Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In my younger days I was a dumocrat. But then again most people are when they are younger. Then they grow up and learn that society needs principles and morals and then they go Republican.
At what age is one 'grown up' in your eyes? Because apparently my grandmother never did, if to you 'growing up' means adopting your political stance.
Oh, and what exactly is immoral or unprincipled about being concerned with health care, labor, etc....
.....grow up and learn that society needs principles and morals and then they go Republican.
You're absolutely right. The Republicans in office over the last 6 years have done nothing but adhere to a high moral standard, and they're certainly following all the principles set forth by the founders of the GOP.
At what age is one 'grown up' in your eyes? Because apparently my grandmother never did, if to you 'growing up' means adopting your political stance.
Oh, and what exactly is immoral or unprincipled about being concerned with health care, labor, etc....
There is no problem with being concerned about health care, labor, etc. However, when one advocates taking resources from one person to give to another who won't take responsibility for his/her decisions, now THAT's immoral.
There is no problem with being concerned about health care, labor, etc. However, when one advocates taking resources from one person to give to another who won't take responsibility for his/her decisions, now THAT's immoral.
There is no problem with being concerned about health care, labor, etc. However, when one advocates taking resources from one person to give to another who won't take responsibility for his/her decisions, now THAT's immoral.
And what about those who can't or don't deserve what they get? There are a lot of factors that determine one's wealth besides sheer effort and talent. Take two twins, put one in Compton and the other in Beverly Hills and the outcomes will be vastly different, I assure you. And not everyone who becomes wealthy does so by contributing meaningfully to society.
And what about those who can't or don't deserve what they get? There are a lot of factors that determine one's wealth besides sheer effort and talent. Take two twins, put one in Compton and the other in Beverly Hills and the outcomes will be vastly different, I assure you. And not everyone who becomes wealthy does so by contributing meaningfully to society.
No individual has a responsibility to "contribute meaningfully to society", that't the crux of individuality. Your view seems to be statist, with collectivism as its basis. The two twins referenced in your hypothetical both have the same opportunities, only their initial geographical limitations are different. Effort and talent with consistently override such a limitation and many others.
When you state "can't or don't deserve", I can only assume you are referring to those who are mentally or physically handicapped through no fault of their own. These individuals can easily, and more efficiently, be cared for through friends, family, churches, and/or other civic organizations who cater to the needs of local individuals, much as it was done before the "Great Society" debacle.
There is no problem with being concerned about health care, labor, etc. However, when one advocates taking resources from one person to give to another who won't take responsibility for his/her decisions, now THAT's immoral.
I don't disagree. But to say that Democrats are most guilty of that while Republicans are innocent is just silly. Republicans are taking our tax dollars and giving them to multi-billion dollar corporations like WalMart, the oil companies, BechTel, and Halliburton.
I don't really like welfare as a permanent solution to anything. It isn't. It's a band-aid.
But given the choice between buying some groceries for a single mother and giving a multi-billion dollar oil corporation a tax break, I'd rather give the mom some groceries.
No individual has a responsibility to "contribute meaningfully to society", that't the crux of individuality.
No, but an economy where people are rewarded by that society far beyond what they contribute is a fundamentally unjust economy. Of course, you could also use this as an argument against welfare, but I think when people are willing but unable to find gainful employment, or are children without the ability to support themselves the picture becomes different. There are too many slumlord property speculators, monopolizing corporations and overpaid CEO's in the world for any reasonable person to view the capitalist system as a true meritocracy.
Quote:
Your view seems to be statist, with collectivism as its basis.
Need an explanation for this one.
Quote:
The two twins referenced in your hypothetical both have the same opportunities, only their initial geographical limitations are different.
Geographic, economic, motivational... I want you to sit down and type the following statements:
"A person growing up poor in East St. Louis has the exact same amount of opportunity to become wealthy as Bill Gates' grandson."
Then read it, and think about whether you actually believe it or not.
..By the way, according to the dictionary, "opportunity" is
"1. an appropriate or favorable time or occasion: Their meeting afforded an opportunity to exchange views.
2. a situation or condition favorable for attainment of a goal.
3. a good position, chance, or prospect, as for advancement or success."
Quote:
Effort and talent with consistently override such a limitation and many others.
To some extent... above-average effort and talent might raise a poor person up the ladder from poor to middle class or lower middle class. For a person growing up rich it'll mean a conversion from millionaire to billionaire, or something. The average person in both situations will likely stay somewhere near where they started (rich or poor).
Quote:
When you state "can't or don't deserve", I can only assume you are referring to those who are mentally or physically handicapped through no fault of their own.
Actually, I was referring to children, wives left by their husbands with kids, people with specialized skills rendered useless because of layoffs at businesses, the elderly... there are a lot of situations that qualify.
Quote:
These individuals can easily, and more efficiently, be cared for through friends, family, churches, and/or other civic organizations who cater to the needs of local individuals, much as it was done before the "Great Society" debacle.
Yeah, poor people were so well off back before the Great Society and our poverty rate was so much lower. Thanks to those right-wing days we never had Great Depressions or wage slaves, did we?
Last edited by fishmonger; 04-06-2007 at 01:49 PM..
I don't disagree. But to say that Democrats are most guilty of that while Republicans are innocent is just silly. Republicans are taking our tax dollars and giving them to multi-billion dollar corporations like WalMart, the oil companies, BechTel, and Halliburton.
I don't really like welfare as a permanent solution to anything. It isn't. It's a band-aid.
But given the choice between buying some groceries for a single mother and giving a multi-billion dollar oil corporation a tax break, I'd rather give the mom some groceries.
Personally I'd like to see something like the return of the WPA, or a similar organization, where people could be guaranteed the opportunity of getting a decent-paying job without the undignified nature of welfare...
Ill vote Republican on this poll because Im a registered Republican, but I identify more as a conservative.
This bickering back and forth about Dems and Reps is ridiculous. Until everyone gets a clue and discovers that they are both power hungry machines that dont care about THE PEOPLE but more about staying in POWER and raising money, nothing will ever get accomplished thats worth while.
The same issues and complaints facing Reps now will start to face the Dems since they are in power...and especially if the Dems win the presidency in 2008. We need to start giving 3rd party candidates a serious look if we really want change from either political side.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
