Indeed they are...yet you were citing election results and the authority of the majority....when it suited your argument, anyway..

Didn't say he was stupid. I said losing him would not be a great loss...and I used the plural "Clintons". Getting a big scholarship isn't evidence of genius so much as political acumen, which Slick Willy certainly does have. Gates isn't stupid either, but he's certainly not a genius. And Fisher sure looks like an idiot savant from here.

You show me where the constitution empowers the government to redistribute the wealth of people who "have too much". You keep playing this shell game between "the government should do it" and then when pressed for the source of that authority you fall back on "Oh, but the gluttons should do it on their own...that they don't is evidence of exactly how evil they really are."

I'm not willing to chase you around that bush yet again; this is where I came in.

You can't feed large groups of the homeless in public parks in Dallas or Orlando. Let's keep our facts straight.

And those higher on the ladder don't need the increased income, the lower paid ones do.

If you want to see income distributed on the basis of need (however you calculate *that*), you'll have to go someplace with a different economic system. Let us know how you make out...if you can find a computer there. Maybe you should take one with you, and hope nobody there "needs" it more than you do.

I believe that poor people have no entitlement to the money that other people made fair and square, but I also believe that people with the ability to do so should help others as much as they can, every chance they get.

You are right, Maggie. I did get sidetracked, responding to your heartless assertions. I still beleive that, for those who want to be a productive part of society, there have to be jobs that will make their quality of life better having a job than being on welfare, and that increased income needs to come from the folks who already make a lot of money. For those who absolutely cannot hold a job that will support their family's basic needs, there needs to be a safety net. It seems to make sense for government to provide that safety net. If you would like to set up a system of private providers, have at it. There must be a mechanism to weed out those who can, but choose not to be a productive member of society.

"General Welfare"

BTW, why don't you bitch about the redistributing everybody's wealth, whether we have too much, or not enough, to programs like the Osprey? You have this phobia about people getting something that they didn't earn, I have issues with the defense department pissing away millions, with virtually nothing to show for it but failure and dead bodies. What makes your "general welfare" different from my "general welfare"?

Off topic, snide, pointless, draws conclusion that was not inferred, and typically Maggie.

You assert that there is a need, but you want "somebody else" to meet that need...because there "has to be a solution", and then when somebody doesn't do it for you they're all evil, greedy, heartless gluttons. Honest, it's not the government's job to meet every need.
.

Helping others is admirable...but remeber not every charitable act is actually "help".

You have to examine actions intended to help to make sure that they don't have negative unintended consequences. A heroin junkie may have a "need" for a fix...but is giving him one "helping" him? Especially if you're not intending to supply him with heroin for life? Fair minds could differ. It is not by accident that physicians have the aphorism: "first, do no harm".

Government agencies in particular are not at all good at examining the consequences of their actions, and a value judgement as to what is "help" in any given case must stand up to scrutiny later in a court of law, to respond to a complaint of "discrimination" if you don't give citizen X exactly what you gave citizen Y.

"...provide for the common defense..."

Not at all pointless. My point is that you're taking "need" as an absolute requirement that the government, somebody else, or some magical Mommy In The Sky must respond to, like the kindergarden child who has discovered that "it's not fair!" is a plausible objection to any outcome he doesn't like and reason to invoke debate.

Were you really born in 1959, as your profile claims?

The real inroads into the educational system by the socialists really started stacking up a couple years later than that, but Spexx is within the demographic ...

And your solution seems to be "I'm too greedy to help them, I say let them rot!".

It's not my job to meet every need either, and that doesn't make me "greedy". Since you think this is so important, come up with a solution that isn't fueled by confiscating things that belong to other people, or throwing a tantrum and calling them names when their priorites don't align with yours.

Ya think? My younger brother was born in '58, but he doesn't seem to have this problem. Not that every generation doesn't have it's "under 30 socialists", but geez...Spexxvet was 30 allegedly 15 years ago.

Sorry, I forgot that your behavior is my fault. Look what I made you do! It's not fair!

By taking my hard earned money? I don't think so...:p

17, but who needs math skills anymore?

Maybe it's not generational. Maybe it's the difference between compassionate people and those who aren't.

Which words blame you? Are you a professional word-twister, or is it just your way of trying to win an argument when your facts and rationale don't cut it?

You blamed "getting sidetracked" on my "heartless assertions". As for whose arguments are holding up better, all I hear is unsupported assertions, wishful thinking, socialist cant, circular logic and namecalling/ad hominems.

Maggie, you continue to say "my money". If people behaved the way I think they should, raising the standard of living for low wage workers would not take any of "your" money - unless of course you happen to be a filthy rich wealth glutton.

So stop typing them.;)

No, I chose to respond to your assertions - you didn't make me do anything, just as I declared and inferred nothing different. Hope that clears things up for you. Do you always interpret statements this erroneously?

OK, you were two years *past* thirty 15 years ago. More's the pity. And you'll get credit for being "compassionate" when you stop wanting to do it with other people's money.

The "Pee-Wee Herman" school of argumentation.

Yeah, it's really incompassionate to encourage someone to drive a Caddy instead of a Mercedes, so his/her employees can upgrade from a 10 year old ford to a 5 year old Dodge. :mad:

Using words like 'heartless' in your accusations mean nothing and are appeals to wayward emotionalism, not logic. Wouldn't it be far more useful to provide education on how to avoid being stuck in a $10/hr job and just let people decide for themselves where they want to sit in society? Aid for certain classifications of injury is workable, but with stipulations about moving to a new type of work that the injury doesn't inhibit. As a last resort the only thing that I could see working would be a sort of large dormitory style housing project complete with integrated/mandetory schools for the children. I can rationalize myself donating a roof, running water, and a bed, but not anything more. A tiered system along these lines would catch the people with the ambition and will to improve their situation, the rest can freeze according to their own choice.

I know you are, but what am I? :p

Make up your mind: are you espousing charity, or advocating cooercive wealth redistribution? Because that "glutton" namecalling won't attract much philanthropy.

It's in the Constitution; that's the contract.

Nowhere does it say anything about "taking money from people Spexxvet thinks have too much to give it to people Spexxvet thinks deserve it more".

Maggie, do you think the disparity of rich to poor is good for our society?

Edit: yes or no, only.

Sorry, I don't do requests.

The only alternative to a "disparity between rich and poor" would be everybody having equal wealth. I do not think that would be a good thing for our society.

You are probably right; however, what do you think about narrowing the gap? What do you think about a system whereby the people at the bottom are not actually in the gutter and the wealthy could stay wealthy?

I design "systems" for a living, in a environments with many fewer political oxen to be gored. They are like big factories for unintended consquences. Governmental mucking about with the economy to implement sombody's notion of "fairness" or "equitability" doesn't work; it's like trying to deal with blood pressure instability by installing a spigot in your aorta.

If you're unhappy with how the government does defense, do you think they'd do a better job managing your wealth?

But our poor aren't actually in the gutter - use marichico as an example... she has her own place, an suv, a computer with net access, a purebred showdog etc etc...

I grew up in suburban, middle class, mostly white neighborhoods with good schools. The number of my peers, even relatives, that are on state assistance of some kind is very frightening to me. I don't see a whole lot of "compassion" involved in letting people born on 3rd base raise the next generation on welfare - which is what I think Maggie has been saying over and over again....

The people at the bottome are not in the gutter, it takes lifelong irresponsibility to do that. The U.S. has one of the most well established middle classes of any country in the world, it's absolutely rediculous to say that we are divided into a rich class who wallow in luxury and a destitute class that is trapped and struggling to survive. I add the word 'trapped' to that because it's crucial to the idea that the poorest need active help. If they were not trapped in that fate through no fault of their own, then their plight will not garner sympathy. The small population of very poor in the U.S. is not trapped, everyone is provided the opportunity to live comfortably if they choose to make the choices necessary at the proper times in their lives. It starts in highschool, not once they've partied away their 20's. Jobs change as well and it's not an excuse to say "well my dad made a good living putting wigets together". The world has moved on, adapt.

We have now several generations of urban poor whose entire culture has been shaped by the welfare state, disincentives to build two-parent families, and a constant subliminal environmental message: that because you are a poor member of a racial minority that you cannot survive without a government handout, and the only way to succeed is to be a sports star, rapper or gangsta (or maybe all three), and the best route to a meaningful life as a woman is to get pregnant before leaving high school.

This was all done with the very best of progressive liberal intentions, rooted in a desire to elmiminate poverty and driven by intense guilt about the inequities of the past. It's surely no accident that the epitome of this "war of poverty" was a US president from Texas, born into rural white poverty in the deep South, elected to Congress during the Great Depression, and thrust into the leadership as a combat hero of World War II.

He meant well...and died long before the "unintended consequences" of his Great Society policies could be appreciated.

So is insinuating that homeless people are lazy or just playing the system.

Someone will always be stuck in a minimum wage job. KFC won't go away just because the entire world has an MBA, or MBAs will be working at KFC for minimum wage. That is unless the executives choose to make less, so that the front line workers can make more.

Thank you for some constructive input.

You're right that low income jobs will not disappear no matter what percentage of the population has a good education. But lets approach this from a slightly different angle. By saying "KFC's not going anywhere, so we'll always need people to hand us our chicken" you are acknowledging that people are going to want their chicken, but who says it needs to be people handing it out? We could easily switch over to a completely automated chicken distribution system run by one or two technicians who would be making better wages than the 'you want fries with that' people. (Anyone else think of Monty Python-esque extrapolations when they see 'automated chicken distribution system' :D). Same goes for many other low wage positions, not all, but we can make a start. Automation inflates wages, lets get creative.

Everybody is playing the system.

That's why you want a system with natural energy flows, as opposed to a social engineering patchboard machine responding to the feel-good impulse du jour. Tinkering to creating a niche with an unconditional permanent food source creates unconditional permanent inhabitants.