Gov. Howard Dean / Rep. Ron Paul in 2004?

[CaesarI]

The accumulation of wealth by a smaller and smaller group of individuals in this country in recent history has been unparalleled.

HA! Wrong! Bill Gates individual wealth, as a percentage of our GDP is miniscule in comparison to that of Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan, etc.

Oh... and I don't have anything against those so called "Robber Barons" either. Class warfare, plain and simple. You've been fed Socialist rhetoric.

'course bein' rich don't make you smart. e.g. Warren Buffett, George Soros et al.

-Morgan

 

[w4rma]

'Course... all Howard Dean (or any presidential candidate with a snowball's chance in hell) would have to do to get my vote is: promise to repeal the USA PATRIOT Act.

Sign the Petition to Stop Ashcroft

John Ashcroft and the Bush Administration want to erode the civil rights and freedoms that are vital to the American ideal. They are advocating laws that break down the trust between communities, and using fear and inflammatory rhetoric to divide us.

On August 19th, John Ashcroft begins a national tour promoting an extension of the USA PATRIOT Act. We need your help to make a strong statement to stop John Ashcroft from doing more damage to the bill of rights.

As Americans, we have a long standing tradition of defending not only our own liberties and civil rights, but also standing up for equal rights for all.

Show America the depth of our commitment to basic civil rights: add your name to the Stop Ashcroft petition, and pass it on to your friends, family, and co-workers. We will deliver your names and your comments to the Attorney General.

To John Ashcroft:

Stop compromising our freedoms. Stop eroding our basic civil rights. Stop trying to teach our neighbors to spy on each other, and American communities to mistrust each other.

I will not stand for your using fear to threaten what it means to be an American.

The rule of law and due process are at the heart of the American tradition. There is no contradiction between protecting the country from terrorism and ensuring the protection of our basic civil liberties every step of the way.

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/...shcroft&JServSessionIdr002=egzno4osu1.app193a

The accumulation of wealth by a smaller and smaller group of individuals in this country in recent history has been unparalleled.

The top 1% wealthiest households in America own at least 38.1% of all the wealth in America. The Great Depression happened when 44.2% of all the wealth in America was owned by the top 1%.

The bottom 90% of American households own less than 30% of America's wealth.
The bottom 40% of American households own 0.2% of America's wealth.

http://www.ufenet.org/research/wealth_charts.html

Big buisnesses (owned by those in the top 1%) are running small buisnesses out of buisness. Big buisnesses are now leaving the country and taking their wealth with them. Run a small buisness and you have to pay high taxes. Run a big one and you can incorporate in the Cayman Islands, thereby avoiding federal taxes, and shop around in all 50 states for the one that will pay the board members the most to move there.

Treasury Chief: Tax Evasion Is on the Rise

 

[CaesarI]

And that's where you lost me

Sorry Mr Dean supporter (w4rma). Your class warfare protestations just lost my vote.

The top 1% wealthiest households in America own at least 38.1% of all the wealth in America. The Great Depression happened when 44.2% of all the wealth in America was owned by the top 1%.

And this is supposed to somehow PROVE that concentrating wealth in the hands of a few people is bad? Statistics 101: Correlation != Causation.

And then this "big business = Bad" nonsense. You're preachin' on the wrong forum.

I'll back you on Ashcroft, but other than that we've nothing in common. As Dean has FAILED to indicate he would repeal the USA PATRIOT Act, I won't vote for his commie butt either.
"I will oppose expansion of the Patriot Act, efforts to remove sunset clauses included in the act, and I will seek to repeal the portions of the Patriot Act that are unconstitutional."*

I like this one: "I will appoint an Attorney General who sees our constitution not as a document to be manipulated, ignored, and violated, but who recognizes and respects it as the fabric that binds the American community together."
Except then he has this one too: "I will support affirmative action, from which we have all benefited, because it has strengthened our institutions and provided opportunity." which means he doesn't believe in the constitution.

Oh... and what does this "Create a fairer and simpler system of taxation." mean? Reading between the lines.... I'd say more taxes on people who produce wealth at greater rates than others.

"Assure that Social Security and Medicare are adequately funded to meet the needs of the next generation of retirees." Hmm... where's Social Security in the Constitution Dean?

And then quoting you:

the 2nd Am is there to make sure the govt doesnt get too big for its britches

Not just government. You need to think more broadly, IMHO. the 2nd Am is there to make sure that *any* concentration of power doesn't get too big:

Hmm.... so are you advocating taking up arms against those evil rich overlords? Hmm.... walks like a socialist, talks like a socialist...


And the coup de grace:

I believe the federal gun laws we have -- like the Brady Bill -- are important, and I would veto any attempt to repeal or gut them. The Assault Weapons Ban expires next year, and it should be renewed.

-Morgan

 

[w4rma]

"Assure that Social Security and Medicare are adequately funded to meet the needs of the next generation of retirees." Hmm... where's Social Security in the Constitution Dean?

If you think the Social Security program should be dismantled. If you don't care one whit about folks who are over the age of 65. If you are happy watching your grandparents and then your parents work in Wal-Mart (essentially a Red Chinese retail outlet), until the day they die, as greeters for minimum wage and no health benefits after being hung out to dry, then your vote was never had to be lost.

Oh... and what does this "Create a fairer and simpler system of taxation." mean?

At his meeting with reporters from USA TODAY and Gannett News Service, Howard Dean fired a string of zingers at President Bush:

• "His view of life starts at about $250,000 a year and goes up."

• "I think the president's philosophy is that if you're rich, you deserve it, and if you're poor, you deserve it."
…
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/2003-10-16-zingers-usat_x.htm

'We Can Do Better' by Howard Dean
…
We can do better. As president, my economic policies will be focused and clear. I will begin by repealing the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, and using the revenues that result from the repeal to address the needs of the average American, invest in the nation's infrastructure and, through tax reform, put money in the hands of those most likely to spend it.

The task of meeting the needs of American families begins with health care. My plan will not only insure millions of Americans who are without adequate care today, it will reduce costs for small business, states and communities--freeing up funds that can be used to grow businesses and meet other national and local priorities.

An important part of my program for a full-employment recovery will be extending a helping hand to states and communities. My policies as governor kept Vermont strong fiscally; but all over America, the financial resources of other states and cities are strained to the limit. Teachers are being laid off, highways lack repairs, firehouses are closed. Instead of tax cuts that have not created jobs, we need to make investments in America. I will increase federal aid for special education, and provide more temporary help to the states--for homeland security and school construction and infrastructure modernization. And I will increase the availability of capital for small businesses, so that they can invest in new technology and create more jobs.

No program for economic recovery and growth can ignore the tax system, particularly the bizarre collection of tax expenditures, preferences, credits and deductions which has directed revenues away from the federal treasury and into uneconomic tax avoidance schemes. Average Americans pay their taxes through withholding or quarterly estimates. Meanwhile, corporations and multinational enterprises take advantage of elaborate tax shelters, and billions go uncollected. The need for reform is obvious and compelling, and I will give tax reform a top priority in my administration. But unlike the tax initiatives of the current president, my program of tax reform and relief will be targeted to the average Americans who are struggling to make ends meet--not those whose needs are well provided for.
…
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003920

…
On trade:

"We're hemorrhaging manufacturing jobs. I was a supporter of both NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) and China's entry into the WTO (World Trade Organization) for strategic geopolitical reasons. But those agreements are written to favor multinational corporations at the expense of working people both in other countries and here. ... I believe that trade also requires human rights and labor standards and environmental standards that are concurrent around the world.

"For us to be exporting manufacturing jobs to countries that don't enforce child labor laws if they have them, and have no occupational safety and health laws, have no worker protection, don't allow free association and trade unionization, that's not fair trade, and it's not good for either the workers in those other countries or for our workers. I'm not in the camp of let's repeal NAFTA and WTO. But those organizations have to be significantly and substantially altered."
…
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/2003-10-16-dean-excerpts-usat_x.htm

Reclaiming the American Dream (An economic policy speech from Dean)
http://images.deanforamerica.com/docs/031016.speech.pdf

Dean Interview on Capitol Report Regarding His Economic Plan
http://deanforamerica.servehttp.com/DeanOnCapitolReport-101603-Lite.wmv

Hmm.... so are you advocating taking up arms against those evil rich overlords?

Are you advocating taking up arms against the United States government?

Well, I'm not advocating taking up arms against multinational corporations. However, I do think that Americans need to stay armed in part to keep **ANY** conglomeration of power, either the government or an overseas/domestic economic (or otherwise) power, that would take control over the United States government and therefore our armed forces.

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson

And the coup de grace:

Bush Supports New Extension Of Assault-Weapons Ban
http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Apr/04122003/nation_w/47311.asp
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/891827/posts

Bush Backs Renewing Assault Weapons Ban
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11013-2003Apr11.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/891697/posts

…
Let's keep and enforce the federal gun laws we have, close the gun show loophole using Insta-check, and then let the states decide for themselves what if any gun control laws they want.
…
http://www.issues2000.org/2004/Howard_Dean_Gun_Control.htm

IMHO, Dean is trying to be as straightfoward as he can. He says he doesn't want to add any more federal laws (except the closing of that loophole). And he doesn't want to remove any of the federal laws currently on the books. He says that is as far as he is willing to go (in both directions).

Gov. Howard Dean (D-VT) on gun regulation (states' rights, pro-gun)
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35583

 

[CaesarI]

Because its fun, I'll play

Re: Social Security
You create a false dilemma: "support social security or your grandparents will suffer!"

"If you don't care one whit about folks who are over the age of 65." Hmm... OK... so "gimme your money youngin'!" is OK then huh? Let's reverse it, "Old people over 65 don't give a whit about folks forced to pay for their retirement."

Second of all... Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme.
Third of all, those who paid into the system can be returned their stolen income, without forcing younger retirees to suffer usury tax rates.

Finally, my grandparents (both sides) were smart, they saved up, maybe you should read about ants and grasshoppers. Oh, except my natural maternal grandfather, but he was a horrible human being, and horrendously lazy, and my mother didn't shed a tear when he died, in part because he was abusive. The state didn't protect her from him, but the state accused her of child abuse for smacking my sister. The state will not help her stave off poverty, but the state will provide for her father because he's too lazy to work. Further, my mother would refuse any form of welfare because she's got pride, and refuses to accept any money stolen from someone else, at present *I* am working on providing for her, and should my grandparents ever need it, I'll take care of *them* I will not take care of someone else's grandparents, or some old man who should have died decades ago, and I resent your forcing me to do so through government fiat.

Re: HATE THE RICH!!
Wow... he can make pot shots at G W Bush... look at how impressed I am.

"put money in the hands of those most likely to spend it." - Keynsian Economics is bunk, and short-sited.

"full-employment recovery" they had full employment in Nazi Germany too. I'd give you a lecture on why this economic recovery has not resulted in rapid re-employment and why its a good thing, but I've neither the time, nor the motivation, I don't teach for free.

Re: Trade
"We're hemorrhaging manufacturing jobs" we've been "hemorrhaging farming jobs" for the past 150 years. And textiles, people used to hand make all clothing, all fabric, all cloth, it was awful labor. Then (gods be praised) the industrial revolution put all those people (slowly) out of work. They had to move into different areas of the economy. We're moving into a more service based economy due primarily to automation, and foreign countries getting underway in their industrial revolutions.

God forbid our economy advance, and old jobs (that were more intense physical labor) be destroyed. Poor little baby.



Bad economics, plain and simple.

Re: Guns
Dean seems to think Bush doesn't really support the ban:
"Although President Bush has claimed he supports renewing it, he is talking out both sides of his mouth; his staff has signaled that he doesn’t want or expect Congress to renew the ban, and that is wrong."
Many THR folks feel Bush is saying it for Political reasons too.

But hey, he's better than any other Democrat, I'll back'em in the primaries.

-Morgan

 

[w4rma]

They won't be your parents, but there will be a whole lot of people who *will* suffer and die without that safety net.

Note, it was Reagan that did away with the pay as we go system that used to pay for Social Security. He also added a new and extremely large tax: the payroll tax.

Enronomics is bunk, and short-sited, CaesarI.

Also, you create a false dilemma: Hate the rich.

I don't hate folks who have incomes of $350,000 or more per year and I'm sure that Dean, being a centrist, doesn't either. I don't even dislike such folks. Many of these folks are brilliant people who didn't inherit their wealth and who worked extremely hard for it. Many of these folks are trying to make the world a better place.

What I do have a problem with is conglomeration of power. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. I do not want to see an American aristocracy created. America's founding fathers rebelled, and many patriots paid for our freedom with their lives, against the English aristocracy. We don't need a new one.

'We Can Do Better' by Howard Dean
…
No program for economic recovery and growth can ignore the tax system, particularly the bizarre collection of tax expenditures, preferences, credits and deductions which has directed revenues away from the federal treasury and into uneconomic tax avoidance schemes. Average Americans pay their taxes through withholding or quarterly estimates. Meanwhile, corporations and multinational enterprises take advantage of elaborate tax shelters, and billions go uncollected. The need for reform is obvious and compelling, and I will give tax reform a top priority in my administration. But unlike the tax initiatives of the current president, my program of tax reform and relief will be targeted to the average Americans who are struggling to make ends meet--not those whose needs are well provided for.
…
http://www.opinionjournal.com/edito...ml?id=110003920

Here is an example of the type of favoritism in the tax code that Gov. Dean is campaigning to fix:

Company Is Foreign at Tax Time, but Seeks Americans-Only Work

A big oil-well drilling company that has used one law to escape American taxes by taking addresses in Bermuda and Barbados is now trying to use another law to qualify for business open only to American companies.

Competitors are crying foul, saying they cannot survive if the Bermuda-Barbados company, Nabors Industries, is allowed to vie for contracts while paying little or nothing in taxes.

The competitors, most of them family-owned businesses, say that unless Congress acts to level the playing field they will lose so much business to Nabors that they will go broke within a decade or be forced themselves to try to become Bermuda companies so they can also escape taxes.

The issue is part of a much larger debate about how a hodgepodge of tax laws enacted starting in 1986 give big advantages to multinational concerns over domestic companies.
…
There is no corporate income tax in Bermuda and under a treaty with Barbados, profits are taxed at 1 percent. The United States corporate tax rate is 35 percent. The savings to Nabors was $10 million last year.

Now Nabors wants to qualify fully for business under the Jones Act, which since 1916 has required that ships engaged in purely domestic trade be built in American shipyards, owned by American companies and operated by American crews. Nabors owns 33 ships serving oil drilling platforms, a tenth of the fleet of about 350 ships that ferry supplies like drill pipe in the Gulf of Mexico.
…
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/18/business/18SHIP.html

Note, the lobbyist for Nabor, Kenneth Kies, is a huge GOP contributor (approx $170,000):
http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/s...xtCand=&txt2004=Y&txt2002=Y&txt2000=Y&Order=N

 

[CaesarI]

Enronomics? You make that one up? I'm a Laissez-faire Capitalist, with a soft spot for Mises, und österreicher, and Chicago [Cubs].

I think you're startin' to see things... tell me where I said "Reagan" in any of my posts. OK, OK, you caught me, I used some seriously hardcore Java so it'd only show up at your IP address. How'd I get you IP address? ::holds up USA PATRIOT Act::

Re: Suffer and Die
People suffer and die *with* the safety net. Ther are people who are suffering and dieing in Africa, does that give them a right to demand we end their suffering and death? There are people who are suffering and dieing in China, do we owe them too? Is their life not as valuable as American life? But wait... if we tried to take care of all these people, we'd grow broke... depression, and then they'd suffer and die anyway. Whoops.

If there were old people suffering and dieing, I might be inclined to support them voluntarily, I am not inclined to force other people to do this. Where I come from, forcing A to give money to B, because B doesn't have "enough" is called theft.

"There has been a temptation throughout the program's history for some people to suppose that their FICA payroll taxes entitle them to a benefit in a legal, contractual sense… Congress clearly had no such limitation in mind when crafting the law."
"Benefits which are granted at one time can be withdrawn…" - http://www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html

Ignoring the moral issue of you don't have a right to steal my money to pay for old people, young people, purple people, tall people, skinny people, or whomever, there's also the fact that it's a sham. If you think Gore's "Lock Box" is gonna do anything, or that anyone (even Bill Gates) can save it, you need to take a real quick class in accounting. If you've time I recommend actuarial studies too (they're quite fun).

As a point of note, my Gramma would like to work as a greeter at Wal Mart, she thinks it'd be fun. But she's from an old fashioned German family... that abusive husband of hers? Decided he didn't need to work anymore now that he was 50, let her support the whole family on her Nurse' salary. Did I mention she's supported abortion for most of her life? Guess what she thinks of welfare. God I love that woman.

Re: dilemmas? me?
I didn't create any dilemma's, false or otherwise, "Hate the Rich" was my summary of that collection of points you were making. You preach class warfare, you also seem to think parents don't have a right to pass on their justly earned wealth to their children. I think all people who have come by their wealth by just means are "making the world a better place" not just those with money who contribute to your pet causes. You seem to imply that people who inherit their wealth, or who don't work "extremely hard for it" are somehow less worthy than those who do. Sounds awful prejudicial to me. I know people with money who are jerks, and people without money who are jerks.

Re: English Kings and Power
The English King had military power. Rich men in the United States, do not, this isn't Rome. A wealthy man may not force me to do anything. "Buy my product or else you'll have to keep your money and not have my product!" just doesn't make me as worried about power as "Pay for those stamps or else I'll send troops to shoot you!" The revolution wasn't against the English Aristocracy (wrong revolution, they spoke French), in fact there were some in the English Aristocracy (the name escapes me at the moment) who supported our revolution. The revolution was against England and more specifically, the English crown. Something about taxes I think...

Real trite quote there, I mean, I'd never heard it before in my whole life. Citizen who?

Re: Corporations playing the game
K... one of two possibilities. You failed economics, or you took economics from a liberal (not the classical sort of Liberal either).
If you chase away capital, with excessive taxes, then you lose that capital. Europeans invest in the United States cause our taxes are a heckuva lot nicer than their taxes.

The Jones Act is protectionism, pure and simple. Find me an economist who supports protectionism, and I'll show you 99 economists who oppose it.

The company should not be force to pay for your social programs either. Lower your tax rate to say 15% and see if they feel differently.

Do you really think that you can close all of the tax loopholes? You haven't been payin' attention for too long. I've got a friend who used to practice law, was really good at it. Made a lot of money helping a lot of Brits take their money out of the country.

Nabors sounds like a smart bunch, lookin' after their shareholders. Their stock symbol is (NBR)
"Nabors is able to cost-effectively drill more wells, in more places, with a higher degree of safety than anyone else. We call this... Ability."
Good folks, looks like they care about their employees too.

But look, we ain't gonna settle this anytime soon. I'm a strict constructionist, and you ain't. You haven't addressed the constitutionality of your little social programs yet. And most of the folks on this board are pretty big on needing constitutional justification for political action. As Social [In]Security makes up about 50% of us gov't expenditures... Oh and now you wanna add healthcare? Where's that one in the constitution?

-Morgan

 

[greyhound]

Dean, being a centrist,

In my opinion, Dean is a true blue leftist.

Course, I consider Bush a centrist, as opposed to a conservative.

To each his own.

Keep pluggin' away on good ole' Dean, fella.

 

[MicroBalrog]

Ignoring the moral issue of you don't have a right to steal my money to pay for old people, young people, purple people, tall people, skinny people, or whomever, there's also the fact that it's a sham.

On the other hand, it is your duty to prevent people who are under danger of imminent death (say, by starvation). On a larger scale it's a duty of the .gov to provide basic services to those UNABLE (not UNWILLING, UNABLE) to pay for them.

Food is a basic human right. And if somebody is starving on your front porch because you don't want to help him, well, you're committing murder.

 

[Chris Rhines]

On the other hand, it is your duty to prevent people who are under danger of imminent death (say, by starvation).

Who in the hell told you this? Duty can only be established through explicit consent; I don't recall ever making it my duty to feed the starving, heal the sick, or do anything else of the kind. I might do it to be a nice person, or because I'd hope that someone would do the same for me, but that's a long way from having a duty...

- Chris

 

[MicroBalrog]

Duty can only be established through explicit

What about the duty/obligation not to commit murder?

 

[CaesarI]

On the other hand, it is your duty to prevent people who are under danger of imminent death (say, by starvation).

I can't afford to feed all the starving people in the world. Let me repeat. Can't. Contractual law 101: if a contract requires person A perform task B, and person A is inherently incapable of performing task B, then the contract is null and void. e.g.: "If you fail to make your car payments on time, you will be required to pay Master Credit a fee of 1 Trillion dollars." Further, as mentioned no such contract, or law exists, nor can it be proven to exist inherently as a "natural right" as with the rights to life, liberty, and property.

Ignoring the fact that I'm incapable of feeding *every* starving person, let us then examine the individual starving person. I'm on the poverty line, but I have money in my checking account. I could afford to buy food for one of the neighborhood bums for a while, but then I'd be out of money for myself, and I would starve to death. This person's "right to food" is stealing my "right to life".

Suppose the only person on earth is a bum, and he's in the middle of the sahara desert. Where's his "right to food" now? He still has a right to life, liberty and property, no one has a right to kill him, deprive him of his freedom, or to steal his property, but his right to food posits the existence of other human beings, who may, or may not exist. Your "right" requires their existence, as well as their enslavement. Further, supposing your right were enforced on all people today, and supposing the percentage of people who are starving were to rise to the point where those who were producing the food were physically was incapable of feeding them. What then? By your rights we would continue feeding as many as we could, and then the producer's of this food would perish, and all your people with a "right to food" would end up being dead as doornails anyway.

Food is a basic human right.

Nope. Neither is health care. These are positive rights, rather than negative rights, and make an assumption that other people exist to provide them. Further it posits that those people who are providing them *must* provide them and do so at no charge. This is tantamount to enslavement of the providers of these services you call rights. You don't have a right to my life, or the products of my life.

What about the duty/obligation not to commit murder?

I cannot commit murder because people have a right to life. Your use of the verb "to let" in regards to "someone starve to death" assumes that somehow it is in my power to prevent them from starving. As mentioned at the top, I cannot prevent every person from starving to death, it is not in my power, and therefore, there is no "let". Further, your use of "murder" is incorrect. I note you are from Israel, I am unaware of what the laws are in this case, I do know that France has laws requiring people to provide aid to those in need. The United States has no such federal laws, though a few states have them, e.g. Massachusetts (IIRC).
Murder: The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
to kill: To put to death. To deprive of life. The proper verb here is to "steal someone's life".
It is not *I* that causes a person to die of starvation, unless I in some way directly hinder their ability to consume this food, say by imprisonment. Rather it is the laws of biology that cause this person to die.

To conclude: your right to life, doesn't give you a right to my property. If you want it, you'll have to take it by force, and I've got guns.

-Morgan

 

[MicroBalrog]

I am unaware of what the laws are in this case

In my country, if you are able to prevent a person from dying and don't try to do so, you're a criminal.

You're forgetting that welfare isn't about paying those unwilling to work, but about aiding those unable to work.

 

[Chris Rhines]

By that token, MicroBalrog, if there is a person who needs a heart transplant, and I am the only available doner, what should I do?

I suspect that rigid adherence to such a concept would make you yourself a murderer.

- Chris

 

[MicroBalrog]

I suspect that rigid adherence to such a concept would make you yourself a murderer

There's no concept which would not lead to horrible consequences when followed rigidly and fanatically.

Rigid adherence to your concept of "no welfare, EVER" is murder too.

 

[MicroBalrog]

They unconditionally support Israel and have a close alliance with the Likud Party.

And Ron Paul knows exactly what about the Likud Party?

 

[Glock Glockler]

Micro,

In the situation Chris described you can 1) kill yourself and give the other person your heart which would essentially be murdering yourself or you can 2) keep your own heart and let him die, whihc would also make youn a murderer. So both options result in murder, then how do you determine justification, which the lack of is needed in order to determine murder as opposed to justifiable homicide?

 

[HBK]

There is nothing redeeming about Dean. He isn't pro gun. He backs "hunters," not gun owners in general. Plus, he's a socialist. He pretty much stands for everything that is the opposite of what our nation was founded on. No way would Ron Paul agree to be a running mate for that jackass. If he did, I would lose all respect for him.

 

[MicroBalrog]

GG -or 3)Keep the other person alive till somebody else dies from non-violents reasons and harvest his heart.

Besides, that ain't an exact analogy, ya know...

 

[CaesarI]

"Help, somebody, please help this man, he's starving." Oh well... I tried. That's following the letter of the law then.

But the United States, ain't Israel. Ya'll can do whatever you like over there, I'm not too concerned.

If you think welfare is only about aiding those incapable of working, you ain't been to the States too much. Besides relatives on the government tit, I had a former housemate who decided to marry a guy on welfare, he already had one kid. He came over a few times and played on another roomie's PS2. Real incapable of working huh?

And finally, none of the laws in Israel demonstrate authority granted in the United States Constitution which would allow the Federal government to redistribute wealth as they see fit.

-Morgan

 

[MicroBalrog]

If you think welfare is only about aiding those incapable of working, you ain't been to the States too much.

That's the original purpose. Works quite fine in many countries.

Besides relatives on the government tit, I had a former housemate who decided to marry a guy on welfare, he already had one kid. He came over a few times and played on another roomie's PS2. Real incapable of working huh?

And playing PS2 means you can get a job if you want to?

 

[Zundfolge]

Food is a basic human right.

So I see you support slavery.

If food is "a basic human right" then those who produce food are obligated to become the slaves of those who don't.


A right CAN NOT EXIST where it creates OBLIGATION on others.


I believe we have a moral obligation to help others when we can, but to codeify such moral obligations into law would mean the end of liberty (and liberty may allow people to abandon their moral obligations, but without liberty the vast majority of opportunities for people to better themselves will vanish).

 

[Moparmike]

Lets get this straight. Previous posters have it correct: Individual citizens have no obligation or duty *except to their own conscience* to see that others are given their right to life out of their own pocket.

I am not obligated to keep anyone's stomach fed, backs clothed, or bodies sheltered except family. I have no moral obligation to keep up the health of someone capable or incabable of working.

If I so choose to support them thru my own means or thru charities, that is my perrogative. IT IS NOT THE JOB OF THE GOVERNMENT TO BE THAT CHARITY, AND FORCEFULLY TAKE MY MONEY TO SUPPORT IT. Its called a Nanny State. Nanny States are wrong.

Now, can we get this thread on topic please? If we want to start another tireless "Welfare" flamefest, then do it in another thread worthy of being closed.

 

[Glock Glockler]

Micro,

The dude's heart is shot and he needs a new one, how do you simply magic him alive until another one comes along? It's yours or his: choose.
The point is that no one has a right to something that another must voluntarily provide. If housing was a right people could come over your place and demand that you let them in, or they could demand your money so that they could buy their own place, what do you think about that?

That's the original purpose. Works quite fine in many countries

What's wrong with simply asking someone for help? How many people do you know that would simply let someone starve to death while have an abundance of food? I don't think I know any that would actually do that.

What's wrong with charity based on voluntarily consent as opposed to relying on the threat that the govt will come to your house with guns and kill you if you don't comply?

 

[AZRickD]

I just saw Rep Ron Paul speak today at the Arizona Freedom Summit
http://www.freedomsummit.com

He is the real deal.

Rick