A very good and valid question.
At heart that moral obligation would be to work and contribute, if able to do so. It would also be to raise kids to be capable, responsible adults as well, if one were a single parent with children.
The actual data we have, not anecdotal bull mind you, but actual data, is that the vast majority of welfare recipients don't stay on welfare for long.
The real problem with our social safety net is not that there is too much, but there is too little.
Simply handing someone a check doesn't work well. The heart of welfare reform added work-training, and other sevices, and I am all for that. I think that adding daycare vouchers to that mix would help enormously.
Expensive? Yes. But less expensive than the alternative to letting poor parents flounder, which is that of kids we are then forced to incarcerate at an even greater expense.
Is the current system abused? Yes. Any system will be, public or private. That is simply the cost of doing what is right. A good system will seek some checks and audit systems to minimize that.
wtf? it's a question, not an argument. Reading comprehension fail.
I'll try again though and ask as simple as possible:
"If a man or woman does not unquestionably owe into the system, then in what instance are they not obligated to owe into the system?"
I'm assuming "healthy" man/woman is understood.
No need to get riled up. Again, it's just a simple question that you should easily be able to answer based on what YOU said.
you guys are already conceding things we MUST pay for. You folks need to take a strong/honest/open look at the issue of whether anyone should have to give up what is theirs without consent.
Its not an easy question, but liberals need to think on this long and hard.
Do you feel this guy should not have to pay taxes?
OK, if its in good faith, then sorry...answer: I dont think there is a scenario where they dont have to contribute
Last edited by Parker2112; 11-16-2010 at 01:50 PM.
That is a logically fallacious "slippery slope" argument.
It is possible to strike a reasonable balance between obligation and freedom, and we have to a great deal kept to that balance.
To answer your question:
When it becomes more than we are willing to generally agree on.
Every system imposes a burden of one sort or another. I don't feel government is telling me much of anything, and don't feel government intrusion into my life. I am hard pressed to think of an example of such, other than the restrictions on certain narcotics.
k, me neither.
then why again is RG's post "horrendous logic"?
We have been attempting to "privatize" certain functions of government under the theory that private enterprise can always do it better and cheaper.
Lo and behold that has not proven to be the case. The burden of "turning a profit" for private enterprise often more than makes up for any efficiencies, and often leads to some outrageous abuses. Private prisons in Texas and elsewhere are a good example of the kinds of corruption that ensue.
who is we? popular vote? elected officials? the cons ution? the framers intent? modern interpretation?
and will there ever be anything close to something "we" all "generally agree on?"
because he essentially supports taxation without conscience, the limit of which (what we all agree is too much) will never exist. so taxation without conscience without limit.
When you focus on the individuals rights long enough, you realize (my view) that taxation needs to be done with the utmost care and concern for the rights of those same individuals.
This false "contract" scenario leads to a bloated govt that tramples all over the rights of the people.
The limit is the lynchpin. and if you implement big govt as the saviour, you will soon be walking on the bill of rights.
I think to be fair to LnG, we need to avoid corrupting the discussion with welfare, etc. and need to focus on the OP.
I dont think its slippery slope at all...your views lead to intrusive/oppressive govt as easy 1+1=2.
Its been proven. Because your views got us where we are, and that is big/oppressive/intrusive govt that trample on bill of rights every day
Being that taxes will soon be rising for us all largely because of unfunded liabilities like SS/medicare/medicaid, trying to restrict the discussion to taxation in a vacuum seems academic and sterile.
Social en lements and levels of taxation ARE linked to each other in the real world. And relatively fuzzy ideas about "fairness" and "social contract" do determine what levels of social spending are politically tolerable.
Last edited by Winehole23; 11-16-2010 at 02:17 PM.
Can a liberal minded poster deal with this scenario for me?
If you pin down the "morality," everything else should begin to fit in place. when you try and dictate the morals by the cir stances, immoral can quickly become a false moral
social security is soon going to find its way into the hands of the same investment gurus who imploded the mortgage market anyway
the govt is funding itself these days. the machine has become self aware through the fed and can spend as many billions as it wants. and govt legislators/officials are absolutely spending those billions to benefit themselves
its not about en lements...that is a zit on the face of the issue. legislators can poy for whatever program they want without ever hitting you for a single tax dollar. they just reduce the value of the money you already have in your wallet..
its about shutting down the same monster that is gobbling up our civil rights and our childrens future more and more each day.
the plug has to be pulled.
Once you've isolated morality and nailed it down, virtue becomes concrete and universal. Automatically.
What monster is that?
when you spend decades dumming down the public, taking classical education out, and replacing it with standardized tests and kids who never learn to think for themselves, you get a tyrants paradise.
True as that may be, you seem to have wandered very far from the OP yourself.
fed govt.
obama=bush is proof that our choice is nothing today. katrina=gulf spill. homeland security=homeland security. war=war. patriot act stranglehold=patriot act stranglehold. bailout=bailout. obama=bush. repub=dem.
new boss same as the old boss. the machine is overrun. time to shut it down.
I am aware. I think this discussion between RG and LnG is going on on another thread actually.
Lemme get this straight. You're against our Federal system as revealed in the US Cons ution, and the rights/privileges it protects?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
