After A Great Deal Of Thought

then why can't I get lifetime government free health care then?

OUR government might be the most efficient democratic government ever. Granted, dictatorships are usually more efficient.

You've framed your question in terms of a false choice, by insisting on editorializing on the so called "Far Right" element in America and A2K.

Believing that tax dollars should not be wasted on those who have no desire to fend for themselves and are content with sucking on the public teat is not tantamount to declaring that the poor should be left to die.

If the actual choice was as stark as you suggest, it would be a very very few who would come down on the side of "letting them die in the streets."

The flaw in your entire premise is that all of the money actually spent on supporting the so-called "poor," is not limited to keeping them from death's door. At least 50% of it could be cut and no one would die as a result.

Despite all of the hyperbolic nonsense of the Left, the only people who actually die as a result of poverty are the insane, the incompetent, and their children. For all of your sanctimony, you Liberals are not saving the people who are truly at risk.

By launching crusades against institutions for the mentally ill you ended up throwing a multitude of the insane onto the streets. These are people who are only marginally, if that, able to take advantage of the public safety-net. Is it really so high minded to fight for their ability to sleep in alleys and assault tourists for spare change?

Fight for clean needle programs that enable drug addicts, resist the efforts of municipalities to roust them from parks and apartment lobbies. That's sure to save their lives!

The only way you can save these people is to take over their choices, to allow the State to tell them what they can and cannot do. Throwing money at junkies and homeless incompetents is an utter waste.

No one I know who calls themselves a conservative has any problem with spending tax dollars to prevent people from dying on the street. What's more, they don't have any problem spending tax dollars to provide those who cannot help themselves with well more than subsistence living.

What we do have a problem with is your false choice.

The people who are capable of working but who just don't want to? Don't give them any of our money and watch how fast they will find someway to make money.

Some, no doubt, will resort to crime, but hopefully they will all eventually find themselves in the warm and accommodating bosom of the penal system.

Having said all of this, no policy of zero tolerance can ever work no matter how good the intention of how much money is spent. If we are willing to waste money because "even one person dying from poverty is too much," then there will be no end to our spending and we will never achieve our goal.

What is truly sad is that in reality all of our social programs are all too capable of letting people fall through the cracks -- even when they have the funds to save them. Incompetence and malfeasance are not limited to the corporate seats of power on Wall Street. This high minded intolerance of losing even one soul to misfortune only rises to the fore when the debate is on about how much of the taxpayers' money the government should take from them.

Once the deed is done the sanctimonious are content, especially since it is not their money that is being used, and the politicians are free to direct the seized funds to wherever the please.

Thus we see a Democratic conceived stimulus package that directs millions of dollars to contraception. Of course this money is not going to the manufacturers of contraceptives so how in the world can it be considered as a proper response to our economic crisis?

Ask Nancy Pelosi on a Sunday talk-show and she will have the utter temerity to respond to the effect of: Well if we can't create jobs than at least we shouldn't be creating people who need them.

If this isn't one of the most vapid and ridiculous comments ever uttered by a politician...This is the quality of mind that has somehow risen to a position of great power in our nation. How did this happen?

Your question is quite dramatic:

"Hey you hard ass right-wingers. Do you have the balls to let people die on the street?"

But it is at best cynically contrived, and, at worst, symptomatic of the dread mental illness that is Liberalism.

George W Bush, Dick Cheney, Tom Delay, Bill Frist, ... .

you ducked the question. Also, by letting them resort to crime and then putting them in jail.... even more taxpayer money is being used to subsidize these people.

Now....my simple question is.... could you cut these people off utterly and let them die if it came to that? For the good of the pack?

a simple yes or no will suffice. And btw there's nothing cynical about it at all. It happens in many many other countries around the world all the time.

I don't think you've proved your case that it would be for the good of the pack. There is a health risk with corpses in the streets. Think of the geniuses we'd be missing out on. Think of the crime rate when desperate fathers try to feed their kids.

they would be picked up and disposed of by a new department created by HHS...creating jobs. The fathers we're academically speaking of here don't give a damn about their kids. They are irresponsible deadbeats remember? These genius' probably would never get the opportunity to reach their potential as productive citizens...the prisons are full of genius'.

Jonathan Swift already beat you to this proposal.

and you haven't answered my question.... honestly why is everyone ducking the question?

Er... you think I'm a "far-right type"?

To this modest proposal.

answering my question with a question.... when you answer me I'll answer you.

I think a moral society does not allow people to starve or die in the street, and I would do what I could to prevent that from happening. But I believe most forms of government charity is excessively expensive,inefficient, and ineffective and too often becomes a corrupting influence on those who are chosen to govern and on those receiving government largesse. For that reason, government should be restricted to policies that encourage personal responsibility and accountability and that strongly discourage illegal activities and perpetuation of poverty, but charity should be handled by the private sector.

that's thoughtful answer... and I think it means that you would not be willing to see people...even the dregs.... die because of their douchebaggery. Correct?

Don't you realize that Ayn Rand has been exposed as a narcissistic fool?

BBB

This forum is in no way shape or form a microcosm of the country.
A2K is predominantly the playground of the left and it's leaning further to the extreme left everyday.

The few A2K members with conservative or libertarian values get jumped on by the vocal left each and every time they post.
The tactic of A2Ks left is to attack those that don't share their liberal views.
These attacks are personal because the left is afraid of logic and common sense.


If you need an example of this childish liberal behavior, just watch the replies that follow my post.

Correct in that I would try to throw a rope to a drowning person no matter how much I despised that person or how much of a 'douchebag' I considered him/her to be. But I see giving that guy on the street a sandwich and getting him to shelter as the responsibility of the private sector, not the government.

thank you

the guy with the mickey mouse ears talking about childish liberal behavior...that's rich.

When conservatives get to see that “the government” IS the “private sector” working in concert...maybe it will have finally grown up. If we actually were to leave the kinds of safety nets “the (mean ole) government” provided in the hands of the conservative public...and people WOULD be dying in the streets.