Congratulations, PT. You are the first conservative on this forum that I will no longer engage in conversation with. I never thought that day would come, but there it is. There simply is no point, because you know it all already, and nothing fruitful comes from discussing anything with you.
Remember when the nuts on the left laughed about death panels?
- Thread starter Max E.
- Start date
Congratulations, PT. You are the first conservative on this forum that I will no longer engage in conversation with. I never thought that day would come, but there it is. There simply is no point, because you know it all already, and nothing fruitful comes from discussing anything with you.
Of course "life should be chosen if possible". But what does that mean? Does it mean somebody else should be forced to pay for what you need or want if you can't afford to provide for yourself? Having somebody else pay for it makes LOTS of things possible.
If we are going to have a safety net, then yes. In the Darwinist view, a safety net wouldn't be "necessary" or even justified. But if we decided it's a good thing to have such a net, then funded by taxes is an acceptable use of public money... notwithstanding the fact that if funded with Federal money it would be/is unconstitutional. (We do LOTS of unconstitutional things now days... as Henry Kissinger? once said... "The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.")
In a Darwinist view, we could all kill or be killed in society, if you want to be totally analogous to it.
What I'm asking is do you, personally, advocate any safety net in modern American society at all? And if you do, is it the 3 squares and a cot thing? Please describe what you, personally, would be ok with.
Asked and answered. "3 squares and a cot"... life in a community shelter like a barracks. Basic medical and hand-me-down clothing available. If that's the kind of life a person accepts, then so be it. If they want better, they should be motivated to provide for the better themselves. That's the American way. You should understand where I've come from... lowest middle class... was even borderline homeless after graduating from high school... and believed my Grandpa when he said, "the world doesn't owe you a living, make something of yourself", and "if you plan on eating regular, you better also plan on working". My grandpa was a wise (and very funny) guy.
In America we're not going to allow people to starve or freeze to death, of course. But that doesn't mean people should be allowed to receive a comfortable life style on the backs of tax payers in exchange for their vote. Also doesn't mean that everything somebody/everybody wants/needs should be paid for by others if you can't provide it for yourself.
Ok, ok, none of that is in question. I asked again just to clarify. So let's go with the 3 squares and a cot suggestion. We all pay taxes for the 3S&C program that is the safety net in this hypothetical version of the United States. Who administers this program?
Don't be wary, I'm not trying to trap you into something you don't believe in. I'm simply trying to determine if we're in agreement.
According to the Constitution, welfare support should be a State's domain. That it has become a Federal Government issue and a political pawn is illegal and unconstitutional.
Couldn't agree more. So let's agree that it should be a state government run program administered to the poor.
So we've got the 3S&C program, state run. Let's say the country goes through a depression, and suddenly huge swaths of people get laid off and are starving. The program's income, however, does not cover the expenses. Do we:
1. Raises taxes to cover the increased influx for people on a temporary basis.
2. Cut other state programs to cover the increased cost.
3. Not increase the cost at all, and the added people to the program simply get nothing and have to make do
4. Some combination of 1 and 2.
?