samsam5886

You should go and live in Somalia if you hate government so much and can't stand the idea of taxation; it's a libertarian's paradise.



Let me know how it works out!
[/quote]

I'll have to step in on this one. That is going to an extreme. We don't simply "hate" the government. We hate some of the things they do and the fact that they are out of control and have way too much power and control. In the end a government is still comprised of people, and why should these people be allowed to do things that we aren't allowed to do? Why should the government be allowed to rob us of our money, to take away our liberties, to murder people, to spy on people, to control people, to make decisions for us, and more? Why should we trust these people any more than we should trust some random and suspicious looking stranger on the street? Libertarians want a limited government that allows us to maintain our liberties, calling for a society that learns to make sound decisions on their own, rather than a dumbed down and dependent society, unaware of their liberties being stripped away in front of their very eyes, day by day, and not caring until it is too late.

herrjr

You should go and live in Somalia if you hate government so much and can't stand the idea of taxation; it's a libertarian's paradise.



Let me know how it works out!
[/quote]

How's that straw man? I never argued in support of no government at all, but rather limited government, such as that with which this country began.

herrjr

You're misunderstanding my point. I'm arguing that regardless of the impact that the costs welfare have on the federal budget, welfare, like other expenditures of the federal government that are incongruous with its historical roots, result in the impingement upon the freedoms of the constituency. Simply because it's percentage of the budget is smaller than other things such as defense, doesn't make it any less wrong.

herrjr

I would argue that simply being in support of government policies such as welfare does not necessarily mean that a person has sympathy and compassion, just as being opposed to such policies doesn't necessarily mean that a person is lacking in sympathy and compassion.

If one actually had such sympathy and compassion akin to what politicians profess to having (I remember Bill Clinton: "I feel your pain"), then one can only have a position of condemnation for others if their entire disposable income went to resolving the problems of others eliciting their sympathy and compassion. Otherwise, don't act so surprised when a person calls you out for living a life that is completely of your own volition, which has nothing to do with resolving the problems that you have argued are "the government's" responsibility.

Mr Dave

Yeah, it's a shame something like the Great Depression had to come along and ruin the party.

mrjulius

Ok, so you're against anything that is incongruous with historical roots.

I guess you should just ignore the fact that the constitution has been amended 27 times since 1789 (because times/ethics/morals/ideas change) or that some of the founding fathers (ie Madison) had an interest in a strong federal government. You would then have to be fine with protected slavery (legal in the Constitution until 1865) that required runaways be recaptured and returned to their owner. Or how about the illegality of child labor? That was finally federally ratified in 1924.

Let's not pretend that the Constitution was a perfect document at it's inception. It had to evolve along with the people it was purported to be written for and to protect. Along the way there were people like you who argued against what they thought of as the federal government overstepping it's bounds. Thank goodness those people were the minority or else we would not be witness to any logical progress.

You remind me of a Bible-thumper that ignores inconvenient facts that are incongruous with current opinion/ethics.

Mr Dave

I've been thinking about your side of this argument all day.
I'm really struggling to understand your side of it from an emotional standpoint -- I get what you're saying theoretically.

Let me say that your positions are extremely well thought-out, clearly stated, and beautifully punctuated (I'm a grammar nut...so you've won bonus points in my book).


But at the end of the day I think it comes down to this: when one chooses to live as an American, one must accept that our country has changed and WILL CHANGE AGAIN over time...yet accept that the whole is still greater than the sum of the parts.

One cannot cherry-pick specific aspects of America that they like and toss the rest.

You're perfectly within your rights to bemoan what you perceive as a loss of your personal freedom (although...let's cut the crap and admit that you're talking about your money) but understand that welfare (for example) came as a necessary force to continue the greater good of our country.

Ours is the oldest standing Constitution of any democratic republic in the world.
One reason for its continued survival is the malleability of the definition of what constitutes us as Americans -- people, law, and all.

We change according to need.

To claim that this "infringes on your freedom" in ludicrous.
The tax code offers you every opportunity to shirk financial obligations put upon you by your Government. Hell -- General Electric paid less in taxes than I did last year.
And I got a refund.
I realize you react negatively to imposed charity -- and that's your right.
It's also your right to find loopholes that allow you to avoid paying into a system you find offensive.

Yet through it all you can define yourself as a "free" man.
You can define yourself as an American.

And our country can continue to grow. To change. And, with change, a "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

05TurboS2k

I've no sympathy for the lazy.

The others will find help without welfare. Simple as that. Only a complete moron starves in this country.

herrjr

Ok, so you're against anything that is incongruous with historical roots.

I guess you should just ignore the fact that the constitution has been amended 27 times since 1789 (because times/ethics/morals/ideas change) or that some of the founding fathers (ie Madison) had an interest in a strong federal government. You would then have to be fine with protected slavery (legal in the Constitution until 1865) that required runaways be recaptured and returned to their owner. Or how about the illegality of child labor? That was finally federally ratified in 1924.

Let's not pretend that the Constitution was a perfect document at it's inception. It had to evolve along with the people it was purported to be written for and to protect. Along the way there were people like you who argued against what they thought of as the federal government overstepping it's bounds. Thank goodness those people were the minority or else we would not be witness to any logical progress.

You remind me of a Bible-thumper that ignores inconvenient facts that are incongruous with current opinion/ethics.
[/quote]

Hello Straw Man!

I'm against THIS instance that is not historically based. And regarding inconvenient facts as you put it, the Federal Debt is over 14 trillion, 345 billion dollars, while the nations's GNP (2009) was only slightly over 14 trillion. http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPD...application=np
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=...ted+states+gnp

Shall I bring up the articles that measure the percentage equivalents for Greece, the UK, Spain, and Portugal?

The fact that MOST people in this country seem to be unaware/ignorant of, is that this country is on the verge of insolvency. If China stopped playing the role of America's AMEX, or if the debt rating of this country were reduced from AAA status, then the Federal Government would will have very serious issues to deal with. The Federal Deficit this year alone is about 1.5 trillion dollars http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12130. Countless articles speak of the FACTS, and the fact is that EVERYTHING needs to be reduced, whether entitlement programs, defense, WELFARE, etc. You cannot divorce the cost of welfare from the costs of the other programs of the government, because it is all RELATED. The budget overall is beyond ridiculous, so everything that isn't vital to ensuring American individual liberties must go.

herrjr

Rather, it's a shame that regular people were lead to irrationally believe that an open market doesn't have downside; oh wait, a historical parallel!