AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Quote:

It is very difficult to distinguish between people who choose their situations, and those who do not. I don't know how you guys would propose we do this.

Are you serious?
If someone is a drug addict, they CHOSE to be.
If a woman is on welfare, and has more kids after she starts getting money, its because she CHOSE to.

The solution is simple.
If you are on welfare, we will pay benefits for the kids you have now.
But if you CHOOSE to have more kids, we will NOT pay any more benefits, nor will we pay your medical bills.

If you are a drug addict, you are on your own.
You CHOSE to become an addict, you CHOSE to start using drugs, so you CHOSE to accept the consequences.

If you apply for welfare and cannot produce documents that show you are here legally,you do not get any help.
After all, you CHOSE to violate the law, so you CHOSE to accept the consequences.

Notice the highlighted word.
It all comes back to personal responsibility.
I have no problem helping those that truly need it, but if they CHOSE to put themselves in the position of needing it, they are on their own and get no help at all.

but if they CHOSE to put themselves in the position of needing it

. . . . I don't think that things necessarily have to be done in 'the most efficient way.' Redundancy is also a great part of how things should be done. As an example, I would point out that the Government of America has been undertaking various projects to improve the place for well over 200 years now; what private company has or will be doing things for that long?

The Government undertakes projects which cannot be profitable; how many private investors would sink money into something which will never return a profit, or generate income?

Cycloptichorn

However, the junkie on the corner that refuses to get help and that is happy with his addiction did CHOOSE his addiction.

Today, scientists and physicians overwhelmingly agree that while use and even abuse of drugs such as alcohol and cocaine is a behavior over which the individual exerts control, addiction to these substances is something different. Scientists have begun to understand why addicted people may sacrifice everything that's important to them -- their jobs, their families, their homes -- in the quest for a chemical fix.

mysteryman wrote:

However, the junkie on the corner that refuses to get help and that is happy with his addiction did CHOOSE his addiction.

You should stay away from commenting on mental health issues that you have no professional understanding of, and apparently haven't even read the pop science literature about.

From your link...

Quote:

Today, scientists and physicians overwhelmingly agree that while use and even abuse of drugs such as alcohol and cocaine is a behavior over which the individual exerts control, addiction to these substances is something different. Scientists have begun to understand why addicted people may sacrifice everything that's important to them -- their jobs, their families, their homes -- in the quest for a chemical fix.

That supports what I am saying.
If you dont do the drugs, you have no chance of becoming an addict.
If you CHOOSE to do the drugs, you knowingly and willingly accept the fact that you can become an addict, you CHOOSE to take that chance.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

I'm sorry, but bike lanes in Albuquerque do not benefit America as a whole.

Sure they do. And why not? Having desirable infrastructure installed in the country benefits the country as a whole.

It's like claiming that improving your kitchen doesn't make the entire house better. Of course it does! Logically you could extend this and say, 'well, how does improving your NEIGHBORS' kitchen make things better?' But of course it does, it improves the neighborhood itself; as home values rise, all of your property becomes more valuable.

Well, I accept that you believe that, but in order to convince me, you're going to have to justify that one with me than a simple 'because I say so'.

If I remodel my kitchen when what I really needed was a second bathroom or landscaping in order to increase the marketability of my house, I haven't helped myself or added to the value of the house. My next door neighbors have actually been doing a wholesale renovation of their place, inside and out. That hasn't added a single dime to the value of my house. If the city has the choice of giving all us homeowners on our block a chunk of money for upgrades, they might get applause, but then doesn't have the money to maintain the sewer system or replace the city trash truck that wore out or upgrade the power grid, that would be a poor use of taxpayer resources.

So who is the best judge of what we on our block most need? The city employees who are responsible for the infrastructure and the homeowners with responsibility to pay their mortgages, taxes, insurance, utilities, and maintance costs? Or the federal government?

And, if the federal government gives the city a community grant to allocate as it sees fit, and there isn't enough to go around, who will likely get that money? Those with the greatest need? Or those with the most power to influence and fund the next election? For that matter, which communities do you think will get those federal grants? Those with the greatest need? Or those with the most power to keep those in Congress and the White House in power?

Quote:

Quote:

For me it comes down to the most efficient and effective way to get something accomplished and I think most things are better accomplished by other than the federal bureaucracy.

I don't think that things necessarily have to be done in 'the most efficient way.' Redundancy is also a great part of how things should be done. As an example, I would point out that the Government of America has been undertaking various projects to improve the place for well over 200 years now; what private company has or will be doing things for that long?

The Government undertakes projects which cannot be profitable; how many private investors would sink money into something which will never return a profit, or generate income?

Well you know, I work very hard for my money. And I would like the satisfaction of knowing that the taxes I pay actually go to projects and purposes that do strengthen the country and promote the general welfare. And for me, that means that the money is spent for the Constitutionally mandated responsibilities of the federal government and it is spent efficiently, effectively, and getting the most value possible for the dollar expended.

Why should anybody invest money into something which will never return a profit or generate income? That's the best reason in the world to let private investors make decisions about as much of that kind of thing as possible.

Or what about those things that add to quality of life? If the people want something bad enough, they'll pony up the funds to get it. If they don't want to pay for it, they don't need it or want it badly enough. On every ballot in every election there are a number of non-essential projects that we the people get to decide on such as a new library or expand the zoo or add a sound system to the convention center. Some we vote up. Some we vote down. But what we vote for, we pay for and I guarantee you that most of those projects come in within budget. Not so with the federal government that can simply allocate more money and doesn't care whether a few tens of thousands are spent here or a hundred thousand there. A drop in the bucket to the feds. But look how many years of my tax dollars just one of those expenditures consumes.

There are exceptions. I have 100% supported space exploration and things like the Hubble Telescope that are unreasonably beyond the reach of private investors. Such things lift our hearts and inspire us and eventually return great benefits in increased knowledge and even new products that become whole new industries, but those are mostly an unintended positive benefit.

I still say the best policy is for the Federal government to do only that which cannot be done more efficiently, effectively, and economically by at more local levels and/or the private sector. If we don't have the money for non essentials, or there is insufficient interest or enthusiasm for non essential projects, they can wait.

I further say that such policy greatly reduces incentive and ability for corruption, graft, and malfeasance in government and that is absolutely in the best interest of and to the benefit of us all.

I further say that such policy greatly reduces incentive and ability for corruption, graft, and malfeasance in government and that is absolutely in the best interest of and to the benefit of us all.

Well you know, I work very hard for my money. And I would like the satisfaction of knowing that the taxes I pay actually go to projects and purposes that do strengthen the country and promote the general welfare.

But if you dont do the initial behavior (using drugs), you have no chance of becoming addicted.

Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Thats why I say that an addict CHOOSES to become addicted (in most cases)

Now, if you can provide some evidence that shows that someone that never used drugs became addicted to them, I will look at it.

Your uncle did not choose his addiction.

No, I don't want the ability to allocate my money to specific things. I do want the ability to know that my money is going for the Constitutionally mandated support of government and not to feather the political fortune of some member(s) of Congress who use my tax dollars to garner favor from pet constituencies.

At the end of the day, probably the main difference between you and me is that you are more willing to give the Federal government virtually unlimited power, ability, and resources along with trust that such will be used responsibly. As I do not trust those with virtually unlimited power and resources to remain uncorrupted by it or to use the money responsibly, I want such power, ability, and resources kept to the most practical minimum possible while assigning the real power closer to home with more local government and the people as the Founders envisioned.

It makes absolutely no sense to me to send tax dollars to Washington where a substantial portion is skimmed off the top to support all the bureaucracies of Washington and then a portion returned to the states to decide what to do with it.

Maybe somebody can explain to me how that is a smart system? Why not just eliminate most of those bureaucracies and let the states keep the money at home to begin with? How can an argument be made that people in Washington DC who have never been to Muleshoe TX know what's good for the people of Muleshoe better than the people of Muleshoe know what's good for the people of Muleshoe?