I don't know that anyone was really proposing a fair society really.
I also don't belive inheritance is a form of welfare. I'm not sure how bequething monies that one has earned to an heir is the same as state provided financial aid.
In my opinion the demand is that someone pull themselves up by their bootstraps but not that every generation have to do it. Most of our familes were poor immigrants at one time or another and if they succeed at the "American Dream" I don't think we should force their children to do the same.
I think most here aren't arguing against public assistance assuming limits and legitimate needs. I think it's more an objection to systemic abuse of what has become a "routine handout" based system.
'76 911S | '14 328xi | '17 GTI | In memoriam: '08 848, '85 944
"Here, at last, is the cure for texting while driving. The millions of deaths which occur every year due to the iPhone’s ability to stream the Kim K/Ray-J video in 4G could all be avoided, every last one of them, if the government issued everyone a Seventies 911 and made sure they always left the house five minutes later than they’d wanted to. It would help if it could be made to rain as well. Full attention on the road. Guaranteed." -Jack Baruth
I agree with everyone's sentiment especially the desire to give your kids a better life. However, I think you achieve that with teaching them to not be "fletching dick weasels." You don't necessarily have to leave several millions bucks behind for them.
chris Wrote:I think it's more an objection to systemic abuse of what has become a "routine handout" based system.
No one is going to disagree with that but you can't cut off the government tit without arming people with skills to find something else to do.
Thomas Sowell's Knowledge and Decisions is an awesome book that addresses this topic.
Inheritance is money not earned. Welfare is money not earned. One sort creates Paris Hiltons, the other creates lazy fucks. Neither group benefits society.
Two feet.
I would argue that there are far more lazy fucks in this world than Paris Hiltons. In other words, the good that comes of inheritance outpaces the bad while it's the reciprocal for welfare.
I'd also disagree that inheritance is money that isn't earned because it was earned by someone in their family.
Your solution would be to use it or lose it?
'76 911S | '14 328xi | '17 GTI | In memoriam: '08 848, '85 944
"Here, at last, is the cure for texting while driving. The millions of deaths which occur every year due to the iPhone’s ability to stream the Kim K/Ray-J video in 4G could all be avoided, every last one of them, if the government issued everyone a Seventies 911 and made sure they always left the house five minutes later than they’d wanted to. It would help if it could be made to rain as well. Full attention on the road. Guaranteed." -Jack Baruth
Ok, let's start from scratch again.
Ron Paul is for massive privatization. Health care. Education. Safety? Military. There's a lot in the news recently about blackwater and the privatization of the military and the possible implications about circumventing the constitution when it comes to going to war. The fact that there are more blackwater "employees" in Iraq than US soldiers is rather scary.
I live in an area where people have never met a Republican. They can't understand how it's ok for the executive branch to hire private military contractors without having them be subject to Army regulations, the Geneva convention, etc. I'm starting to agree. So, Ron Paul would fix this with a non-interventionist policy. Got it. Kinda...
Then, I read that he voted against denouncing Mugabe's humanitarian atrocities? I understand not intervening, but what does a denouncing cost? Time?
He seems to uphold that we are what we are because of our own ingenuity and not necessarily the sacrifice of other nations' resources. This doesn't jive to well with me. Help me understand.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul260.html">http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul260.html</a><!-- m --> - what do we do?
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://youtube.com/watch?v=1SW_1iA3-V8">http://youtube.com/watch?v=1SW_1iA3-V8</a><!-- m -->
edit: just sounds to me like an isolationist foreign policy.
JackoliciousLegs Wrote:edit: just sounds to me like an isolationist foreign policy.
I can't tell... is that a bad thing?
'76 911S | '14 328xi | '17 GTI | In memoriam: '08 848, '85 944
"Here, at last, is the cure for texting while driving. The millions of deaths which occur every year due to the iPhone’s ability to stream the Kim K/Ray-J video in 4G could all be avoided, every last one of them, if the government issued everyone a Seventies 911 and made sure they always left the house five minutes later than they’d wanted to. It would help if it could be made to rain as well. Full attention on the road. Guaranteed." -Jack Baruth
JackoliciousLegs Wrote:Then, I read that he voted against denouncing Mugabe's humanitarian atrocities? I understand not intervening, but what does a denouncing cost? Time?
Ron Paul is against anything that interferes in another nations affairs. I mean, all too often stuff like "denouncing" whatever is just the beginning of other actions. Furthermore, it doesn't do jack shit. SO why should we bother?
Frankly, I'm tired of the US being the world policeman.
But you asked what a denouncing costs. Our "denouncing" the turkish "genocide" has cost us a fucking lot. Turkey is pissed at us, they're ready to invade northern Iraq, and did it bring any armenians back from the dead? Fuck no. So why the fuck did we do it?
edit: PS, what's wrong with Military isolationism?
1987 Oldsmobile Cutlass 442
Apoc Wrote:JackoliciousLegs Wrote:edit: just sounds to me like an isolationist foreign policy. I can't tell... is that a bad thing? Military isolationism isn't necessarily a bad thing. Our job should not be the world policeman, as you said Rex. We can NOT stick our military anywhere just to protect our interests. There are times when we, as the largest global superpower, should use our financial influence to help people that can't help themselves. I'm not saying dump money into countries with corrupt leaders like RP mentions. There are just specific examples of where we can REALLY help. Uganda, for example, has a relatively simple problem in their northern region with rebels. We have enough money invested there to sway the government's decision on whether or not they want to negotiate with the rebels. It wouldn't take a military force to do this. Just the condemning words that you say do jack shit. Hell, it's already working.
I am opposed to the war in Iraq and always have been... but a policy of isolation will not work. I am positive of this. With ever increasing globalization, we (Americans) are leaders regardless of whether we'd like to be or not. Assuming that we can remain the global superpower while being isolationist is shortsighted at best.
To rephrase my question from earlier, how do we put a check on private organizations like blackwater? Do we? Why? Why not?
Something to watch while thinking.. <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/10192007/watch.html">http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/10192007/watch.html</a><!-- m -->
But Jack, who's pushing isolationism? Not Ron Paul, not by a long shot. His mantra is practically "friendship & trade" he just doesn't want to get involved in sovereign nations' business.
Look, part of the reason he opposes these things is that if he doesn't 100% agree with everything in a bill, he votes "No". It's a symbolic stand, if not a practical one.
And besides, isn't Uganda's problem...Uganda's problem? Answer me this: Is everything bad that happens in the world America's responsibility to help? This is exactly the kind of thing we've been involved in for the past 50 years and exactly the thing we shouldn't be involved in right now. Sure, this particular problem doesn't require a military action, but what if Uganda says "Oh, US, negotiations with the rebels (surprise surprise) didn't work out in Africa's longest lasting conflict. Will you give us guns and bombs and "military advisors" so we can better combat these rebels?"
C'mon Jack. The reason the "war on terror" even exists is because we fuck around in other nations internal affairs.
1987 Oldsmobile Cutlass 442
We have plenty of social responsibility opportunities here in America if we really feel obligated to help those less fortunate.
As cliche as it is I think it's as true as ever.
This recent link, provided by Mikey, comes to mind.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.donorschoose.org/about/about.html?zone=0">http://www.donorschoose.org/about/about.html?zone=0</a><!-- m -->
'76 911S | '14 328xi | '17 GTI | In memoriam: '08 848, '85 944
"Here, at last, is the cure for texting while driving. The millions of deaths which occur every year due to the iPhone’s ability to stream the Kim K/Ray-J video in 4G could all be avoided, every last one of them, if the government issued everyone a Seventies 911 and made sure they always left the house five minutes later than they’d wanted to. It would help if it could be made to rain as well. Full attention on the road. Guaranteed." -Jack Baruth
Anyone ever think that our vast worldly involvement has thrown "survival of the fittest" out of whack :lol: Sometime's other people's problems are just that....other people's problems. I know it sounds basic and harsh but I really do think its that simple.
|