OaktonSkins/BushFan Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 Originally posted by luckydevil How about the drug entitlement for seniors to start with. Or what about the recent initiative ( a 1.5 billion initative) to promote marriage Well, to be honest with you, the latter doesn't bother me too much. But you got me with the first - yes, that is very uncharacteristic of the Republican Party. With that said, history undoubtedly demonstrates that Democrats are the champions of the wel fare state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OaktonSkins/BushFan Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black The notion that the state can prevent people from starving by giving them food does not reek of ignorance, no matter how extreme your world view. I'm speaking of the welfare system as it exists today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OaktonSkins/BushFan Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black Lucky, you're bringing up two examples of countries in which total control of the economy was given to the state, which fixed prices and created enormous supply shortfalls. I'm talking about a social safety net. Tell me you see the difference. If you are in favor of the current state and system of welfare existing in this US, then you (wittingly or not) favor something beyond a safety net. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 Who was the last president to balance a budget? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 Lucky says that welfare subsidizes unemployment. I would predict that he does not believe in any form of welfare, including a basic safety net. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OaktonSkins/BushFan Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black Who was the last president to balance a budget? Personally, I prefer some equilibrium and parity in my comparisons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 Lucky, you're bringing up two examples of countries in which total control of the economy was given to the state, which fixed prices and created enormous supply shortfalls. I'm talking about a social safety net. Tell me you see the difference. I do. A social safety net that is destroying the very same people it is supposed to help. Never mind it violates individual rights. As for being called extreme... eh, I have been called worst. I will not compromise on liberty and if that’s considered extreme………then so be it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OaktonSkins/BushFan Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black Lucky says that welfare subsidizes unemployment. I would predict that he does not believe in any form of welfare, including a basic safety net. It does if welfare extends beyond the purposes and intent of a "basic social safety net". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 Lucky says that welfare subsidizes unemployment. I would predict that he does not believe in any form of welfare, including a basic safety net. I am not against private welfare, rather public welfare. I hope you understand the difference between the two Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OaktonSkins/BushFan Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 Originally posted by luckydevil I do. A social safety net that is destroying the very same people it is supposed to help. Lucky - How does short-term, limited government assistance in the form of welfare (and other benefits) "[destroy] the very same people it is supposed to help?" If you mean to say that the present and historical welfare system, whose design and practice actually creates a sub-culture of welfare, is a failure and does this, then I would agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 Sorry--public welfare. State-controlled welfare. Welfare in which everyone is forced to participate. Evil, socialist, wealth-redistributing welfare. I do see the difference, and I know that you're against the one and not the other. I didn't mean to insult you by calling you extreme (although I'm sure you meant to insult me by saying that a particular view "reeks of ignorance"). It is a fact that to be in favor of a night-watchman government is an extreme view in this day and age. There is a fundamental tension between liberty and equality, and you fall at one end of the spectrum in the debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OaktonSkins/BushFan Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 Originally posted by luckydevil I am not against private welfare, rather public welfare. I hope you see the difference between the two Originally posted by luckydevil I do. A social safety net that is destroying the very same people it is supposed to help. Never mind it violates individual rights. As for being called extreme... eh, I have been called worst. I will not compromise on liberty and if that’s considered extreme………then so be it. How does a limited and short-term public welfare system "destroy" its beneficiaries but the equivalent private system does not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 Originally posted by OaktonSkinsFan Lucky - How does short-term, limited government assistance in the form of welfare (and other benefits) "[destroy] the very same people it is supposed to help?" Watch out, OSF--you might be a COMMUNIST! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OaktonSkins/BushFan Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black Watch out, OSF--you might be a COMMUNIST! :laugh: Even conservatives like me have a heart, AtB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 It is a fact that to be in favor of a night-watchman government is an extreme view I prefer the term "radical". But you are right, sadly Thomas Jefferson(just one example) views of the government would be considered extreme by today's standards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 Virtue, then, is a state of character concerned with choice, lying in a mean, i.e. the mean relative to us, this being determined by a rational principle, and by that principle by which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect; and again it is a mean because the vices respectively fall short of or exceed what is right in both passions and actions, while virtue both finds and chooses that which is intermediate. Hence in respect of its substance and the definition which states its essence virtue is a mean, with regard to what is best and right an extreme. --Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 Odd---I think only socialists and fascists and assorted other totalitarians and authoritarians believe that somehow sliding into slavery is the NON-extreme position while freedom is "beyond the pale" of legitimate political thought. And that's Aristotle's belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 Which is Aristotle's belief--that slavery is nonextreme and freedom beyond the pale, or that only socialists and fascists think that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 Halt illegal aliens getting benefits and cut out incentives for unwed moms and dads to have more kids. What exactly is corporate welfare? Working out a deal so the mandates(hidden taxes) dont wreck your company? Or are you talking about the farm bill in which money goes to scottie pippens farm and some democrats? I'd love to see the end of welfare. Fear is a great motivator and it will change alot of the behaviour that has led to society excepting what is deivancy down. A program promoting a two parent straight family and making sure you are prepared for the hard times of marriage is a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 Perhaps this was missed. The bill does not mandate the number of children, but calls for a pamphlet to be distributed by Washington's health department spelling out the presumed benefits of having no more than two children. I don't think this is a particularly useful program. But I do take solace in the fact that the rightists here on board will grasp at anything to sling mud. Especially when they cannot take the time to read what was within the first 10 lines of the article. :gus: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OaktonSkins/BushFan Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 Originally posted by The Evil Genius Perhaps this was missed. I don't think this is a particularly useful program. But I do take solace in the fact that the rightists here on board will grasp at anything to sling mud. Especially when they cannot take the time to read what was within the first 10 lines of the article. :gus: EG - Talk about arrogance. Anyway, yes, that's exactly what I have a problem with; the government has no business getting involved with, either through mandate or being merely suggestive, population control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 Yes Oakton. God forbid the government pass out pamphlets on birth control, sex ed, and any other things that might produce lower birthrates. I mean, its better to have high birthrates right? More people to provide welfare too? More people to feed via subsidized farm programs? Sometimes, you guys scare me. I mean, did anyone bother to read that 1st part of the story? Or did we all just jump right into an Orwellian scare of population control by big government? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OaktonSkins/BushFan Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 Originally posted by The Evil Genius Yes Oakton. God forbid the government pass out pamphlets on birth control, sex ed, and any other things that might produce lower birthrates. I mean, its better to have high birthrates right? More people to provide welfare too? More people to feed via subsidized farm programs? Sometimes, you guys scare me. I mean, did anyone bother to read that 1st part of the story? Or did we all just jump right into an Orwellian scare of population control by big government? many things to address in that statement, EG. But, for starters, don't you think that there is a diference between the intent of those programs and what this senator is proposing? Please tell me you don't think that the purpose of birth control is population control. :doh: " I mean, its better to have high birthrates right? More people to provide welfare too? More people to feed via subsidized farm programs?" -EG Yes, the Left has never had much faith in his fellow man. It's almost always assumed that they will always require the parenting of the government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 Yes, the Left has never had much faith in his fellow man. It's almost always assumed that they will always require the parenting of the government. Oakton Oakton Oakton. :gus: What would you call the moral majority's objectives? Government parenting us with forced morals (censoring the airwaves, ban on gay marriages, etc.) Looks like both parties fringe groups are guilty, huh? The problem with this thread - it that the main issue (the legislators bill to hand on pamphlets on the benefits of having no more than 2 kids somehow got equated to population control. If I handed out (of the government more accurately) handed out pamplets on the benefits of being a Redskins fan. Would that mean that the government was trying to force everyone to be a Redskins fan? Get back to me when you see your error. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.