, you have make an emotional argument, B, you have made a moral one.
I will address both in a moral and practical context. Now all I ask is that you read them. Not just reply. Your writings have been completely read and are the basis for this reply.
B, on a specific moral basis, beyond all the real life good I do in my occupation, I did not ask for assistance, I and my parents paid my way. The government funding of a university which is then trains doctors is not a transfer of wealth.
More importantly as general moral concept, and this is were we may part ways, yes, people basically need to take care of themselves and their children. What other way is there? Who cares more about you and your family than you? In this response, I will try to ask few question, but please address this: Do you really feel a Village concept is better than self responsibility? And T, a question for you: What is this "just a little help" you want to give people. How is that defined, when is it enough, who decides who gets it and who and under what circumstances GIVES it?
To very specifically and practically respond to your post B. I do not want the draw bridge pulled up behind me. Second question: Why would you think we would? Conservatives want others to be successful and believe that a free people working in a free market under the rule of law is the best way for the most people to become successful. What we do not want is to give people handouts which deprive motivation and inhibit success! We also believe that silly people like you and T and Rich are naive to support such a system without one iota of evidence that it works. In fact, we think you are useful idiots who are played by our liberal leaders to enforce policies which keep people poor and enslaved (Yes, I used the word) and dependent on those very leaders. It took the great Ronald Reagan to open Americas eye to the disaster of social planning now called social justice.
You two also seem to focus on the selfishness of the successful. On a specific basis, I pay more in taxes than the 30 people who I employ (and to be clear, the 30 people I employ make in aggregate more than I do). When taxes are raised, you focus on the successful but when they are cut you do not want them included. We also have had extensive discussion about how one keeping their own money and freely using it is not only more morally correct but a better economic system. I guess you just don't believe that you can spend your money better than the government.
Lastly, the debt, National Defense is the true proper function of government, beyond this, I must admit to continuing amazement that none of you fellows talk about the need to address the basic structure of government and entitlement spending as way to eliminate the deficit. Previously I asked why we all don't just give 2% a year toward the debt. The response from Rich was that we have a progressive tax system. Why? We all use the roads, etc. Your candidate is floating into office without a whisper about entitlement reform. How come? Have you had a chance to review the article I posted today? If "O" is such a transformative candidate, why has he not addressed this issue, which is the true source of our problems, instead of promoting class envy.
You have said that most wealth is held by a very few (I have no idea how one could determine that, fodder for the next blog), but it is undeniable that they pay the vast majority of taxes. You almost sneer when you say "the rich". Third question: Assuming that wealth was legally obtained, why is it moral or practical to transfer it?
Terry, I will address your characterization of the right next.
3 comments:
, you have make an emotional argument, B, you have made a moral one.
I will address both in a moral and practical context. Now all I ask is that you read them. Not just reply. Your writings have been completely read and are the basis for this reply.
B, on a specific moral basis, beyond all the real life good I do in my occupation, I did not ask for assistance, I and my parents paid my way. The government funding of a university which is then trains doctors is not a transfer of wealth.
More importantly as general moral concept, and this is were we may part ways, yes, people basically need to take care of themselves and their children. What other way is there? Who cares more about you and your family than you? In this response, I will try to ask few question, but please address this: Do you really feel a Village concept is better than self responsibility? And T, a question for you: What is this "just a little help" you want to give people. How is that defined, when is it enough, who decides who gets it and who and under what circumstances GIVES it?
To very specifically and practically respond to your post B. I do not want the draw bridge pulled up behind me. Second question: Why would you think we would? Conservatives want others to be successful and believe that a free people working in a free market under the rule of law is the best way for the most people to become successful. What we do not want is to give people handouts which deprive motivation and inhibit success! We also believe that silly people like you and T and Rich are naive to support such a system without one iota of evidence that it works. In fact, we think you are useful idiots who are played by our liberal leaders to enforce policies which keep people poor and enslaved (Yes, I used the word) and dependent on those very leaders. It took the great Ronald Reagan to open Americas eye to the disaster of social planning now called social justice.
You two also seem to focus on the selfishness of the successful. On a specific basis, I pay more in taxes than the 30 people who I employ (and to be clear, the 30 people I employ make in aggregate more than I do). When taxes are raised, you focus on the successful but when they are cut you do not want them included. We also have had extensive discussion about how one keeping their own money and freely using it is not only more morally correct but a better economic system. I guess you just don't believe that you can spend your money better than the government.
Lastly, the debt, National Defense is the true proper function of government, beyond this, I must admit to continuing amazement that none of you fellows talk about the need to address the basic structure of government and entitlement spending as way to eliminate the deficit. Previously I asked why we all don't just give 2% a year toward the debt. The response from Rich was that we have a progressive tax system. Why? We all use the roads, etc. Your candidate is floating into office without a whisper about entitlement reform. How come? Have you had a chance to review the article I posted today? If "O" is such a transformative candidate, why has he not addressed this issue, which is the true source of our problems, instead of promoting class envy.
You have said that most wealth is held by a very few (I have no idea how one could determine that, fodder for the next blog), but it is undeniable that they pay the vast majority of taxes. You almost sneer when you say "the rich". Third question: Assuming that wealth was legally obtained, why is it moral or practical to transfer it?
Terry, I will address your characterization of the right next.
Class dismissed.
Bravo Professor Jim!
Yes it was well done.
terry and bob (sane) have gone silent. I had no illusions that they would answer my questions (as I did theirs)
Post a Comment