If an individual State wants to be cruel to it's poor, it has a every right to do so.

This seems to be the problem liberals can't accept.

If California wants to be a generous, benevolent welfare state and offer all the amenities of middle class life to the poor, then that is their right.

But by the same token. If Alabama wants to be a backward, 3rd world State with gravel roads, no health care for the poor, and bad schools. That is their choice. Why?

Because Alabama is a separate Soveriegn territory and any social consequences that may come about from Alabama being a 3rd world State is none of Californian's business.

Liberals need to understand that they have no right to use the Federal Government to enforce "equality of opportunity" on a State that may not want to offer that.

If State is run by a bunch of wealthy elites who hate the poor and don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) if they survive or not, that is the business of that State and that State alone.

Stop trying to force individual States through National Action to be good to their poor. It is none of your business unless you live within that State.

We are not one country. We are 50 separate countries who chose to cooperate with eachother because together they are more powerful than they would be separately, but the doesn't mean that Alabama cannot be a corrupt, 3rd world State run by a wealthy elite if that is how the people consent to be governed.


Thread started at Forum 4 Politics on 04-04-2012 06:26 PM

 

This is sarcasm, right?

If there were no federal government redistributing wealth then California would have a large financial surplus every year because it sends approximately $20 billion more to the federal government than it receives back. Ironically states like Alabama which want as little benefits for the poor as possible receive more from the federal government than they send to DC.

 

I think that you might be on the right track, and stnce I'm an individualist and not a statist, I don't think that nation-states other any other states have any legitimate rights, including a right to to detemine which individuals should be benevolent to whom.

 

The problem welfare generousity has created is that there are now entire towns in America that no longer have an economic purpose, and there are now millions of people who have no education, no job skills, and are unemployable. If welfare was cut off, these people would literally starve because they can no longer take care of themselves.

 

The tired old rightist idée fixe bête noire "liberals" aside, no State can deny an American's Constitutional rights, nor the "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" championed in the Declaration of Independence, but the moral imperative that pertains and counsels against blithely allowing fellow citizens to suffer and die in the streets is the Christian ethos the nation espouses:

Blessed are...
...the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
...those who mourn: for they will be comforted.
...the meek: for they will inherit the earth.
...those who hunger and thirst for righteousness: for they will be filled.
...the merciful: for they will be shown mercy.
...the pure in heart: for they will see God.
...the peacemakers: for they will be called children of God.
...those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. ​

The expression of such moral values is delineated in the charges of the corporeal works of mercy:

Feed the hungry
Give drink to the thirsty
Clothe the naked
Shelter the homeless
Visit the sick
Visit those in prison
Bury the dead
​

Those antagonistic to Christian morality can rail that the nation is not a theocracy and should scoff at such exhortations to decency, but the democratic will continually validates the societal calling. Of course, were noble, private initiatives sufficient to fully achieve the communitarian goals, our government by the people would be relieved of the burden.

When the eleemosynary inclinations of the wealthiest can adequately address society's humanitarian needs, the public will extract itself from the mission at the ballot box, but not before that occurs.

That's democracy. One needn't like it.

 

What is your position on abortion?

Because I might have once been a Democrat, before the party took on the radical pro-abortion platform.

And I'm sure many other Catholics and Christians feel the same way.

Why did the party of helping the poor turn into the party of killing the unborn?

Don't you see the contradiction in that?

You can't claim to be doing God's work with the poor with one hand, and killing babies with scissors in the other hand.

 

Which towns would those be? Then educate and train them and guess what they can take care of themselves. If there are enough of them they will come for your stuff and they will get it, or do you not study History?

 

OFF Topic, start another thread if you want to talk abortion.

 

Well you can thank the GOP for the demonization of education for the educated, unemployable people.

 

If someone is going to use Christianity as a basis to justify the welfare state, then it is ON TOPIC to discuss the hypocricy in doing that.

- - - Updated - - -

I have no stuff to get. Right now, I'm looking at a flat screen TV that doesn't work, and thanks to Obama, I can't afford to get a new one. So if some mob comes to my door demanding my stuff, I will let them have the TV.

 

Right, because loaning money to people to get useless social science bachelor's degrees is a GOOD IDEA.

 

I stand corrected.

Obama is at fault, really????? Are you out of work, come to TEXAS, you will find something. When the mountain will not come to Mohammed then Mohammed must go to the mountain.

 

While I agree with your premise, I disagree with your assessment of "cruel" vs. "benevolent." As I think the conservative approach could easily be argued to be much more beneficial and the liberal approach to be much more destructive overall.

 

I think we are off topic. The lead question was do states like California and Alabama have a right to decide whether to be generous or stingy with other people's money.

- - - Updated - - -

 

Like most Americans, I would not want to see politicians intruding into the womb at any point before personhood is reached in the gestative process. Upon that critical stage being attained, however, society has a duty to protect that individual and bring its resources to bear in doing so.

Within that proviso, a woman should be able to conduct herself in concert with her own understanding and conscience in the matter, free of the state coercion some would attempt to impose upon her to submit to their dictates.

I support neither the extremists who cling to the "homunculus" notion that there is an itty-bitty "instant person" that appears the moment of conception, nor those at the opposite extreme that would deny the societal interest until the moment birth.

Roe v Wade was a reasonable compromise that largely comports with the traditional Christian teaching regarding "the quickening" - the moment of development such Church Fathers as Augustine believed "ensoulment" to occur, evidenced by the advent of fetal movement.

My larger point that American society views decent treatment of all in need - its poor, its disabled, its elderly - pertains. Those who would attempt to eradicate such a moral component in governance are always free to submit its abrogation to the democratic process.

Such indifference to suffering may be found in objectivist fiction; in reality, however, it is antithetical to the ethos of the vast majority of Americans.



.

 

The elected officials running a State have the right to do with the taxpayer funds as they wish and the people of that State have the right to voice their opinion through protests, elections and even recalls if they so desire. Simple as that.

 

If the poor don't care enough about themselves to get off their ass and produce, who am I to judge or interfere with the results of their decisions?

 

Define receives versus sends back. For example, does Alaska owe the nation an apology because they have a higher ratio of military spending versus other states? I'm curious to see if you are able to go past the talking point in actual cognitive thought on the topic.

I seriously doubt it.

 

Indeed, if that is your attitude toward the sick and handicapped, you are free to ask yourself who you are all you want. Americans already know.

 

But senor, you are mistaken. No state can be "cruel" to its "poor." Our wonderful Democratic Party, lead by our Obama, has seen to that. Our Obama makes the states do the right thing whether they want to or not.

By the way, there are no longer any "sovereign" states.

Gracias

 

So in other words, more Democrat votes are being created. It appears the liberal war on and plan for (against would be a better word) America is working perfectly.

 

You say elected officials can spend other people's money as they wish, and most people probably agree.

King Abdullah is the absolute monarch of Saudi Arabia and claims ownership of all of the country and all of its people. He and his royal family were invited to, and attended, the last British royal wedding.

Bashar Assad rules Syria on the basis that his father, Hafez Assad, overthrew the democratically elected government, became Presient-For-Life, an bequeathed the Presidency to his son, and millions believe that this is just hunky-dory.

But, if I were to say, "I own my on body and should not be coerced unless I aggress against somebody else," you'd probably say "Whoa there! Now wait minute, that's just crazy talk."

 

I am only speaking of Democratic forms of government, dictators do as they wish, until the People have had enough, then things change, as they did here.
The people elect representatives to represent them, if the people discover that the representative is representing anter interest they have the right to recall them or vote them out, the problem is often people ae not willing to vote across Party lines to get the best person available elected, Partisan thought processes and actions have gotten us where we are today.

 

I dont even know where to start, so I will just say this.

Every point you have made here is wrong.

 

Isnt the top wage in Texas something like 10 dollars an hour?


There is an ad running here in my state for Texas. In a nutshell it basically says Leave your state cause it sucks. You should come to Texas where we let you treat your employees as crapy as you want to! Youll make tons of cash once you dont have to provide living wages and health care!