Speaking of propaganda...

How is it that you plan to promote the general welfare Foxfyre? If all you do to promote your idea is simple suggestion, then you will find it hard to insure domestic tranquility and secure the blessings of liberty.

Ever stop to think that perhaps they just didn't want to use the same word twice in a sentance?

Ever stop to think that promotion implies policy?

I never said was perfect, I just won't use my imperfection as an excuse.

As for demonizing the less fortunate, you should know that your statements about acting irresponcible are inflamatory, and offensive. You have yet to conceed to my knowledge that there are people in a bad spot that aren't there because of some gross iresponcibility on their behalf let alone the irresponcibilities of those much better off than them.

E.g. - Enron.

Your definition of moral absolutes is as flimsy as tracing paper. Try again. This time answerin the rest of my questions too.

I have presented many good arguments. However in the marketplace of ideas, you came to seel not buy.

T
K
O

You may think my argument flimsy but at least I have offered one. So far you mostly haven't.

You may think my perspective offensive, but I find those who think it appropriate to enslave one American in favor of another to be far more offensive.

I already mentioned NUMEROUS ways in which the government can promote the general welfare. Using powers of regulation wisely and only where warranted, exempting churches and charitable organizations from taxes and keeping the charitable deduction provision, encouraging traditional values that have served the nation well, enforcing the law, encouraging real education that actually educates students and providing incentives to students to avail themselves of that education--that could include disincentives for dropping out of school etc. Encouraging private investment and capital expenditures and business expansion and risk taking and other incentives that promote economic growth.

I have observed that intelligent people are usually capable of grasping these concepts whether or not they find the concepts flawed. Heads full of mush generally can't understand them at all.

As I said, intelligent people will be able to grasp the concepts and either agree or be able to articulate a rational argument as to why the concepts are flawed if they are. Heads full of mush will not.

Foxfyre wrote:

As I said, intelligent people will be able to grasp the concepts and either agree or be able to articulate a rational argument as to why the concepts are flawed if they are. Heads full of mush will not.

I'm not sure what you want from me. I offer examples and philosophical arguments for you to digest. I take great time in responding to your posts, yet you still post insults like this. The only reason I give my valueable time to people like you is because it cultivates my argument for those individuals in the real world who I engage with in debate. Further, it builds my tolerance for stubborn close minded people, and thus I am trained in patience. Lastly, I choose to grant you my time and effort because I think you could learn something if exposed to it.

Foxfyre, I have responded to your posts beyond what is deserved. For the lack of satisfaction I have from my exchanges with you, I am equally pleased to watch your arguments be torn to shreds by the gentle winds of reason.

Be it my breeze, or another's...

T
K
O

You see there is a big peice mIssing from all of this, it is the predators and the scavengers.

People who get at least a highschool education, who don't trash themselves with harmful substances, who don't get involved in illegal activitiies, who don't have kids before they can support them, who establish a work ethic, who learn a marketable trade, and who are willing to work however they must work to support themselves are NOT among the nation's poor at least for any serious length of time.

Qualley, of Osseo, earned about $55,000 last year between two jobs, but with two mortgages and a son in college, she fell behind on her CenterPoint bills. She just tried to enroll in the utility's budget plan for $144 a month. But CenterPoint said she had to start by sending $747 -- her unpaid winter balance.

People who get at least a highschool education, who don't trash themselves with harmful substances, who don't get involved in illegal activitiies, who don't have kids before they can support them, who establish a work ethic, who learn a marketable trade, and who are willing to work however they must work to support themselves are NOT among the nation's poor at least for any serious length of time.

Are you saying that large groups of people cannot make these kinds of choices? Do you want to tell them that its okay for them to make destructive choices for whatever reason? Is it preferable to tell people that they are oppressed and disadvantaged and victims and they can't make it without Big Brother so Big Brother will save them? Is it true compassion to make them dependent on government, even encourage them to become dependent on government for the bare necessities of life?

Or is it better to tell them to believe in themselves, stay in school and educate themselves, stay away from drugs and booze, don't have kids before you can support kids, learn to speak and write proper English, learn to do something useful that people are willing to pay for, be willing to work your way up to better things, and stand up tall and be proud in themselves and who they are and what they can become?

People who put their homes in hazardous areas--on the coast, below sea level, in a brush filled canyon, on an unstable hillside in an Earthquake zone, on a flood plain, etc. should be expected to insure themselves against possible loss or damage. It should not be the responsibility of the rest of us to assume their risk.

In 2000, a massive forest fire destroyed more than 200 homes at Los Alamos NM. These were all former government housing, quite modest and cheaply built, but the area was declared a disaster area providing home owners with federal assistance, courtesy of you and me, to rebuild. So with benefit of insurance on their old homes and federal assistance, the homeowners were able to exchange those old modest homes for nice big plush modern dwellings; many doubling their floorspace. Needless to say, their neighbors who weren't burned out felt somewhat cheated.

I don't fault anybody for taking advantage of whatever is legally available to them. But there is something definitely wrong with this picture.

People who get at least a highschool education, who don't trash themselves with harmful substances, who don't get involved in illegal activitiies, who don't have kids before they can support them, who establish a work ethic, who learn a marketable trade, and who are willing to work however they must work to support themselves are NOT among the nation's poor at least for any serious length of time.

Foxfyre wrote:

People who get at least a highschool education, who don't trash themselves with harmful substances, who don't get involved in illegal activitiies, who don't have kids before they can support them, who establish a work ethic, who learn a marketable trade, and who are willing to work however they must work to support themselves are NOT among the nation's poor at least for any serious length of time.

Are you saying that large groups of people cannot make these kinds of choices? Do you want to tell them that its okay for them to make destructive choices for whatever reason? Is it preferable to tell people that they are oppressed and disadvantaged and victims and they can't make it without Big Brother so Big Brother will save them? Is it true compassion to make them dependent on government, even encourage them to become dependent on government for the bare necessities of life?

Or is it better to tell them to believe in themselves, stay in school and educate themselves, stay away from drugs and booze, don't have kids before you can support kids, learn to speak and write proper English, learn to do something useful that people are willing to pay for, be willing to work your way up to better things, and stand up tall and be proud in themselves and who they are and what they can become?

This is a truly idealistic response. It is sensible, yes, but certainly idealistic and unrealistic.

Look into your family circle, circles of friends, etc. Is everyone affluent? Is everyone "well off"? Has everyone you know who believes in themselves, stayed in school, educated themselves, stayed away from drugs and booze, didn't have kids before they could support them, learned to speak and write proper English, became "successful" by whatever litmus test one could use to define success?

I can count a handful of people in my life who have done what you have said is the necessary recipe for success, but are by no means in a good position in life. They lie in varying relations to the poverty line in Canada.

Their standing in society has been dictated by crippling student loan debts, marriages/divorces, pursuing a passion over a paycheque, the necessity for a paycheque over the pursuit for a better one, inflation, etc. While I philosophically agree with what you are saying FF, the reality is much different.

Getting a "helping hand" does not produce, as a direct consequence, out and out reliance on hand outs-- and providing a helping hand does not entail a subserviance of the majority to the minority. For the sake of consistency, you simply can not, on one hand, champion churches and non-profit organizations while on the other, promote an anti-socialist agenda. Philanthropic denominational and non-denominational, non-profit organizations "take from the rich and give to the poor".

I'll also add that, as a teacher, a combination of parents and the educationals systems are doing a disservice to the upcoming generations. The "work hard and you will reap the rewards" philosophy is nearly dead. It has been replaced with "do what you want, make you little ego feel good and we will do our best to ensure that your little ego is properly fed and that it emerges as the driving force in your life's projection onward."

Nobody is saying that people who need help should not receive it. Of course people who are displaced from major disasters may need and should receive help, though there is room to argue whether it should be the government providing more than immediate emergency assistance.

There should also be certain expectations. People who receive help should be expected to do what they can to mitigate their losses and do what they can to help themselves recover. That could mean relocating if their job has gone away for an extended period. There is no obligation either personally or through the government to provide people a home and job where they would prefer to have one.

People who put their homes in hazardous areas--on the coast, below sea level, in a brush filled canyon, on an unstable hillside in an Earthquake zone, on a flood plain, etc. should be expected to insure themselves against possible loss or damage. It should not be the responsibility of the rest of us to assume their risk.

In 2000, a massive forest fire destroyed more than 200 homes at Los Alamos NM. These were all former government housing, quite modest and cheaply built, but the area was declared a disaster area providing home owners with federal assistance, courtesy of you and me, to rebuild. So with benefit of insurance on their old homes and federal assistance, the homeowners were able to exchange those old modest homes for nice big plush modern dwellings; many doubling their floorspace. Needless to say, their neighbors who weren't burned out felt somewhat cheated.

I don't fault anybody for taking advantage of whatever is legally available to them. But there is something definitely wrong with this picture.

Foxfyre wrote:

Nobody is saying that people who need help should not receive it. Of course people who are displaced from major disasters may need and should receive help, though there is room to argue whether it should be the government providing more than immediate emergency assistance.

There should also be certain expectations. People who receive help should be expected to do what they can to mitigate their losses and do what they can to help themselves recover. That could mean relocating if their job has gone away for an extended period. There is no obligation either personally or through the government to provide people a home and job where they would prefer to have one.

People who put their homes in hazardous areas--on the coast, below sea level, in a brush filled canyon, on an unstable hillside in an Earthquake zone, on a flood plain, etc. should be expected to insure themselves against possible loss or damage. It should not be the responsibility of the rest of us to assume their risk.

In 2000, a massive forest fire destroyed more than 200 homes at Los Alamos NM. These were all former government housing, quite modest and cheaply built, but the area was declared a disaster area providing home owners with federal assistance, courtesy of you and me, to rebuild. So with benefit of insurance on their old homes and federal assistance, the homeowners were able to exchange those old modest homes for nice big plush modern dwellings; many doubling their floorspace. Needless to say, their neighbors who weren't burned out felt somewhat cheated.

I don't fault anybody for taking advantage of whatever is legally available to them. But there is something definitely wrong with this picture.

So, people that are displaced by natural disasters should receive help unless they could have foreseen that disaster in some way, then they should have bought insurance.

Again nobody is saying that a helping hand is not warranted though there is room to argue whether that helping hand serves best coming from the government or from the private sector.

My quarrel is with policy that encourages poor choices by not requiring people to experience the consequences of those poor choices. Why worry or care if you know you can depend on Big Brother to take care of you if you screw up? My quarrel is with policies that contribute to the disintegration of cohesive family units and encourage dependency on government to the point that whole generations are no longer trying to break that dependency.

My quarrel is with a mindset that equality of opportunity should result in equality of outcome.

It never has, never will because we all have different abilities, drive, ambitions, wants, and dreams. An artist or school teacher may never make as much as an engineer, but there is no shame in one choice vs another there. And if one person has exceptional ability and drive to become the CEO while another maximizes his potential in middle management, that's just the way the cookie crumbles sometimes.

We should never tell kids that they can't make it, that they have already struck out, that they are justified in being angry and giving up or, as you mentioned, they shouldn't expect anything from themselves and if it feels good, do it. We should be telling them that everybody has plusses and minuses in our life stories, but to use those as an excuse won't get us anywhere. Never give up dreaming along with knowing that the only way to achieve at least some of our dreams is to play the hand we are dealt to the best of our ability.

And no, it is not unrealistic to encourage people to make good choices. Millions upon millions have done so and it is patronizing and condescending and insulting to tell people that they can't.