Shared sacrifice?

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by mpholland

Meaning after my motgage payment, truck payment, and child support are paid I have just about enough left for cable and food. I don't see why I should go to work for 50 hours/week to pay for more handouts from the government to others, whether they be homeless people or multi-billion dollar corporations.

Your mortgage and truck payments were assumed voluntarily and are owed to entities in the private sector. If they're onerous, then you have only to look to yourself as the guilty party and this is no excuse for turning your back on everyone else.

Your child support obligation is for your kid(s). Again, no governmental connection.

Food is a necessity of life. Cable isn't unless you consider that you can't survive without Fox News.

We live in a society. We are not a hodge podge collection of individuals with no obligation to one another. We have a societal obligation to help those who are less fortunate (the homeless, to use your example). Of course, there's a pragmatic side to that as well. By helping the homeless we mitigate the problems they cause: petty crime and blight.

Through government we also, at least potentially, have the opportunity of ameliorating the conditions that result in problems like homelessness. The private sector will never do that. It's simply not in their interest to do so and we'd be fools to rely on altruism from that quarter. (Greenspan's "optimum level of worker insecurity" comes to mind.)

I agree totally about handouts to billionaires. Why, then, do you favor the party which is obsessed with doing just that?

John

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Zeke

I grok.

I'm spouting a lot of Iacocca today but, in his first year at Chrysler when he was restructuring and everyone was hurting, he lowered his annual salary to $1.

That's leadership. (And he got FAT on the back end that was earned.)

Paraphrased, he believed folks can/will sacrifice a LOT if done equitably.

I agree.

But Republicans would never let that happen.

Hey, Mittens could do that, right? I mean he's so freakin rich! It ain't like he needs the bread! That would show everyone what a leader he is!

John

[BlueStreak]

Beautiful, John.

Thanks.

Dave

[barbara]

Yes, John, very well stated.
I can't understand for the llife of me why the party of "personal responsiblity" can't see that helping those less fortunate IS a PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!!!

[merrylander]

"I shall pass through this world but once. If, therefore, there be any kindness I can show, or any good thing I can do, let me do it now; let me not defer it or neglect it, for I shall not pass this way again." Etienne de Grellet.

Works for me.

[mpholland]

Liberal thinking underwhelms me. The fact that we have a responsibility to those less fortunate is not in dispute. The part I dispute is that the government should be doing it. Back in the days before Government ran everything, the country did fairly well living at an average 8% income tax and letting private entities such as the Red Cross, churches, families, local missions, etc. take care of social problems. Ever since the Government stepped in and decided that they could do a better job our tax rate has steadily increased and the social problems have increased exponentially. As far as I am concerned, any time the government decides to do any kind of job all they do is throw a bunch of money at it and wonder why it doesn't go away. If they stayed out of 90% of the shit they have their hands in, the country would be in a lot better shape. If you truly believe in that type of government, why don't you just move to where one already exists and quit trying to change this one?

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by mpholland

Back in the days before Government ran everything, the country did fairly well living at an average 8% income tax and letting private entities such as the Red Cross, churches, families, local missions, etc. take care of social problems.

Well, if you take into account that the "solution" was typically death...

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by mpholland

Liberal thinking underwhelms me. The fact that we have a responsibility to those less fortunate is not in dispute. The part I dispute is that the government should be doing it. Back in the days before Government ran everything, the country did fairly well living at an average 8% income tax and letting private entities such as the Red Cross, churches, families, local missions, etc. take care of social problems. Ever since the Government stepped in and decided that they could do a better job our tax rate has steadily increased and the social problems have increased exponentially. As far as I am concerned, any time the government decides to do any kind of job all they do is throw a bunch of money at it and wonder why it doesn't go away. If they stayed out of 90% of the shit they have their hands in, the country would be in a lot better shape. If you truly believe in that type of government, why don't you just move to where one already exists and quit trying to change this one?

Is this comment a parody? "America, Love or Leave it." Is that really your attitude? Do you still think we should be living in a segregated society where women can't vote and we still have polio and we're earth bound? Should schools still be separate and unequal? Do we need workers to live in company towns and shop at the company store? Should we go back to the days when the average life expectancy was 55 years - back when old folks had the courtesy to die from easily treatable conditions?

People work for change. People die for change. Our society has improved in innumerable ways over the past decades, because people have loved their country enough to fight to overcome greed and prejudice. There are those, however, who long for the past, when the little people knew their places. Is that the future that you want for your kids?

Regards,

D-Ray

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by mpholland

The fact that we have a responsibility to those less fortunate is not in dispute. The part I dispute is that the government should be doing it. Back in the days before Government ran everything, the country did fairly well living at an average 8% income tax and letting private entities such as the Red Cross, churches, families, local missions, etc. take care of social problems.

What's your vision of how all this would work today, exactly?

John

[mpholland]

Nice of you to put words in my mouth. I never mentioned racism or prejudice. I mentioned the fact that the government has become far too involved in my day to day life, and if I wanted to live in a so************************t country, I would move to one. All I see is the government spending money it doesn't have on subsidies, social programs, and renewable energy. Subsidies create artificial markets and stifle competition. Limited social programs for the truly needy could easily be accomodated by the private sector, and renewable energy would be embraced by the private sector as soon as it pencils out on paper. Kind of funny you can't even spell out so************************m in here.