posted
Should the school system and government provide to all what a fraction fail to provide? Government is inescapable. Does the govt choose the Ojibwe or Lutheran lifestyle? Freedom has consequences and responsibilities. How can the government compensate for failed parents without infringing upon the rights of good parents?
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
It can't, that's the nature of community, government. It's very existence is an infringement on freedom.
The question is, what rights are worth giving up for the greater good? Obviously, by being a part of society, I give up my right to kill people for fun, to drive whatever speed I feel like, to run around without any clothes on (and that's a toughie), to litter anywhere, to start fires. More practically, I give up my right to a certain fraction of my income to pay for the military that protects me, the police force that enforces order, the fire department that keeps me from being burnt, the EPA that keeps others from dumping toxic sewage in my back yard, etc.
I can see the benefits of this, and I can also see the benefits of slightly less tangible sacrifices. I give up a portion of my income to put someone else's child through college, because I know this will improve my society as a whole, and I also know that kid I sent through college will earn more money, and give up some of that money to put *my* (theoretical) children through college. I give up some of my money to pay for another person's doctor visit, out of the hopes he'll live a healthier, more productive life and pay for part of my doctor's visits.
Government simply enforces that everyone does this, and that they do it fairly. If I did all of the above by donating to charities (and I do give what I can), I'd be praised for being a noble and Christ-like person. If I suggest doing the same, using the government as my means of distribution, and the officials me and 50+% of my peers have elected to enforce this agree, it's derided as communism - often by the same people who would praise me for my generosity.
I am sorry your rights are being infringed, but that's the give and take of being part of a community. I know several pacifists who seriously believe we ought to abolish most of our military - in their opinion, being taxed to pay for military spending is an infringement of their rights. Thank God the majority disagrees.
Not that I'm trying to dissuade you from arguing - I think it's vital that you express your opinion and be given the opportunity to convince as many people as you can to your way of thinking. But in my way of thinking, my right to a certain portion of my own money being infringed is well worth the benefit to society.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that we should take care of the needy. Socialistic policies collapse when the money runs out. The evidence is an ever growing national debt. The congress has increased the debt limit twice this year yet propose more and more government funded mandates.
We should encourage individual responsibility over dependence. We should encourage people to work toward their selfish desires rather than demonize the successful. We are at a breaking point, past the breaking point. If we weren't past the breaking point they wouldn't have to raise the debt ceiling. Congress has raised the national debt ceiling twice this year yet are demanding more government programs. This is no different than an individual who can't pay his credit card bills, asking for a credit increase while applying for another credit card.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
Stay stupid and vote for me. DC isn't a state. Washington DC is directly controlled by congress. How are they doing? Crime? Education? Employment?
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: So you're blaming the marketing? Maybe we should limit free speech.
I don't know why I should bother with you at all after you decided to dismiss a fairly detailed explanation you're too lazy to deal with by mere hand-waving. Marketing = complex. Your view = simplistic. It's enough for you to believe that anything bad that ever happens to anyone is their own fault, full stop, bar the complexities of reality, and let's just ignore the details that don't line up with our pleasant assumptions, shall we.
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Washington DC is directly controlled by congress.
Is it enough for you that your statements only bear enough relation to reality that you can later explain, after being corrected, that you are still right on some terms which you will only define *after* being told that what you've said is stupid, and wrong? Moreover, do you think that people don't notice this sloppy and annoying tactic?
I mean, is it enough for you to make this overly simplified statement and bulldoze over the specifics because it makes more sense in helping you demonstrate whatever idiotic theory of yours is on display? Does Washington DC having a mayor, a district council, and various other offices not part of the federal government mean nothing in this statement? They are simply irrelevant to your point, whatever that may be? I've heard hell keeps a special little place for people who do this crap, just so you know.
You lose. One credit to continue.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I dismiss the argument that the poorest in America are the most obese. My family didn't have government paid for rent and we didn't get food stamps. Today, I make good money but my children view the "poor" food you speak of as a splurge. McDonalds is not poor people food. Stupid poor people might buy it daily but you might consider me wealthy and my children get it rarely. My wife does not work and cooks good meals for our children. The same meals she cooks are cheaper than garbage meals of poor families. My wife buys the groceries and hot dogs are an expensive meal reserved for lazy days.
Isn't red meat the most unhealthy? Red meat is also the most expensive. Due to our abundance, the poorest should be the healthiest. Our poorest are also our fattest....nothing to do with laziness. Cheap is healthy, if the cook is willing.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
I'd sooner see that money put into public education, where it will directly benefit the children. Spending public money on private schools will increase educational standards for parents who care enough and work hard enough to put their kids in a private school. Kids without parents, or with parents who don't give a crap, will be all the more disenfranchised by money that should be going to their already underfunded schools being given to wealthy private schools.
But it's late, and I think I'm finished for the evening. The biggest problem I've seen with your political reasoning is it makes every person a success of failure based on the integrity of their parents and community. I can't even express how strongly I disagree with such a mentality.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I dismiss the argument that the poorest in America are the most obese.
It's not so much an argument as an assertion of actual fact. Unless you are quibbling with some semantic detail, like the nature of "the poorest" as opposed to the actual bracket of individuals falling into the bottom 30% in income, or only those under the poverty line, etc. In actual fact, obesity is a bigger health problem among the poor, in that it is first of all more prevalent, and second of all a greater drain on limited resources for people with less access to quality health care. Interestingly enough mal, studies show that obesity is also more prevalent in developed areas with a large level of economic inequality. Not a coincidence- the two things are correlated.
quote: McDonalds is not poor people food.
Ahah, ok, I see your confusion. I didn't say it was. What I said was complex and intricate and demanded some deeper thinking than you were willing to apply. The implications of what I said were this: low income areas coming under marketing pressure are more likely to buy and are more easily sold poor quality foods with high caloric content. The reason is not as simple as "McDonalds is cheaper," (because it isn't cheaper than the cheapest foods) but rather, in a low income area, especially one with a lower standard of education and a lower overall social status has less access to quality foods at decent prices that are a) healthy, and b) socially prized and popular. The reason McDonalds sells everywhere, even in this country where it is more expensive than most average quality restaurants, is that they are *smart*. They sell low quality foods for a lot more than they are worth because they can convince people to buy them. Low income areas do not have the same quality of supermarkets and small grocers, nor do those grocers have the marketing resources necessary to compete with Big Food companies who want to sell in the same areas. Since the average household food budget in the United States has decreased substantially in the past century, even the poor actually have access to *higher* quality foods than past generations. However, they also have increased access and increased social and marketing pressure to consume low quality and overpriced, yet still cheap convenience and processed foods.
So yes, McDonalds is certainly not the *cheapest* thing in most neighborhoods (though it can be in upper class areas). However, it is heavily marketed, strategically placed, and *cheap enough* to attract a larger number of low income customers than healthier, but less sexy alternatives. Middle and upper income families have access to alternatives that are both sexy, and healthy. Personal choice is an element of this process in individual cases, however the cause and effect of greater trends is undeniable. Clearly, both good and bad decisions are correlated to the environments in which they are made, meaning that people in good environments more easily make good decisions, and vice versa. Put one person in a bad environment, and it's up to them. Put a whole bunch of people in a bad environment, and a number of them will make bad decisions. Put the same number in a good environment, and a higher number will make good decisions. These trends are not moral, they have no agenda, they do not have a face or a name, but they nevertheless exist, and they have to be contended with.
Your family growing up doubtless did not face the pressures in place today, so your example, while duly noted, is not necessarily represented. It should also be noted that the statistical actuality and the relevance of those statistics to your personal experience will not necessarily be clear. I know you have a hard time believing things that are not directly in front of your face, or abstracting statistical generalizations, however, for maybe the 50th time, your willingness to accept the reality, and the actual reality, are not dependent upon each other. I feel like Stephen Crane now, and I think I feel his pain.
quote: Our poorest are also our fattest....nothing to do with laziness.
Again, you project arguments no one is making, least of all me. I made no comment on the work ethic of anyone, though of course you manage to disparage people as a group even as you deny through the other side of your mouth that they exist as a group for the purposes of *my* generalizations. I am perfectly willing to entertain the idea that laziness is related not only to obesity but also to poverty. It would almost certainly *have* to be related. I am of the opinion that advertisers and big businesses encourage and profit from laziness, and that they do so with a degree of consciousness of the consequences of that approach. In as much as I am far more free than you, who are bound by the mores of your conservative moralism, to examine this relationship from *both* sides, rather than from a linear case = effect position, I believe that the phenomenon of laziness and poverty and sloth and obesity is a viscous cycle of destruction, and I believe that it is fed on nearly equal parts of socialist idealism and nihilistic capitalist profiteering. That is why I am a moderate, and you are not.
posted
So what is the answer? Tax the crap out of fast food to force the poor into a supermarket to buy a bag of flour and prepare a proper meal? Great idea, then the wealthy who can afford fast food will supplement the poor. Ban unhealthy food commercials as we have for tobacco? If we doubled the amount they were given for food stamps, they'd still buy garbage.
I can hear the the Welfare Rights organizations screaming now...."they are only given enough to buy staples and cook food from scratch."
Sometimes the simplest answer is the best...even if it doesn't solve everyone's problem. Help the needy not the lazy. Perhaps we should bring back the orphanage and take children away from parents who are unwilling to provide for their children. My family descends from a logger with a 2nd grade education and is full of adopted minorities who grew up to be successful. Grandpa might not have been educated but he was there and taught a work ethic.
I can tell you that the answer is not your brand of moral superiority and egoism. I like that you jumped to an uber-authoritarian approach in the form of forced adoption in order to avoid the oh-so-scary idea of regulating the food industry more closely. I know you're half-jesting, but on the other hand I also know that you're half serious.
Oh but on the other hand, thank you for finally admitting that I was right, and taking the premise of my argument as a given. I know you would never admit that either, but switching the argument over to what to do about it is a tacit concession of my point. Knowing is half the battle. If pure capitalism really worked, there would be no need for any action, but sadly, your religion is centered around a false god. Sucks for you.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So what is the answer? Tax the crap out of fast food to force the poor into a supermarket to buy a bag of flour and prepare a proper meal?
When someone is as reliably committed to hating everything about welfare as you do, doing this (assuming that the 'answer' is a terrible one you can strawman on their behalf) is a handy mental tool.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Often poor people (and even many middle class people) don't have the luxury of time either. Having one parent stay at home to cook meals is not always possible. Having a decent kitchen to cook in and tools to cook with, a place to store food, and a way to transport food home are also things we take for granted and that are not so easy for poor people. Try shopping without a car for a while.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Try shopping without a car for a while.
I have. It is absolutely awful. I used to go into the store with a backpack, which I filled with the heaviest stuff, then I would walk home carrying two bags of groceries on each arm. If it was hot, the food didn't fare well. If it was cold, I didn't fare well.
One place I lived I could catch a bus for part of the trip, but I still walked a good quarter to half a mile carrying those bags of groceries.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is and will always be an endless source of frustration to balance the needs of those who "deserve" help against the greed of the lazy. There is no question that both types of people exist. I think one of the best things that we as a society can do is to stop demonizing the poor as a group. Only then can we look realistically at the underlying problems and find, if not solutions, then help. There are no universal solutions, IMO. There will always be those who cannot or will not take the rope thrown to them.
I've recently returned from my usual holiday trip to the in-laws, who live in a small and poor rural town. Rural poor and urban poor are very different, it should be noted, and I am more familiar with the former. But there I see a number of cultural constraints that keep them down. There is a culture that does not believe they have any power to make real change, not even for themselves.
As far as obesity goes, there is a decided lack of knowledge about healthy eating, despite what I feel is a wealth of information out there. The diets are very meat heavy and include little to no fruits and vegetables -- when they do they are not often fresh. (In fact, I've planned all vegetarian meals for this week because I had wayyy to much fatty protein for the last 4 days.)
I'm not 100% sure why people eat that way. There seems to be a great deal of stubbornness and unwillingness to change. Perhaps this is related to the cultural attitude that they have no power anyway. I've heard a number of people insisting that eating 5-6 servings of meat a day is very healthy. (This came alongside a rather gross misinterpretation of the Atkins diet, which I also believe is very unhealthy, but another time...)
I realize that fresh fruits and vegetables are very expensive. I know I spend a great deal of money feeding that kind of food to my family, so that is definitely a part of the problem as well.
Nobody I know in that town eats at fast food restaurants very often. I don't know where McDonald's fits in...possibly lower middle class? Or maybe this is an urban poor phenomenon? I'm really not sure who eats there on a regular basis.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the issue in reality is that welfare is used as a way of life instead of a temporary helping hand. I've known people that have been on welfare for 10+ years. I have asked them why they have been on welfare so long, and I generally get three answers.
The first is: "I wouldn't know where to start to get off of welfare."
The second: "It is easier for me to stay on welfare."
The third: "If I was not on welfare and worked my kids would be without a parent."
I don't think most poor people are lazy, most of them either have a tough time getting off of welfare or want to care for their children. At the same time, welfare was intended to provide temporary assistance, and it is being abused by many people.
There is not an easy answer. Raising wages wouldn't help anything. The more a company pays out, the more they have to charge, and the more services and goods cost, the less it seems like you are getting paid.
I live in Las Vegas, and we have one of the most funded school districts in the country. We receive more funding per pupil than 90% of other school districts nation wide, yet we are always near the bottom of the educational statistics. The teachers mean well, and I had some WONDERFUL teachers when I was a kid. The problem lies in the administration. I read a news article that reported that something like 20% of the entire fiscal budget for the Clark County School District was for salaries and bonuses for the administrative staff, which accounts for only 7% of CCSD employees.
The school district also gives more money to schools in upperclass neighborhoods and shorts at risk schools. My brother just did his eagle project for an at risk school. Fifty percent of the kids at this elementary school are homeless, and many of them have no socks or even underwear. They found a kid in the bathroom and he didn't want to come out because he had a hole in his pants and he had no underwear. The teachers couldn't do anything because they got only half the funding the schools in upperclass neighborhoods did.
The reason? The upperclass schools provided higher test scores and higher graduation rates.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I agree that we should take care of the needy. Socialistic policies collapse when the money runs out. The evidence is an ever growing national debt. The congress has increased the debt limit twice this year yet propose more and more government funded mandates.
We should encourage individual responsibility over dependence. We should encourage people to work toward their selfish desires rather than demonize the successful. We are at a breaking point, past the breaking point. If we weren't past the breaking point they wouldn't have to raise the debt ceiling. Congress has raised the national debt ceiling twice this year yet are demanding more government programs. This is no different than an individual who can't pay his credit card bills, asking for a credit increase while applying for another credit card.
Does the situation in Europe and Canada who use in practice more socialist polices then are even being discussed as THEORY in the US and HAVENT run out of money mean anything to you? What about Sweden? UK? France?
IP: Logged |
posted
Mal, your answer seems to be to ignore the poor until they either die out or become a menace to society via starved revolt or disease carrying walking dead. Either case will best be remedied by a state sponsored purge of the lazy--I mean unfortunate poor.
You want to make them respect and reflect your work ethic. However you can not just wish it is so. You need a plan to indoctrinate those millions with the idea that work and effort brings success. You can't force the media to propagandize that message without losing the right to free speech. Starving them into working doesn't work, as there are not enough jobs for them. What do you do if there are no jobs where they are at?
Its a very complex situation, poverty. But when you sit above it and call everyone in poverty lazy, to say that they could succeed if they try because you tried and succeeded, makes you look like an ungrateful git.
Besides doing impossible things like making people you claim are all lazy suddenly find enlightenment and work hard, what do you propose to do with the poor? What will become of them?
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Does the situation in Europe and Canada who use in practice more socialist polices then are even being discussed as THEORY in the US and HAVENT run out of money mean anything to you? What about Sweden? UK? France?
I take issue with this only because the only reason they have NOT run out of money in the UK (I don't know about Sweden and France) is because most people are paying between 50-60% in taxes. There are hundreds of articles that you can google on your own that talk about how the UK is having trouble funding their health programs or keeping doctors.
I'm not saying there is nothing good about socialized medicine, just that those countries have their own share of issues.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Try shopping without a car for a while.
I have. It is absolutely awful. I used to go into the store with a backpack, which I filled with the heaviest stuff, then I would walk home carrying two bags of groceries on each arm. If it was hot, the food didn't fare well. If it was cold, I didn't fare well.
One place I lived I could catch a bus for part of the trip, but I still walked a good quarter to half a mile carrying those bags of groceries.
It works better if you have a bicycle with wide handles. And balance your bags equally between the two handlebars. And go to a grocery store that is up hill from you so that you can coast home.
Posts: 364 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Christine: I have. It is absolutely awful. I used to go into the store with a backpack, which I filled with the heaviest stuff, then I would walk home carrying two bags of groceries on each arm. If it was hot, the food didn't fare well. If it was cold, I didn't fare well.
One place I lived I could catch a bus for part of the trip, but I still walked a good quarter to half a mile carrying those bags of groceries.
You're a woman in serious need of a bike. I went all last summer on a single tank of gasoline - I only drove in emergencies and thunder storms. The rest of the time I biked, and I got by fine. I strapped a hard plastic "square" thingy (can't find a proper word for it, but you see them all the time in groceries) that my roommate had to the back of my bike, and would hang extra bags from the handlebars. Never had any problems, and the grocery store was 2 miles away. (about 10 minutes to bike)
I'd bike to work and back every morning (18 mile round trip), bike to church (with a change of clothes and some deodorant in a bag), bike to school, to friends houses... it's amazing how easy it is to get by without a car when you try. If it was raining, I'd just put on a jacket and rain pants. I don't have any kids, but I'd see a lot of people towing kid-carrying wagons (seat belts and everything) behind their bikes on the bike trails.
This is more difficult in the winter, but I still see a lot of people biking in the winter too.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lovely if you are in good health and can afford a decent bike and are in a place where it is safe to ride (and to park) a decent bike. And don't have winter.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Lovely if you are in good health and can afford a decent bike and are in a place where it is safe to ride (and to park) a decent bike. And don't have winter.
If she's healthy enough to walk a mile, she's healthy enough to bike two.
Safe to park? A $7 bike lock makes it at least as safe as parking a car.
And I live in a cold and snowy northern city, with lots of rain in the summer. I actually enjoy taking long walks in the winter, especially if it's snowing... it's very magical.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
As far as foods.......hight fat meat costs less, and one of the worst food groups for gaining weight are starches... which are cheap.
A poor person, even when cooking at home, is far more likely to life on Ramen noodles, mac and cheese, and spaghetti than people with more disposable income.
It's one of the best known facts about nutrition there is, and burying your head in the sand and blaming welfare for all problems won't change that facts.
Dogbreath, they are called crates. Plastic crates or milk crates, as that is what is delivered in them more often than not.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Lovely if you are in good health and can afford a decent bike and are in a place where it is safe to ride (and to park) a decent bike. And don't have winter.
If she's healthy enough to walk a mile, she's healthy enough to bike two.
In my particular case, this is not true. I am legally blind, which makes it much "healthier" (where healthy actually means safe) for me to walk than to ride a bike in traffic. I can walk on the sidewalk but I'm not allowed to ride there. While I would feel safe riding in the street if there were a bike lane, I've never lived anywhere that really had these -- unless you count a few bike paths designed for recreational use.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Lovely if you are in good health and can afford a decent bike and are in a place where it is safe to ride (and to park) a decent bike. And don't have winter.
If she's healthy enough to walk a mile, she's healthy enough to bike two.
Safe to park? A $7 bike lock makes it at least as safe as parking a car.
And I live in a cold and snowy northern city, with lots of rain in the summer. I actually enjoy taking long walks in the winter, especially if it's snowing... it's very magical.
Dogbreath, I am not addressing Christine in particular; I am addressing the obstacles that poor people in general can face. "Get a bike" is not an all purpose solution to the difficulties poor people have in getting good quality groceries.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Dogbreath, I am not addressing Christine in particular; I am addressing the obstacles that poor people in general can face. "Get a bike" is not an all purpose solution to the difficulties poor people have in getting good quality groceries.
Where did I say that? Where in this thread did I even remotely imply that? Seriously, read through everything I've said in this thread before making assumptions like that.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Where did I say you had? I was preempting the possible implication that could have arisen from your brief derail into Christine's biking options.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I used to ride my horse and carriage to get to and from the supermarket, but then I found out what my horse's carbon footprint was, and had to stop. >.<
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I used to ride my horse and carriage to get to and from the supermarket, but then I found out what my horse's carbon footprint was, and had to stop. >.<
How does a horse measure up to a car, motorcycle, scooter, person, etc? The fact you can't turn them off when they're not in operation is a big downside.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Mal, your answer seems to be to ignore the poor until they either die out or become a menace to society via starved revolt or disease carrying walking dead. Either case will best be remedied by a state sponsored purge of the lazy--I mean unfortunate poor.
You want to make them respect and reflect your work ethic. However you can not just wish it is so. You need a plan to indoctrinate those millions with the idea that work and effort brings success. You can't force the media to propagandize that message without losing the right to free speech. Starving them into working doesn't work, as there are not enough jobs for them. What do you do if there are no jobs where they are at?
Its a very complex situation, poverty. But when you sit above it and call everyone in poverty lazy, to say that they could succeed if they try because you tried and succeeded, makes you look like an ungrateful git.
Besides doing impossible things like making people you claim are all lazy suddenly find enlightenment and work hard, what do you propose to do with the poor? What will become of them?
There are enough jobs for them. The uneducated in our country go on welfare while we import illiterate illegal immigrants to do the jobs they should be doing. The illegal immigrant isn't starving,...to him this is the land of milk and honey. I have more respect for the Guatemalan villager who hiked hundreds of miles to illegally enter this country than I do for the welfare recipient down the road. That illegal immigrant's child will grow up and succeed while we get a 5th generation American welfare recipient in the compassionate ghetto.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry, I'm done interacting with you at all if you don't address the last few things I've said, considering this will be your Nth sidestep of posts you simply don't want to deal with. Your cowardice would be easier to swallow if you didn't constantly and loudly proclaim your great and noble valor.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I'm sorry, I'm done interacting with you at all if you don't address the last few things I've said, considering this will be your Nth sidestep of posts you simply don't want to deal with. Your cowardice would be easier to swallow if you didn't constantly and loudly proclaim your great and noble valor.
Here are your last two posts:
["I don't know why I should bother with you at all after you decided to dismiss a fairly detailed explanation you're too lazy to deal with by mere hand-waving. Marketing = complex. Your view = simplistic. It's enough for you to believe that anything bad that ever happens to anyone is their own fault, full stop, bar the complexities of reality, and let's just ignore the details that don't line up with our pleasant assumptions, shall we."
":sigh:
I can tell you that the answer is not your brand of moral superiority and egoism. I like that you jumped to an uber-authoritarian approach in the form of forced adoption in order to avoid the oh-so-scary idea of regulating the food industry more closely. I know you're half-jesting, but on the other hand I also know that you're half serious.
Oh but on the other hand, thank you for finally admitting that I was right, and taking the premise of my argument as a given. I know you would never admit that either, but switching the argument over to what to do about it is a tacit concession of my point. Knowing is half the battle. If pure capitalism really worked, there would be no need for any action, but sadly, your religion is centered around a false god. Sucks for you."]
Basically I believe the greater good is counter intuitive. The greatest good is the society in which people cannot rely on the government. I would trade each multi-generational welfare recipient for an uneducated Guatemalan Villager. That Guatemalan villager's dream is to be American....they can succeed here even if they do not speak the language. They will teach their children how to work hard and achieve. Progressives are compassionate and encourage families to teach their children to depend on progressive compassion.
Cuban immigrants are overwhelmingly conservative. They know what Progressive Cuba was like.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
And yet you are more compassionate than the "Progressives," right? How would your perfect world of religious oligarchy be any different than a socialist government run amuck?
And as much as you hate government, you spout American nationalism like a true believer. The two sides of that coin are socialism, and fascism- the way I see it, either you believe in "The Greatest Nation on Earth," and support its sovereignty over your individual liberty, or you don't. I don't see how your view of your country is at all consistent with your stated philosophies.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: If I suggest doing the same, using the government as my means of distribution, and the officials me and 50+% of my peers have elected to enforce this agree, it's derided as communism - often by the same people who would praise me for my generosity.
Forced taxation and redistribution is not charitable giving. Charitable giving requires a level of personal sacrifice which taxation erases. The benefit of enjoyment at seeing one's charitable donations result in a greater amount of good than being used for consumption by the giver disappears. The increased feeling of self-worth that accompanies actual charitable giving disappears as well. Belief that money spent on Government redistribution of funds is, in my opinion, nothing more than a deep seeded desire to shove the responsibility of caring for our fellow man under the rug and on the shoulders of someone else.
Posts: 38 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: Belief that money spent on Government redistribution of funds is, in my opinion, nothing more than a deep seeded desire to shove the responsibility of caring for our fellow man under the rug and on the shoulders of someone else.
I'd buy this if, back in the day before government welfare, people did a passable job of caring for their fellow men. They did not.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Indeed, and it is fairly easy to test, in situations where one area decreases funding for social programs and another, similar (and ideally nearby) one doesn't.
Outside charities do not step in significantly, even if the imbalance continues for a long time.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: And yet you are more compassionate than the "Progressives," right? How would your perfect world of religious oligarchy be any different than a socialist government run amuck?
And as much as you hate government, you spout American nationalism like a true believer. The two sides of that coin are socialism, and fascism- the way I see it, either you believe in "The Greatest Nation on Earth," and support its sovereignty over your individual liberty, or you don't. I don't see how your view of your country is at all consistent with your stated philosophies.
I believe the greatest good is served in a free nation. There can be no individual freedom without individual responsibility. Socialism collapses because necessities become rights that the government is expected to provide. Government is an illusion. Some people think the government is a bottomless bucket of gold that can pay for your needs. The government is funded by the productive. The greatest good is best served in a nation in which everyone works to meet their needs rather than look to the government to provide them. The greatest good is creating an atmosphere conducive to productivity. I draw a distinction between the "needy" and those who expect the government to provide their basic "needs". Government should provide a safety net not meet the needs of the people. Health care is not a basic right/need...it's far below oxygen, water, food, clothing, shelter, etc.
You cannot argue healthcare is a right without demanding govt provided water, food, clothing and housing first. Prioritize the needs of humanity. Is healthcare above government provided water?
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Government should provide a safety net not meet the needs of the people. Health care is not a basic right/need...it's far below oxygen, water, food, clothing, shelter, etc.
You're arguing that health care is a less basic need than clothing? On what grounds?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
You'll either freeze to death or get arrested for not having it. The latter is a government restriction though. Although, if the government provided shelter and utilities, you could survive in your house naked.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or if you live somewhere warm enough, etc.... To put it another way: why is healthcare not a "basic" right when clothing is?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clothing isn't a basic right. The most fundamental element of human survival isn't paid for by the government...water. If it's about basic needs, let's start with basic needs. I spend more money on food for my family than I do on health care...which need is more imminent? You will die in less than a week without water....why do I still have a water bill to an evil private company?
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
If that were the yardstick, water would be gold. Combined, my internet, TV and phone cost much more than my insurance premium. How many people are demanding healthcare when their car payment and auto insurance cost more than healthcare? I make good money. My cars are ten years old and paid for with liability insurance. I drive by the projects and see better vehicles than those in my driveway. Poor people are more likely to be smokers, the healthcare tax on cigarettes must really impact them negatively.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
