My Dad gave me "The Christmas Sweater" for XMAS. It's about a boy who wanted a bike for XMAS but the family was poor, because dad had recently died and so mom couldn't afford the bike. So the kid got a hand knit sweater. And he thinks "Just ____ing great" But the story is about family and love and appreciating what you have. But about my point for writing this thread; The book is written in the first person perspective of the young son of the family. And the father, whom I just said had recently died, owned a bakery. Apparantly, dad was quite inventive and did pretty well, but they weren't rich by any means. So one day an old lady, Mrs. Olsen, comes in to buy a loaf of bread. And the baker, the daddy, tries to give her some treats, some cookies, some cake, on the house. But she won't accept any of it. Finally she relented, took her free treats and paid for her bread with food stamps. The boy says "Dad, that's not money" and gets a stern command to get in the back of the store. Thus the boy learns that there are people that need help from the government and the government gives them food stamps. So several days later another customer comes in and buys a few things and again pays with food stamps. But this time dad is aloof, not friendly. So the kid asks "Dad, what's up? Why not friendly like with Mrs. Olsen?" And dad says "I know that man son, he is able to work and chooses not to. Anyone who can earn money has no business taking it from others. The government is there to act as a safety net, not a candy machine" (Now, I only put quotations to indicate where the characters were speaking. I may have missed, or combined some of Beck's actual quotations, but I am pretty damn close.) And that is the sentiment of us conservatives we are willing to help the people in need, like Mrs. Olsen. In the book her husband had just died. She was old and I think she walked with a cane, so she was hardly able to walk, let alone work. But she was like my grandmother who refuses to accept a wheelchair at the airport even though the service is free and the walk is a long way. Both old ladies like to think they can do it themselves, and don't like to ask for help, but we conservatives will be more than happy to help when needed. On the other hand, THAT MAN could work. There are plenty of people that don't need the government's help, they can work, they can get what they need on their own. I am not willing to help them. I am not willing to pay for them whether it be Obama Care, food stamps, medicaid, or mortgage assistance Liberals like to say that conservatives are cold hearted. No we're not, we just aren't push overs, we aren't wasteful spenders (Bush was NOT a conservative). I think liberals are sheep that actually believe the nonsense coming out of government. Like the baker said. "Government is meant to be a safety net, not a candy store." So we should be getting our services throught the free market system, and if that fails, then have the government as a backup. Now, I may not be much of an arguer, alot of times I don't have the knowledge to counter an argument. But I challenge liberals to argue this sentiment. If you don't believe what I am saying, then you don't believe in the fundamental backbone of the American System Zoomie, Number6, Aristarle, MadCapSyd etc; What do you have to say? (Ari, I'll forgive you for not knowing about the constitution, cuz aren't you from Ontario?) Can you possibly argue that what is being done is within bounds of the Constitution of the USA? Can you argue against the point that the government is meant to be a safety net and not a place where we can go get what we want. PressedRat and ConfederateRebel I'm curious to hear what you have to say as well. Don't even think about comparing Bush to Obama, because I didn't like Bush either. But while Bush was an ineffective Lap dog. Obama is a screaming Rottweiler. They are not the same party, Pressed_Rat.
Can you say what is being done is not within the bounds of the constitution of the United States? Jesus if the federal government was only allowed to exactly what it says, there'd be no freakin government. A government in 2009 can not work in the same way one in 1789 did. The constitution is a set of guaranteed freedoms and the make up of how the federal government is to run and work, not the blueprint for every federal program. Government is meant as a safety net, which is what most people use it for. You want to crucify a whole system because some people abuse it. There are some pretty corrupt and abusive cops out there, should we dismantle the police forces of every major city? People don't return books to libraries, vandalize buses and trains, should we dismantle all public transportation? In that story above, there's a number for welfare fraud, maybe the baker should've called it.
Right and there is the general welfare clause, which Pelosi and the liberals take WAY to liberally. and there is the abillity to write an amendment to the constitution. Which they are not willing to do. Where in the constitution does it say that I MUST purchase health care insuranse. Obviously the originaly writers of the constitution had no way to predict Car, Airplanes, Ipod, and the internet. But we have rules regulating each one of those and each one of those laws involves other people or their property. That kind of law is prescribed for somewhere in the constitution, I can't remember where. This health care bill involves individual people, their individual rights and their individual freedoms. Where in the constitution does it say that I have to pay for health insurance if I believe in eastern buddist medicine and acupuncture and all that to cure what ails me. Corrupt cops, over due library books and graffiti on buses have nothing to do with what we are talking about. And all that kind of makes my point. Corrupt cops; they are everywhere, in many small cities and towns. And I'll bet its hard to fire them, because I know it's hard to fire teachers. And they are wasteful to the government, because the government will pay the bills whatever they are, the government is gonna sign that check. But, if you are corrupt and working for a corporation or small company and you ain't right, you gone. Unless you got Madoff kinda money, then you can stay. And that ain't right, either, but that is a different argument. Let's say you don't return a movie to blockbuster and another movie to the library. Both have fees adding up. One of the two actually has bills to pay. And they are going to get their money The other, if you don't pay meh. . . we'll get it from the county. Taxpayers will pay it. And Vandalism is bad everywhere. How does that make your point? All I'm saying is that the more government intrudes the more things get messed up. No government would be bad, too. No parks, no buses, no hospitals for the poor, the roads would suck, etc. But when government gets to big and gets involved where its not needed, then things get all fucked up and we get government paying $18,000 ti paint townhall. I'd paint it for $1000.
Do you think you'll still be posting here No. (ok, it's not in context but that was his last post - dated: 08-20-2009, 07:20 AM ) Chances of him posting here: Slim.
If you don't see how those apply then you're missing the point completely. All of them are public services provided with no direct constitutional authority that have massive waste problems. Also, tax payers front the bill as it is already for medical care for the uninsured. Yes, you don't want to admit it, but really this bill changes nothing, ER's can't deny treatment to people who need it, and generally most people without insurance don't have it because they can't afford it, and even private hospitals get state money. Mandating people to buy insurance isn't about protecting you individually, it's the same reason you can't drive a car without insurance, if everyone is protected it helps cut the costs for everyone so people on all different ends don't get fucked when someone has $35,000 in damage to deal with. If we're arguing the health care bill is some kind of gross infringement of rights because it makes you buy health insurance, that's just asinine. Mandatory physicals and shots required for access into public schools are a greater violation of your personal freedoms. This doesn't effect your rights, it effects the world's most over bloated health care system in the fact if you fall of a roof, and need $120,000 worth of medical care, now it's guaranteed to be covered. You fail to get with the times, the constitution is a document which protects are basic human rights, guess what in the 21st century every other industrialized country considered health care a basic human right.
I find it strange that conservatives get so bent out of shape when government intrudes, but they give every mega-corporation that is fucking with us a pass.
You say that conservatives aren't wasteful spenders. This doesn't ring true. The reason liberals say that conservatives are cold-hearted is that every single time conservatives try to cut "waste", they try to cut money that is actually helping the poor. I can't remember the last time conservatives went after the waste that is helping the rich, such as military spending, NASA, the Farm Bill, and subsidies to the oil, coal, and nuclear industries.
Glenn Beck is rumored to have raped and murdered a kid back in 1990. Beck does not admit to it, but he also does not deny it. http://digg.com/politics/Glenn_Beck_Raped_And_Murdered_A_Girl_In_1990
I don't think you are a good conservative if you believe in using the government as a safety net for good people or bad people. That sounds a lot like the new deal or government subsidised health care to me...which I think isn't hated by many conservatives just because it's abused by fraud, but because it is government intervening where it shouldn't in their minds. I also don't think that a sane liberal is in support of fraud when it comes to government programs. I think sane liberals believe the government is people getting together to do things that they can't do as individuals, like providing safety nets for when individuals have financial or health problems. I think a lot of people get it wrong (liberals and conservatives) when they believe liberalism is about giving things to people as charity. It's about helping people by providing a structure of insurance like unemployment benefits, welfare, disability for when people need it. It's about structuring things so that it is fair, and people get what they deserve for their hard work. It's about structuring the economy and government so that everyone has a fair shot at living a healthy life, getting a good job, and having a good education whether they are born rich or poor. This is opposed to thinking that the people with the most money deserve the most power and best access to the government in the form of structuring the economy, law, and government to make sure they hold onto their money and power. This is in opposition to the belief that the American dream is about being 1000s of times more wealthy than the average person, and hiring people for minimum wage to clean your house and watch your kids. The American dream used to be about having a modest home, contributing to society as best you could, and helping make sure that others had the chance to do the same. I don't think that will satisfy people any more. Glen Beck plays on the hatred people feel for not getting a piece of this new super rich American dream, with his histrionics and insincere showmanship, and tries to get them to target it towards anyone who doesn't want to make the richer more rich. He is twisting things in that story to try to say conservatives are for government programs and helping the poor, as long as they are for good folks...and liberals are for giving all our money to lazy people who are bad and unlike the hard working folks.....this is not the case. Rather than a story, make sure you look at what policy conservatives and liberals have supported. It's about the policy and law, not the messages. Conservatives do not support government safety nets.
But isn’t that the big problem? In good times the ‘free market’ system milks the profits which go to a few and the rest get little or nothing and when that system inevitable fails the majority of the people (government) have to bail it out and have to pay for it in taxes for years
How do you know? How does the ‘dad’ know that the man is a malingerer? It’s the old self serving idea (“I am not willing to pay for them” meaning – ‘more money for me’) of the deserving and undeserving poor and the same old question still remains - who decides who deserves or doesn’t deserve help? It’s easy with little old ladies with a cane (although prior to the 1930’s they didn’t get state assistance), it becomes a lot harder for others and would often come down to personal prejudice or bias. Are single parents worthy of help? What about an unmarried woman who got pregnant after a drunken night and doesn’t know who the father was, is she as worthy as a woman who lost her husband in Afghanistan? Or are the circumstances irrelevant the important thing being the child? And is claiming unemployment benefit as bad in a recession when businesses are laying off and not hiring as in a booming economy when there are many jobs? And who decides when an economy is good or bad? And what if someone is working and claiming benefits? I mean in the US there are working people that get such low wages that they are eligible for medicaid and food stamps. http://www.daytondailynews.com/news...caid-food-stamp-rolls-report-says-323224.html Also try reading ‘Nickel and Dimed’ by Barbara Ehrenreich ** ‘There are plenty of people that are capable of working but who are not working and instead claiming benefits’ The reaction of most right wingers to such a statement is to call for the cutting of the benefits to force people off them and into work. But my reaction is to ask questions. Like why are they not working? Most people given the choice between living on meagre benefits or having a job with a decent living wage would choose the living wage. Unemployment benefits are traditionally low in the US and UK, but even in countries with very good benefits most people want to work. I mean ask most people if they would voluntarily give up there well paid job to go and live on benefits and they wouldn’t jump at the chance I know I wouldn’t (I’ve been on unemployment benefits and it stinks). So are there jobs with decent living wages? If people would have a cut in their standard of living if they came off benefits, because the wages available are so low (see above) then doesn’t that mean that the wages are too low rather than the benefits been too high? And if benefits are cut (or removed) it would seem to me that the only beneficiary would be exploitative employers who’d be able to boost their corporate profits by paying ultra low wages (and of course business interests often finance right wing political groups). * Thing is you claim that you are not willing to help certain people or pay for them, well there are about 4 million recipients of unemployment benefits in the US at the moment. So once again how do you decide which ones deserve help and which ones don’t you couldn’t visit all of them yourself so in what way is the decision made? Or are you claiming all 4m are malingerers do deserve no help whatsoever no matter of circumstance?
