Originally Posted by bhbcu64

CUNx,

Therefore, it is MY responsibility to get it for my self, not to force some to go to work then hand that money over to me! That's wrong and it always will be!

Ah yes, the eternal cry of the Social Darwinists, the Gordon Geckos, and the Randians is raised once more.

Sorry, but many of us feel that our responsibility goes beyond, "I'm OK; you suck"

I'm not saying that the govt. shouldn't provide ANY services, but electives such as plastic surgery and IVF shouldn't be the responsibility of the general public.

Originally Posted by CUNxTime

I'm not saying that the govt. shouldn't provide ANY services, but electives such as plastic surgery and IVF shouldn't be the responsibility of the general public.

Depends what kind of plastic surgery you're taling about. A nose job for someone who's always wanted a petite number ... well, that doesn't seem so crucial ...on the other, people can get into horrible accidents that are terribly disfiguring, and, require plastic surgery.

Seems to me, too, that if a woman or man has difficulty conceiving, covered IVF should be part of package too; after all, it's a medical condition precluding persons from having children. A most natural transpiring of events in a hospital.

People should not be forced to hand over their property for other people's use except in the most extreme circumstances. The govt. doesn't have its own money. None. The only money they have is what they've taken from other citizens' pockets. If that money is to be turned over to someone else, there had better be a good reason.

CUNx,

People should not be forced to hand over their property for other people's use except in the most extreme circumstances.

OK, let's start by defunding the Son-of-a-Bush's mad oil war in the desert.

That's about the least extreme (?) circumstance I can think of.

Assisting the poor to escape poverty qualifies as as extreme circumstance.

Originally Posted by CUNxTime

People should not be forced to hand over their property for other people's use except in the most extreme circumstances. The govt. doesn't have its own money. None. The only money they have is what they've taken from other citizens' pockets. If that money is to be turned over to someone else, there had better be a good reason.

This is a complete misrepresentation of how a society of interdependent people functions. Wealth generated within a society is not wholly the property of the individual because it is also a function of the society in which it was generated, and anyone seeking to live or make money in a given society must accept that in addition to reaping the benefits of that society they also have a responsibility to those less fortunate than themselves within that society.

Originally Posted by CUNxTime

People should not be forced to hand over their property for other people's use except in the most extreme circumstances. The govt. doesn't have its own money. None. The only money they have is what they've taken from other citizens' pockets. If that money is to be turned over to someone else, there had better be a good reason.

Does building and repairing roads and highways qualify as an "extreme" circumstance? How about paying for police protection or for a fire department? How about providing schools for children? How about providing a military to protect us? How about creating state and national parks for everyone to enjoy? How about providing a criminal justice system to punish offenders and protect people?

The government IS the body that belongs to the citizens. It's not some foreign entity robbing people. It's the body we have collectively created to provide for our collective needs. Some of our needs we cannot provide for as solitary individuals, and that's why we have a government on different levels: federal, state, and local. I have no problem with paying for the services we received from the government. We pay for those services with our taxes.

Originally Posted by bhbcu64

CUNx,

People should not be forced to hand over their property for other people's use except in the most extreme circumstances.

OK, let's start by defunding the Son-of-a-Bush's mad oil war in the desert.

That's about the least extreme (?) circumstance I can think of.

Assisting the poor to escape poverty qualifies as as extreme circumstance.

First of all, wealth redistribution schemes don't work, look at the results of 60 years of the 'war on poverty'. Excessive entitlement and welfare programs only create a sub-class of dependent people who become virtual wards of the state. While the intentions may be good (and in some cases not) the results speak for themselves. Growing up and later in life through my volunteering, I've seen many people who can't function in society because of their dependence on Govt. handouts. The war on poverty hasn't done any better than the war on drugs.

Now as far as the war in Iraq, that's an entirely different scenario. The war in Iraq's purpose is for the safety of the people (all of the people) in the US. That is not the same as taking money from you and giving it to me because I don't feel like getting a job. The security of the people of the US IS the Govt.'s job. That's why the Dems in congress (mostly) voted to go over there. Hillary said it best

"No, I don't regret giving the president authority because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade."

That's also why the UN voted YES on toppling Saddam. Again, there's a huge difference in keeping us safe and making sure we've all got cable TV. Furthermore, I haven't heard anyone (H or O) say that they would withdraw troops and defund the war. Actually, the Dems could do that today if they thought it was the best thing to do for the country.

Again, I'd like to reiterate that taking money (property) from someone, ie. forcing them to hand over the fruits of their labor, so that someone else can sit at home and work on creating more mouths to feed should not be the function of the govt. Safety net? YES! Hammock? NO!

Originally Posted by CUNxTime

First of all, wealth redistribution schemes don't work, look at the results of 60 years of the 'war on poverty'. Excessive entitlement and welfare programs only create a sub-class of dependent people who become virtual wards of the state. While the intentions may be good (and in some cases not) the results speak for themselves. Growing up and later in life through my volunteering, I've seen many people who can't function in society because of their dependence on Govt. handouts. The war on poverty hasn't done any better than the war on drugs.

Now as far as the war in Iraq, that's an entirely different scenario. The war in Iraq's purpose is for the safety of the people (all of the people) in the US. That is not the same as taking money from you and giving it to me because I don't feel like getting a job. The security of the people of the US IS the Govt.'s job. That's why the Dems in congress (mostly) voted to go over there.

What people do you imagine are taking your money becase they don't feel like getting a job? Many of the impoverished people in America are children who can't get a job anyway. Are you really suggesting that the government should not help to pay for their lunches so they have enough to eat and can learn in school?

The war in Iraq is not protecting me. It's made us less secure, not more secure, in my view. Bush has, through this disaster, helped to bolster Al Queda and has strengthened the terrorists, not eliminated them. We are worse off in the world because of the disastrous war in Iraq. The Democrats in Congress who helped allow Bush to start this war made a terrible mistake.

Originally Posted by CUNxTime

That's also why the UN voted YES on toppling Saddam.

This is a blatant lie. The US claimed military action was justified because ceasefire conditions from 1991 were breached. There was never a UN resolution authorising the 2003 invasion and certainly not the deposition of the government. Even if there was a fig leaf of faux legality, that does not make the war justified or right. 600 000 people are dead as a result of Bush's adventure.

Originally Posted by Jo Bennett

This is a complete misrepresentation of how a society of interdependent people functions. Wealth generated within a society is not wholly the property of the individual because it is also a function of the society in which it was generated, and anyone seeking to live or make money in a given society must accept that in addition to reaping the benefits of that society they also have a responsibility to those less fortunate than themselves within that society.

Spoken like a true communist.

Originally Posted by Ohioprof

Does building and repairing roads and highways qualify as an "extreme" circumstance? How about paying for police protection or for a fire department? How about providing schools for children? How about providing a military to protect us? How about creating state and national parks for everyone to enjoy? How about providing a criminal justice system to punish offenders and protect people?

The government IS the body that belongs to the citizens. It's not some foreign entity robbing people. It's the body we have collectively created to provide for our collective needs. Some of our needs we cannot provide for as solitary individuals, and that's why we have a government on different levels: federal, state, and local. I have no problem with paying for the services we received from the government. We pay for those services with our taxes.

I certainly would not argue with this. Nobody is saying that we should not take care of our highways, or educate our kids, or pay to keep cops and firefighters working, etc etc. In fact, I have abosolutely no problem paying for the services I receive from the government. What I do have a problem with is paying for the services that others receive when they are capable of contributing themselves but choose not to. I have no problem helping those who cannot help themselves, and I doubt anyone else here does either. It is being forced to help those that refuse to help themselves that ###### me off.

Here is an idea. You want to feed and house the homeless and poor? You want to provide healthcare to everyone in this country? You want to rebuild our failing infrastructure? You want to fund those who protect us? Great, I'm all for it. But instead of asking me to fork over more of my hard earned cash when I already give a large sum to the government, why not demand that the government uses the money it already gets wisely? Do the terms "earmark" or "pork" mean anything to you? Don't ask me to give more of my money to a government that has already proven that they can't be responsible with what I am already giving them under the guise of feeding the hungry or housing the homeless or giving "free" healthcare to every citizen. The government has the means available to them to do that now.

Originally Posted by snakespit

I certainly would not argue with this. Nobody is saying that we should not take care of our highways, or educate our kids, or pay to keep cops and firefighters working, etc etc. In fact, I have abosolutely no problem paying for the services I receive from the government. What I do have a problem with is paying for the services that others receive when they are capable of contributing themselves but choose not to. I have no problem helping those who cannot help themselves, and I doubt anyone else here does either. It is being forced to help those that refuse to help themselves that ###### me off.

Here is an idea. You want to feed and house the homeless and poor? You want to provide healthcare to everyone in this country? You want to rebuild our failing infrastructure? You want to fund those who protect us? Great, I'm all for it. But instead of asking me to fork over more of my hard earned cash when I already give a large sum to the government, why not demand that the government uses the money it already gets wisely? Do the terms "earmark" or "pork" mean anything to you? Don't ask me to give more of my money to a government that has already proven that they can't be responsible with what I am already giving them under the guise of feeding the hungry or housing the homeless or giving "free" healthcare to every citizen. The government has the means available to them to do that now.

You want better government? Sounds good to me. I have no quarrel with that, but to do that, we have to participate as citizens and elect the best possible candidates to office. And not only on the federal level, but locally and in state government as well.

I don't think that throwing away enormous sums of money to invade and then fight for years in Iraq is responsible government. It's time to throw the Republicans out of office. They have wasted all of our hard-earned money and have sacrificed many precious lives for nothing. It's a tragedy.

Originally Posted by Ohioprof

You want better government? Sounds good to me. I have no quarrel with that, but to do that, we have to participate as citizens and elect the best possible candidates to office. And not only on the federal level, but locally and in state government as well.

If there was a candidate I felt worthy of my vote, I might just do so.

I don't think that throwing away enormous sums of money to invade and then fight for years in Iraq is responsible government. It's time to throw the Republicans out of office. They have wasted all of our hard-earned money and have sacrificed many precious lives for nothing. It's a tragedy.

Agreed, except the democrats are no better than the republicans when it comes to wasteful spending. In fact, the "mandate" that they so proudly claimed with their big promises to end earmark spending and pork politics turned out to be just what we expect out of our politicians, fertilizer. The new domocratic controlled congress has actually surpassed the old GOP led congress in earmark spending. Some mandate! The war is a waste of lives, money, time, and resources. But ending the war is not the be all end all of our problems, and ridding the halls of congress of republicans will not solve our money problems. The biggest problem we as a people face is that we have failed to hold our leaders (both dems and repubs) responsible for their actions, and now we are reaping the whirlwind.

Snake,
I agree with you that to some extent that (one of)

The biggest problem we as a people face is that we have failed to hold our leaders (both dems and repubs) responsible for their actions, and now we are reaping the whirlwind.

But the biggest problem is the diminishing personal responsibility and self-reliance. The entitlement mentality, the demonisation of success, and sloth is what's driving our elected officials to turn the government into a cash cow. There are very few (if any) statesmen left and we end up with people who fall in love with power for power's sake and they find the only way to get the 'masses' to keep sending them back over and over is to out promise (and out deliver) their opponents.