world.

The richest most powerful country ever.............

You imply that 45 million people are walking around without insurance. It's just not true. The 20% figure came fromhere (http://bcbshealthissues.com/issues/uninsured/whoareuninsured/)
I defy you to point out a third world country that has a better health care system...

[Shaughnn]

Leon,
A fairy god-mother who never comes when you need her isn't much of a fairy god-mother, no matter how many dragons she's slain or other princesses she's rescued. As long as the card game is rigged to favor "the house"/the insurance companies we aren't truely able to claim that we are being best served by our policies and politicians. And as long as the first question asked at a hospital is "how will you be paying for this" and not "what seems to be your illness", we can't truely claim that our health care system is exemplary, can we?
Shaughnn

[LGB]

Leon,
A fairy god-mother who never comes when you need her isn't much of a fairy god-mother, no matter how many dragons she's slain or other princesses she's rescued. As long as the card game is rigged to favor "the house"/the insurance companies we aren't truely able to claim that we are being best served by our policies and politicians. And as long as the first question asked at a hospital is "how will you be paying for this" and not "what seems to be your illness", we can't truely claim that our health care system is exemplary, can we?
Shaughnn

Understood, but would you consider it third world? And how many people are actually being turned away at the hospital door? :shrug:

[Shaughnn]

Leon,
I don't know about where you are located, but where I am at the hospitals don't even let you speak to a triage nurse until you've satisfied their payment questions. If you can't do that, you don't see a triage nurse and therefore you've never been in the hospital. It's a creative way to get around the illeagality of denying care AND they don't have to record you for any sort of statistics. It's a loophole that's been written into our laws by our insurance friendly legislators, going all the way back to Mr. Nixon and his opening of the floodgates to the frenzy of HMOs. Thank you very much, Mr. Wealthy Deadguy.
Shaughnn

[LGB]

Leon,
I don't know about where you are located, but where I am at the hospitals don't even let you speak to a triage nurse until you've satisfied their payment questions. If you can't do that, you don't see a triage nurse and therefore you've never been in the hospital. It's a creative way to get around the illeagality of denying care AND they don't have to record you for any sort of statistics. It's a loophole that's been written into our laws by our insurance friendly legislators, going all the way back to Mr. Nixon and his opening of the floodgates to the frenzy of HMOs. Thank you very much, Mr. Wealthy Deadguy.
Shaughnn


The hospitals in my area are not for profit charitable organizations and do not turn anyone away. http://www.wellspan.org/CommunityOutreach/ws_community_benefit_rpt04.pdf

[Shaughnn]

Well, I live at the epicenter of Kaiser Permanente Medical Group, the corporation which outlined our national health policy for the Nixon administration and who hand-wrote the legislation/deregulation which made HMOs what they are today. :sick: It's been a wonderfully informative local resource having the heir (http://www.henrykaiser.net/) to the Kaiser fortune turn his back on those policies and expose all of the filthy dealings rather than compromise his conscience. There are few independant hospitals around these parts now. They've all been bought up by the mighty few. And if you don't have insurance, it's not uncommon to be forced to drive into a neighboring county to find a hospital that will treat you at all. The entire East Bay area's uninsured are serviced by Highland Hospital, which is a terrible a place as you might ever fear to end up. EVERYONE I know who has had to go to the emergency room there has had at least one person die in front of them in the waiting room. That's over 20 first-hand experiences with death with mind-boggling life-saving technology just beyond the bullet-proof glass. Those experiences leave me leaning more toward the "third world" analogy than the utopian one which you might be suggesting.
Shaughnn

[davem]

Geez that sounds pretty bad Shaughnn. It's sure not like that around here. If I'm not mistaken, you're in one of the most liberal areas of the country. Hmm. ;)

[Shaughnn]

Dave it's market economics, at it's most corrupt. The exception here though is that the Kaiser HMO, has driven every body else out of the market through hostile takeovers and demographic management, leaving only the charities and community centers left to service the poor and uninsured. Those few remaining community hospitals are literally imploding from the load. If not for Nixon's lifting the restrictions on helth care profiteering, we might not be in the dire straight we are today?
Shaughnn

[jdm]

In NJ, the hospitals must treat the poor. The care is partially paid for by the state and by those few uninsured people that can pay the much-higher-than-the-insurance-company-pays rates the hospital charges the general public.

[John Terry]

Dave it's market economics, at it's most corrupt...


Damn right!

I defy you to point out a third world country that has a better health care system...

And the third world thing - I bet most third world countries aspire to give all of their citizens healthcare rather than despise them for being poor and not having it

[jgleason]

Simple solution - you don't like it, leave. :rolleyes:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
What, still here? :D

If we don't like the system we have, then petition for change. Seriously, how many times do we have to return the same people to Congress election cycle after election cycle. doesn't matter whether they lean left or lean right we keep right on voting for the guy that's already in power.

[Scooter]

Guns or Butter. Pick one.

Actually, we've already selected that choice--and it was guns. All the Repubs and most of the Democrats voted for guns in 2002 when we started the war on terror that will never end.

[LGB]

Damn right!



And the third world thing - I bet most third world countries aspire to give all of their citizens healthcare rather than despise them for being poor and not having it

Who despises the poor? Do you have anything good to say about my country or countrymen? Nary a post from you in the forum that's not anti Bush or anti US.

[jgleason]

Read the article here (http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/walterwilliams/2006/02/08/185444.html) and tell me if you think the thesis makes sense. I can tell you I agree with it entirely.

Happy Reading! :D

[davem]

Great post Joe. Dr Williams is brilliant. There's nothing I enjoy more than to listen to he and Thomas Sowell have an economics conversation. :)

[jgleason]

Yep, good stuff from both of those fellows!

Here's one of the comments someone posted in response to his article...

"The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune...Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood."---Grover Cleveland

"Does anyone need more evidence of this? Tell me, WHO was more effective in the aftermath of Katrina, private citizens or FEMA?"---WinstonWebb (source (http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/walterwilliams/2006/02/08/185444/comments.html?comid=14346&f=item) )

[John Terry]

Who despises the poor? Do you have anything good to say about my country or countrymen? Nary a post from you in the forum that's not anti Bush or anti US.


There is no doubt millions of Americans that are good, honest, freindly, intelligent, benevolent, charitable, courageous etc Many are inspirational and admirable and have achieved great things, some that no-one will ever match -Landing on the Moon for one, but

Bush is a baffoon who can barley string a sentence together. I'm not anti-US, I just dont like the hypocracy of Bush and his cronies and of course their agenda - talking about freedom and democracy while maintaining some of the most oppressive regimes in the world, killing people in their thousands, flying people around to be tortured in secret gulags, imprisonment without trial, spying on there own people and telling them its for their own good

[John Terry]

Great post Joe. Dr Williams is brilliant. There's nothing I enjoy more than to listen to he and Thomas Sowell have an economics conversation. :)


'We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness'

So, how can you have the right to life but not [as Williams suggests] the rights for food?

[davem]

We are born with rights. Society can only take them away, not give them.

I have the right to life, liberty, and the right to pursue happiness. Nobody can give these things to me, only take them away.

Food is not a right. I do not have the right to knock on my neighbor's door and demand a sandwich from him, nor do I have the right to demand that the government confiscate his money and give it to me so I can buy a sandwich. No way, no how.

[Shaughnn]

Dave,
That sums up my thoughts on this better than my attempt would have. Thanks.
Shaughn

[John Terry]

We are born with rights. Society can only take them away, not give them.

I have the right to life, liberty, and the right to pursue happiness. Nobody can give these things to me, only take them away.

Food is not a right. I do not have the right to knock on my neighbor's door and demand a sandwich from him, nor do I have the right to demand that the government confiscate his money and give it to me so I can buy a sandwich. No way, no how.


No-ones yet explained how it is possible to have the right to life but not have the right to food? You cannot have life without food.

I presume then by the same logic that you do not have the right to water or air to breath?

I can't actually belive this is even being questioned - totally illogical.

Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

http://www.hrw.org/universal.html

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

[Shaughnn]

John,
The United Nations and the United States of America are VERY different ducks. While I agree with much of the humanitarian work accomplished by the U.N., their impact on U.S. national and foreign policyis completely voluntary. As for "rights to food, water and air", I think Dave actually summed it up for you already. You have a right to not be killed by your governement, but what you do with that life (including how you provide food, clothing and shelter) is ENTIRELY upon your own shoulders.
Shaughnn

[John K]

Hey Terry,

Take your butt back to moveon.org, where you belong and take Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, Chucky Schummer and all of your " cronies" with you. :nod:

There ya go. Now I said what everyone with a brain was thinking. :bang:

[Shaughnn]

John K,
John Terry is as welcome here as you are. Just because you don't agree with him doesn't mean that he's wrong or even that his views are any less valid than your own. Please try not to exclude people from talking freely. It smacks of "un-Americanism". :D
Shaughnn

[jgleason]

what you do with that life (including how you provide food, clothing and shelter) is ENTIRELY upon your own shoulders.
:goodpost:

Well said.

[brianj]

I will take mometary donations for those who don't want to give their money away :yipee:

PM for details

I take paypal, personal/business checks, money orders, etc.

[John Terry]

John K,
John Terry is as welcome here as you are. Just because you don't agree with him doesn't mean that he's wrong or even that his views are any less valid than your own. Please try not to exclude people from talking freely. It smacks of "un-Americanism". :D
Shaughnn


Thanks

[John Terry]

Hey Terry,

Take your butt back to moveon.org, where you belong and take Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, Chucky Schummer and all of your " cronies" with you. :nod:

There ya go. Now I said what everyone with a brain was thinking. :bang:


Looks like I reeled another one in :fish1: :stick:

It makes me think of the Henry T. Ford school of politics i.e. you can have any color you want as long as its black (for those for those without brains - as JK implies - you can have any opinion you want as long as its the same one as his) :x: :x:

I'll get my butt back to moveon.org if you kiss it first! :moon: :moon: :moon:

[davem]

Enough of that crap. Discussion on this forum is encouraged, but insults and baiting are not. John Terry, I'd appreciate it if you could go easy on the quote button. If you feel the need to use it, please edit the quoted section to a bare minimum of words.

Now I would like to take the "food right" discussion a little further. Is it my right to approach my neighbor and demand that he gives me food?

[John Terry]

I wouldn't say that you had the right to demand food from your neigbour but,

the logic of the 'right to life' argument would dictate that you also had the right to food because no-one can live without food. Food = life.

[davem]

Can you explain to me the difference between demanding it from my neighbor and demanding it from the government?

[John Terry]

Can you explain how a human being can live without the most basic and vital nescessity of food?


Imagine the scenario where a child has been abandoned or parents/relatives are dead, the child has no-one to provide for it. Does the child not have the right to food (water, warmth, shelter), would you expect the child to fend for itself?

[davem]

I didn't think you'd tackle that one, it's about one step away from blowing your ideas out of the water. ;)

Your scenario about the child is silly. An abandoned child would be taken care of in our society.

[Angie]

An abandoned child would be taken care of in our society.


Yup...if by nobody else then by a government funded agency or a government subsidized foster family. I say let 'em starve in the streets. It's parents' obligation to take of children, nobody elses and certainly not government's. If we keep enabling deadbeat parents by taking care of their children for them, they'll just keep being deadbeats and more of them. We need to encourage/force them to be accountable by not cleaning up their messes and then they will be responsible and there will be no abandonded children. Right? That's what people keep telling me?

[davem]

I guess I'm done here. I was in a fiesty mood, but it's passed. :)

[bljack]

If we keep enabling deadbeat parents by taking care of their children for them, they'll just keep being deadbeats and more of them.
Not only that, we keep teaching their children by the example we set by hand outs. Now if there were limits, and these people were forced to either fix their situation or be written off, then those that succeed would set a very strong example of overcoming despair that their children would remember. I'd rather see the children relocated and supported after the fixed limit for support has ended, but somewhere along the way, it became bad to make people face consequences for there actions.

How many of us have parents/grandparents that lived through the depression and waste nothing and put value on things and always pointed that out?

My wife's degree is in social work. For a while, she worked teaching people how to manage their government freebies to abuse. No matter what, most of them only had enough money for part of the month because they would trade food stamps for cash or use them to buy lobster and filet. They couldn't make utility payments but had all the newest electronics. No kidding. She couldn't take it anymore and working with those who leech off of society has made her swing a bit right of center. She also found a different line of work for her degree.

At one point in my life, I found myself as a single parent. When my oldest son was only 18 months old, his mother took off. It's called sacrifice. I made sure my son had everything he needed and not wanted. He ate healthy and always had clothes. My responsibility, no handouts please, so I cancelled cable and aol, went out very infrequently, no McDonalds, generic brand products from the grocery store, no junk food when I could not afford it myself. People need to be forced to do what needs to be done or they won't ever change.

Never had to ask a neighbor for a sandwich, would have jumped off a tall building before doing that.

[John Bridge]

Maybe I didn't read close enough, but I don't recall any mention of the middle class. I see a lot of "rich" and "poor," but what about that average American?

Doesn't matter which of the two major parties are in power. They are one and the same. They both spend more than you can afford in the name of cutting taxes. And both will tell you that the area they can screw with is a small slice of the budget -- "discretionary spending." They have no control (so they say) over "entitlements." ;)

[John Terry]

I didn't think you'd tackle that one, it's about one step away from blowing your ideas out of the water. ;)

Your scenario about the child is silly. An abandoned child would be taken care of in our society.


The scenario is not silly - it's a very realistic event and clear example of an individuals right to food. And rather than blowing my idea out of the water it strengthens the argument.

I am quite sure that in most societies an parentless/abandoned child would be taken care of and I made no suggestion otherwise, but the point is - does the child have the right to food?

If for example the child was made a ward of the state there must be specific legislation in place that guarantees that the child has the right to food.

[Shaughnn]

John,
While my heart bleeds alongside of yours, I think your arguement is terrible here. "Food" isn't a right any more than a job is. By our "Rill of Rights", we are each allowed the *persue* food but we are given no guarantees that there will be something on our plate at the end of the day. Feeding the poor is an act of conscience which is both noble and beneficial to all of society, but it is not an act of law.
Shaughnn

[jgleason]

I clearly need to be provided with food, shelter and damn near anything else I need to survive. I'm tired of working for all of these things. I'll just quit working altogether if there is some magical kingodm where all of these things are provided. :rolleyes:

[Dave Taylor]

I'll just quit working altogether if there is some magical kingodm where all of these things are provided. :rolleyes:

Ha Joe. I think Ayn Rand wrote about just such a kingdom. :)

[jd77]

John,
While my heart bleeds alongside of yours, I think your arguement is terrible here. "Food" isn't a right any more than a job is. By our "Rill of Rights", we are each allowed the *persue* food but we are given no guarantees that there will be something on our plate at the end of the day. Feeding the poor is an act of conscience which is both noble and beneficial to all of society, but it is not an act of law.
Shaughnn

:goodpost:

Well said Shaughnn :D