America Before the Entitlement State

[Claudette]

It is what they have been taught. In America before government entitlements, there were a few beggars, but most people fully expected to work for what they received. Even the homeless of those days didn't expect the government or anybody else to provide them with food, shelter, transportation, healthcare, etc. They showed up at our back doors offering to split and stack wood, weed the garden, paint the barn, slop the hogs, clean out the chicken house, or do any chores we might have in return for supper on the porch and maybe a few vittles for their rucksack as they went on their way. Sometimes they would ask to sleep in the shed or barn when the weather was inclimate. They would not accept the food and shelter without working for it though.

These days we're told by the leftist do gooders that it is mean and harms people's self esteem to expect them to do manual labor for what they receive. Before government entitlements it hurt people's self esteem to accept charity without working for it.

But now we have a whole subset of society who have been conditioned and fit with blinders so they don't see that they are taking the hard earned wages of others when they receive government entitlements. They have been taught that it is the collectives money, the governments money, that is doled out according to the needs of those receiving it.

They were never taught that such a mindset is pure Marxism.

You believe in a dreamworld that never existed, dittohead. Read "The Good Old Days- They Were Terrible!" and get a clue.

Oh I am quite sure the world I described existed because I lived in it. I am quite sure that I witnessed and experienced and was taught a sense of character and integrity and personal responsibility that did not include an entitlement mentality. And I am reasonably certain that I have read more on that period than you most likely have. The difference between us is that I haven't read all socialist/Marxist authors and I was educated before the government started meddling with education. Makes a huge difference.

Your so right.

My Mom and Dad grew up during the depression. If anyone had told them the Govt was gonna "take care of em" I'm sure they would have fallen down on the floor laughing.

My Moms Dad took off and left my grandmother with 4 kids to raise. She worked in a cotton mill. they lived in the country and Raised their own pork, mutton, chickens and veggies. So they always had food. Not much money for anything else though. Till the day of her death my Mother detested Welfare. She thought it was theft pure and simple.

Charity was a dirty word back them. People had pride and took care of themselves. They had family, friends and community to lend a hand if needed. No one expected anyone to "give" them anything.

Fast forward to today where he have several generations of folks who don't work. Several generations of folks who have kids they can't support but have no problem letting others foot the bills for them. They also have no problem having more kids they can't support. Talk about entitlement mentality. These folks don't care where the money comes from as long as it comes.

Personally I'm not interested in bearing the burden for the freeloaders out there. Those who are truly mentally or physically handicapped I have no problem assisting. Able bodies freeloaders no way.

However If folks have no problem supporting these folks then they need to start their own charity. They need to whip out their wallets and checkbooks and feel free to pay away. Believe me the freeloaders will snap up every dime they can get from em. Wonder how long their charities will last when they have to fund em??

 

[editec]

America Before the Entitlement State

was in a massive deadly depression.

Then Kynesian spending for the war effort brought us out of that depression.

 

[Bfgrn]

47 MILLION…the number of Americans for whom Medicare provides comprehensive health care

51 PERCENT…the number of Americans 65 or older who did not have health care before Medicare was passed, while today virtually all elderly Americans have health care thanks to Medicare

30 PERCENT…the number of elderly Americans who lived in poverty before Medicare, a number now reduced to 7.5 PERCENT

72 PERCENT…the number of Americans in a recent poll who said that Medicare is “extremely” or “very” important to their retirement security

Medicare assures health care for seniors who might otherwise find health care inaccessible. It saves our government money. It makes the lives of our seniors better.

Two concepts inspired Medicare. First, seniors require more care than younger Americans. Second, seniors usually live on less income; many survive only on Social Security. This combination renders seniors extremely vulnerable to losing their savings, homes or lives from easily treatable diseases.

And Medicare provides good care. American life expectancy at birth ranks 30th in the world. We remain 30th for the rest of our lives -- until we reach 65. Then, our rank rises until we reach 14th at 80. We can thank the remarkable access to health care provided by Medicare.

Every industrialized nation guarantees health care for seniors. Indeed, we are unhappily distinctive in being the only industrialized nation that does not guarantee care for everyone else, as well. Medicare restores us to a civilized status.

Before Medicare, only 40 percent of nonworking seniors had health insurance, and of those with coverage, private insurance paid for less than 10 percent of their hospital bills. The principle of insuring only the healthy who consume little care and avoiding the sick has always driven our private insurance industry. No insurance company can make money by offering the same comprehensive, affordable coverage to seniors as Medicare, so they don't offer it. Our experience with Medicare Advantage, an effort to privatize parts of Medicare, resulted in our government spending $17 billion more for the same benefits available through Medicare. Our private insurance industry was in no hurry to insure seniors before Medicare started. They are in no hurry now. Medicare revolutionized health care access for seniors.

Why is Medicare expensive? Simply, health care for seniors will always cost more than that of healthier, younger Americans. And costs are rising in every health care system around the world, not just Medicare. The United States is doubly cursed because our costs are rising faster and are already twice as expensive as other countries. Though hard to believe, Medicare is a leader in fighting cost increases. Private insurance industry costs are rising nearly twice as fast as those of Medicare. And when it comes to administrative expenses, private insurance is 10 times higher than Medicare. In fact, if the single payer financing of Medicare were applied to citizens of all ages, we would save $350 billion annually, more than enough to provide comprehensive health care to every American.

Medicare is good for our seniors and good for our country. It provides health care far more affordably and efficiently than our private insurance industry. It saves our country hundreds of billions of dollars in administrative overhead. And if we expand Medicare to cover younger, healthier Americans, we would all get more care at less cost.

More

 

[Foxfyre]

47 MILLION…the number of Americans for whom Medicare provides comprehensive health care

51 PERCENT…the number of Americans 65 or older who did not have health care before Medicare was passed, while today virtually all elderly Americans have health care thanks to Medicare

30 PERCENT…the number of elderly Americans who lived in poverty before Medicare, a number now reduced to 7.5 PERCENT

72 PERCENT…the number of Americans in a recent poll who said that Medicare is “extremely” or “very” important to their retirement security

Medicare assures health care for seniors who might otherwise find health care inaccessible. It saves our government money. It makes the lives of our seniors better.

Two concepts inspired Medicare. First, seniors require more care than younger Americans. Second, seniors usually live on less income; many survive only on Social Security. This combination renders seniors extremely vulnerable to losing their savings, homes or lives from easily treatable diseases.

And Medicare provides good care. American life expectancy at birth ranks 30th in the world. We remain 30th for the rest of our lives -- until we reach 65. Then, our rank rises until we reach 14th at 80. We can thank the remarkable access to health care provided by Medicare.

Every industrialized nation guarantees health care for seniors. Indeed, we are unhappily distinctive in being the only industrialized nation that does not guarantee care for everyone else, as well. Medicare restores us to a civilized status.

Before Medicare, only 40 percent of nonworking seniors had health insurance, and of those with coverage, private insurance paid for less than 10 percent of their hospital bills. The principle of insuring only the healthy who consume little care and avoiding the sick has always driven our private insurance industry. No insurance company can make money by offering the same comprehensive, affordable coverage to seniors as Medicare, so they don't offer it. Our experience with Medicare Advantage, an effort to privatize parts of Medicare, resulted in our government spending $17 billion more for the same benefits available through Medicare. Our private insurance industry was in no hurry to insure seniors before Medicare started. They are in no hurry now. Medicare revolutionized health care access for seniors.

Why is Medicare expensive? Simply, health care for seniors will always cost more than that of healthier, younger Americans. And costs are rising in every health care system around the world, not just Medicare. The United States is doubly cursed because our costs are rising faster and are already twice as expensive as other countries. Though hard to believe, Medicare is a leader in fighting cost increases. Private insurance industry costs are rising nearly twice as fast as those of Medicare. And when it comes to administrative expenses, private insurance is 10 times higher than Medicare. In fact, if the single payer financing of Medicare were applied to citizens of all ages, we would save $350 billion annually, more than enough to provide comprehensive health care to every American.

Medicare is good for our seniors and good for our country. It provides health care far more affordably and efficiently than our private insurance industry. It saves our country hundreds of billions of dollars in administrative overhead. And if we expand Medicare to cover younger, healthier Americans, we would all get more care at less cost.

More

Until we are down to one or two workers paying for one or more person's medicare. Then it becomes unsustainable and it has already pretty well reached that point. The government cannot provide a wonderful benefit to one person without taking away property from somebody else. Property is finite. There is only so much of it. And when you run out of other people's money, then nobody has any property left. Such is the legacy of unrestrained socialism/communism.

Entitlements start out looking so righteous, noble, and compassionate. But over decades they grow into an elephant in every room that the nation becomes unable to feed.

We have already made generations dependent on Medicare by making it a mandatory government program. And we have a $15 trillion plus debt that translates to $133,000 for every American household and it is growing by billions every single day.

Only the most blind ideologue can fail to see that as unsustainable. It is time to rethink it and do it differently or we will collapse under the weight of our own greed for entitlements and other government largesse.

 

[Claudette]

Yep. The Govt is running out of other peoples money.

We can no longer afford to assume the responsibilities for all the folks living on Welfare and Medicaid.

Bout time they start taking care of themselves and pay their own way.

 

[lizzie]

The following is from Forbes.com, talking about how Americans coped with social justice before the advent of big gov't handouts. If I thought the gov't was more efficient and effective, if I thought they were doing a better and more impartial job of helping the less fortunate, if I thought their programs weren't rife with fraud, waste, and outright theft, then I could see supporting those entitlement programs. But they ain't and I don't.

That's true, and thanks for the link.

The term "social justice" implies the need to right a wrong. For something to be wrong, it must be caused by an act or force of another. There is no "wrong" in the fact that some people are rich, some are poor, and many fall in between. It's just the facts of life.

As an example, many people mistakenly believe that if the taxpayer is required to support those less fortunate, that means that there must be some sort of personal responsibility on the part of those who pay taxes. This is a false assumption. If a young woman who is totally unprepared to take care of a child gets pregnant, then goes onto government programs in order to raise that child, it is not "justice" that taxpayers are forced to meet her needs. The taxpayer had no part whatsoever in that young woman getting pregnant, and is not *guilty* of any injustice. It was her own decision or possibly even her own stupidity which put her in the position of having a child whom she wasn't prepared for. There is no social justice in forcing responsible citizens to pay for the mistakes of someone else. Social justice is equal treatment of all- not special treatment for some.

 

[Bfgrn]

47 MILLION…the number of Americans for whom Medicare provides comprehensive health care

51 PERCENT…the number of Americans 65 or older who did not have health care before Medicare was passed, while today virtually all elderly Americans have health care thanks to Medicare

30 PERCENT…the number of elderly Americans who lived in poverty before Medicare, a number now reduced to 7.5 PERCENT

72 PERCENT…the number of Americans in a recent poll who said that Medicare is “extremely” or “very” important to their retirement security

Medicare assures health care for seniors who might otherwise find health care inaccessible. It saves our government money. It makes the lives of our seniors better.

Two concepts inspired Medicare. First, seniors require more care than younger Americans. Second, seniors usually live on less income; many survive only on Social Security. This combination renders seniors extremely vulnerable to losing their savings, homes or lives from easily treatable diseases.

And Medicare provides good care. American life expectancy at birth ranks 30th in the world. We remain 30th for the rest of our lives -- until we reach 65. Then, our rank rises until we reach 14th at 80. We can thank the remarkable access to health care provided by Medicare.

Every industrialized nation guarantees health care for seniors. Indeed, we are unhappily distinctive in being the only industrialized nation that does not guarantee care for everyone else, as well. Medicare restores us to a civilized status.

Before Medicare, only 40 percent of nonworking seniors had health insurance, and of those with coverage, private insurance paid for less than 10 percent of their hospital bills. The principle of insuring only the healthy who consume little care and avoiding the sick has always driven our private insurance industry. No insurance company can make money by offering the same comprehensive, affordable coverage to seniors as Medicare, so they don't offer it. Our experience with Medicare Advantage, an effort to privatize parts of Medicare, resulted in our government spending $17 billion more for the same benefits available through Medicare. Our private insurance industry was in no hurry to insure seniors before Medicare started. They are in no hurry now. Medicare revolutionized health care access for seniors.

Why is Medicare expensive? Simply, health care for seniors will always cost more than that of healthier, younger Americans. And costs are rising in every health care system around the world, not just Medicare. The United States is doubly cursed because our costs are rising faster and are already twice as expensive as other countries. Though hard to believe, Medicare is a leader in fighting cost increases. Private insurance industry costs are rising nearly twice as fast as those of Medicare. And when it comes to administrative expenses, private insurance is 10 times higher than Medicare. In fact, if the single payer financing of Medicare were applied to citizens of all ages, we would save $350 billion annually, more than enough to provide comprehensive health care to every American.

Medicare is good for our seniors and good for our country. It provides health care far more affordably and efficiently than our private insurance industry. It saves our country hundreds of billions of dollars in administrative overhead. And if we expand Medicare to cover younger, healthier Americans, we would all get more care at less cost.

More

Until we are down to one or two workers paying for one or more person's medicare. Then it becomes unsustainable and it has already pretty well reached that point. The government cannot provide a wonderful benefit to one person without taking away property from somebody else. Property is finite. There is only so much of it. And when you run out of other people's money, then nobody has any property left. Such is the legacy of unrestrained socialism/communism.

Entitlements start out looking so righteous, noble, and compassionate. But over decades they grow into an elephant in every room that the nation becomes unable to feed.

We have already made generations dependent on Medicare by making it a mandatory government program. And we have a $15 trillion plus debt that translates to $133,000 for every American household and it is growing by billions every single day.

Only the most blind ideologue can fail to see that as unsustainable. It is time to rethink it and do it differently or we will collapse under the weight of our own greed for entitlements and other government largesse.

The SAME could be said for our omnipresent military; "unsustainable and it has already pretty well reached that point." But THAT is different...The government cannot provide wonderful benefits to citizens who really NEED them, that is EVIL. BUT, when we righteously bomb, nobly kill, and compassionately maim human beings, the beloved government is doing God's work...right?

If you can be well without health, you may be happy without virtue.
Edmund Burke

 

[Sallow]

Ágrarian economy. Rural population. Night and day.

Nice try, though.

Add in no middle class, Jim Crow laws, lynchings, massive ghettoes, child labor, work camps, Hoovervilles..heck..a virtual conservative paradise!

 

[Sallow]

The following is from Forbes.com, talking about how Americans coped with social justice before the advent of big gov't handouts. If I thought the gov't was more efficient and effective, if I thought they were doing a better and more impartial job of helping the less fortunate, if I thought their programs weren't rife with fraud, waste, and outright theft, then I could see supporting those entitlement programs. But they ain't and I don't.

That's true, and thanks for the link.

The term "social justice" implies the need to right a wrong. For something to be wrong, it must be caused by an act or force of another. There is no "wrong" in the fact that some people are rich, some are poor, and many fall in between. It's just the facts of life.

As an example, many people mistakenly believe that if the taxpayer is required to support those less fortunate, that means that there must be some sort of personal responsibility on the part of those who pay taxes. This is a false assumption. If a young woman who is totally unprepared to take care of a child gets pregnant, then goes onto government programs in order to raise that child, it is not "justice" that taxpayers are forced to meet her needs. The taxpayer had no part whatsoever in that young woman getting pregnant, and is not *guilty* of any injustice. It was her own decision or possibly even her own stupidity which put her in the position of having a child whom she wasn't prepared for. There is no social justice in forcing responsible citizens to pay for the mistakes of someone else. Social justice is equal treatment of all- not special treatment for some.

Ah. So you are in favor of a line-item tax return. You don't wanna pay for school lunches, I don't wanna pay to kill people in foreign lands...or maintain 700 bases overseas.

Watta say?

 

[Foxfyre]

47 MILLION…the number of Americans for whom Medicare provides comprehensive health care

51 PERCENT…the number of Americans 65 or older who did not have health care before Medicare was passed, while today virtually all elderly Americans have health care thanks to Medicare

30 PERCENT…the number of elderly Americans who lived in poverty before Medicare, a number now reduced to 7.5 PERCENT

72 PERCENT…the number of Americans in a recent poll who said that Medicare is “extremely” or “very” important to their retirement security

Medicare assures health care for seniors who might otherwise find health care inaccessible. It saves our government money. It makes the lives of our seniors better.

Two concepts inspired Medicare. First, seniors require more care than younger Americans. Second, seniors usually live on less income; many survive only on Social Security. This combination renders seniors extremely vulnerable to losing their savings, homes or lives from easily treatable diseases.

And Medicare provides good care. American life expectancy at birth ranks 30th in the world. We remain 30th for the rest of our lives -- until we reach 65. Then, our rank rises until we reach 14th at 80. We can thank the remarkable access to health care provided by Medicare.

Every industrialized nation guarantees health care for seniors. Indeed, we are unhappily distinctive in being the only industrialized nation that does not guarantee care for everyone else, as well. Medicare restores us to a civilized status.

Before Medicare, only 40 percent of nonworking seniors had health insurance, and of those with coverage, private insurance paid for less than 10 percent of their hospital bills. The principle of insuring only the healthy who consume little care and avoiding the sick has always driven our private insurance industry. No insurance company can make money by offering the same comprehensive, affordable coverage to seniors as Medicare, so they don't offer it. Our experience with Medicare Advantage, an effort to privatize parts of Medicare, resulted in our government spending $17 billion more for the same benefits available through Medicare. Our private insurance industry was in no hurry to insure seniors before Medicare started. They are in no hurry now. Medicare revolutionized health care access for seniors.

Why is Medicare expensive? Simply, health care for seniors will always cost more than that of healthier, younger Americans. And costs are rising in every health care system around the world, not just Medicare. The United States is doubly cursed because our costs are rising faster and are already twice as expensive as other countries. Though hard to believe, Medicare is a leader in fighting cost increases. Private insurance industry costs are rising nearly twice as fast as those of Medicare. And when it comes to administrative expenses, private insurance is 10 times higher than Medicare. In fact, if the single payer financing of Medicare were applied to citizens of all ages, we would save $350 billion annually, more than enough to provide comprehensive health care to every American.

Medicare is good for our seniors and good for our country. It provides health care far more affordably and efficiently than our private insurance industry. It saves our country hundreds of billions of dollars in administrative overhead. And if we expand Medicare to cover younger, healthier Americans, we would all get more care at less cost.

More

Until we are down to one or two workers paying for one or more person's medicare. Then it becomes unsustainable and it has already pretty well reached that point. The government cannot provide a wonderful benefit to one person without taking away property from somebody else. Property is finite. There is only so much of it. And when you run out of other people's money, then nobody has any property left. Such is the legacy of unrestrained socialism/communism.

Entitlements start out looking so righteous, noble, and compassionate. But over decades they grow into an elephant in every room that the nation becomes unable to feed.

We have already made generations dependent on Medicare by making it a mandatory government program. And we have a $15 trillion plus debt that translates to $133,000 for every American household and it is growing by billions every single day.

Only the most blind ideologue can fail to see that as unsustainable. It is time to rethink it and do it differently or we will collapse under the weight of our own greed for entitlements and other government largesse.

The SAME could be said for our omnipresent military; "unsustainable and it has already pretty well reached that point." But THAT is different...The government cannot provide wonderful benefits to citizens who really NEED them, that is EVIL. BUT, when we righteously bomb, nobly kill, and compassionately maim human beings, the beloved government is doing God's work...right?

If you can be well without health, you may be happy without virtue.
Edmund Burke

I am all for cutting the graft and corruption and payola out of the defense budget but you do that by making it illegal for Congress to dispense favors or largesse or benevolence to anybody unless they do it for everybody without respect to political affiliation or socioeconomic status. I am all for us not expending our blood and treasure in futile or wrong headed miltary adventures.

But at least the military is a Constitutional function of the federal government and without our rights secured, none of us are free. Being the biggest, baddest, and strongest is the best insurance for securing our rights and making the use of military force likely unnecessary.

Healthcare is not a Constitutional function of the federal government and is poorly administrated and is inefficient and excessively expensive when handled at the federal level. Slowly and carefully, so as not to break faith with those we have forced into dependency, it should be transferred back to the states, local communities, and the people themselves where it should have been all along.

 

[dblack]

The SAME could be said for our omnipresent military; "unsustainable and it has already pretty well reached that point."

Indeed. The warfare/welfare state has run it's course. The only question is whether we pull back gracefully, or go down in flames.

 

[Contumacious]

Ágrarian economy. Rural population. Night and day.
.

Fascism/socialism will provide us tyranny, generalized misery Night and day

Nice try, though

.

 

[Sallow]

Until we are down to one or two workers paying for one or more person's medicare. Then it becomes unsustainable and it has already pretty well reached that point. The government cannot provide a wonderful benefit to one person without taking away property from somebody else. Property is finite. There is only so much of it. And when you run out of other people's money, then nobody has any property left. Such is the legacy of unrestrained socialism/communism.

Entitlements start out looking so righteous, noble, and compassionate. But over decades they grow into an elephant in every room that the nation becomes unable to feed.

We have already made generations dependent on Medicare by making it a mandatory government program. And we have a $15 trillion plus debt that translates to $133,000 for every American household and it is growing by billions every single day.

Only the most blind ideologue can fail to see that as unsustainable. It is time to rethink it and do it differently or we will collapse under the weight of our own greed for entitlements and other government largesse.

The SAME could be said for our omnipresent military; "unsustainable and it has already pretty well reached that point." But THAT is different...The government cannot provide wonderful benefits to citizens who really NEED them, that is EVIL. BUT, when we righteously bomb, nobly kill, and compassionately maim human beings, the beloved government is doing God's work...right?

If you can be well without health, you may be happy without virtue.
Edmund Burke

I am all for cutting the graft and corruption and payola out of the defense budget but you do that by making it illegal for Congress to dispense favors or largesse or benevolence to anybody unless they do it for everybody without respect to political affiliation or socioeconomic status. I am all for us not expending our blood and treasure in futile or wrong headed miltary adventures.

But at least the military is a Constitutional function of the federal government and without our rights secured, none of us are free. Being the biggest, baddest, and strongest is the best insurance for securing our rights and making the use of military force likely unnecessary.

Healthcare is not a Constitutional function of the federal government and is poorly administrative and is inefficient and excessively expense when handled at the federal level. Slowly and carefully, so as not to break faith with those we have forced into dependency, it should be transferred back to the states, local communities, and the people themselves where it should have been all along.

The Navy is permanent. The land forces are not. And the Constitution in no way advocates for the "biggest baddest or strongest military". It advocates for one able to repel invasions and quell insurrection.

This is what is perplexing about you guys and the Constitution. You don't have any idea what original intent was..

 

[lizzie]

The following is from Forbes.com, talking about how Americans coped with social justice before the advent of big gov't handouts. If I thought the gov't was more efficient and effective, if I thought they were doing a better and more impartial job of helping the less fortunate, if I thought their programs weren't rife with fraud, waste, and outright theft, then I could see supporting those entitlement programs. But they ain't and I don't.

That's true, and thanks for the link.

The term "social justice" implies the need to right a wrong. For something to be wrong, it must be caused by an act or force of another. There is no "wrong" in the fact that some people are rich, some are poor, and many fall in between. It's just the facts of life.

As an example, many people mistakenly believe that if the taxpayer is required to support those less fortunate, that means that there must be some sort of personal responsibility on the part of those who pay taxes. This is a false assumption. If a young woman who is totally unprepared to take care of a child gets pregnant, then goes onto government programs in order to raise that child, it is not "justice" that taxpayers are forced to meet her needs. The taxpayer had no part whatsoever in that young woman getting pregnant, and is not *guilty* of any injustice. It was her own decision or possibly even her own stupidity which put her in the position of having a child whom she wasn't prepared for. There is no social justice in forcing responsible citizens to pay for the mistakes of someone else. Social justice is equal treatment of all- not special treatment for some.

Ah. So you are in favor of a line-item tax return. You don't wanna pay for school lunches, I don't wanna pay to kill people in foreign lands...or maintain 700 bases overseas.

Watta say?

I am in favor of equal treatment under the law, not special treatment for some. Justice can't be served otherwise.

 

[dblack]

I am in favor of equal treatment under the law, not special treatment for some. Justice can't be served otherwise.

Absolutely. That's really what this all comes down to. We've come to accept government that goes beyond maintaining fair rules that apply to all equally, and takes on the role of parsing out favors to those it deems worthy. A lot of people are ok with this when it's the poor who are receiving but, as we've seen lately, it's a double edged sword. A government that has power to take from the rich and give to the poor can do the opposite as well.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Crappy. Some folks would like us to go backwards to the 19th century poor houses and debtors prisons.

So you'll be happy to list all the debtor prisons in the USA for us, right?

No? You won't list them? You can't, because such thing is expressly unconstitutional and never existed in this nation?

Oh well, don't let it stop you from lying, you're a leftist, lying is your duty....

 

[Uncensored2008]

You're a Dickensian imbecile

Nah, he's just a dick....

 

[Claudette]

The following is from Forbes.com, talking about how Americans coped with social justice before the advent of big gov't handouts. If I thought the gov't was more efficient and effective, if I thought they were doing a better and more impartial job of helping the less fortunate, if I thought their programs weren't rife with fraud, waste, and outright theft, then I could see supporting those entitlement programs. But they ain't and I don't.

That's true, and thanks for the link.

The term "social justice" implies the need to right a wrong. For something to be wrong, it must be caused by an act or force of another. There is no "wrong" in the fact that some people are rich, some are poor, and many fall in between. It's just the facts of life.

As an example, many people mistakenly believe that if the taxpayer is required to support those less fortunate, that means that there must be some sort of personal responsibility on the part of those who pay taxes. This is a false assumption. If a young woman who is totally unprepared to take care of a child gets pregnant, then goes onto government programs in order to raise that child, it is not "justice" that taxpayers are forced to meet her needs. The taxpayer had no part whatsoever in that young woman getting pregnant, and is not *guilty* of any injustice. It was her own decision or possibly even her own stupidity which put her in the position of having a child whom she wasn't prepared for. There is no social justice in forcing responsible citizens to pay for the mistakes of someone else. Social justice is equal treatment of all- not special treatment for some.

Ah. So you are in favor of a line-item tax return. You don't wanna pay for school lunches, I don't wanna pay to kill people in foreign lands...or maintain 700 bases overseas.

Watta say?

Nope. I dont' want to pay for school lunches. Let the kids brown bag it. I did.

Lets close all of our bases all over the world. Lets cut our military down to the bare bones. Of course we do have treaties all over the world but hey, who needs to honor a pesky old treaty??

That little troll in N Korea and the crazyassed Mullas in Iran are working toward nukes. When they get em it will be quite interesting.

 

[Foxfyre]

The SAME could be said for our omnipresent military; "unsustainable and it has already pretty well reached that point." But THAT is different...The government cannot provide wonderful benefits to citizens who really NEED them, that is EVIL. BUT, when we righteously bomb, nobly kill, and compassionately maim human beings, the beloved government is doing God's work...right?

If you can be well without health, you may be happy without virtue.
Edmund Burke

I am all for cutting the graft and corruption and payola out of the defense budget but you do that by making it illegal for Congress to dispense favors or largesse or benevolence to anybody unless they do it for everybody without respect to political affiliation or socioeconomic status. I am all for us not expending our blood and treasure in futile or wrong headed miltary adventures.

But at least the military is a Constitutional function of the federal government and without our rights secured, none of us are free. Being the biggest, baddest, and strongest is the best insurance for securing our rights and making the use of military force likely unnecessary.

Healthcare is not a Constitutional function of the federal government and is poorly administrative and is inefficient and excessively expense when handled at the federal level. Slowly and carefully, so as not to break faith with those we have forced into dependency, it should be transferred back to the states, local communities, and the people themselves where it should have been all along.

The Navy is permanent. The land forces are not. And the Constitution in no way advocates for the "biggest baddest or strongest military". It advocates for one able to repel invasions and quell insurrection.

This is what is perplexing about you guys and the Constitution. You don't have any idea what original intent was..

So what is the best means of repelling invasions and quelling insurrection? The biggest and baddest and toughest military yes? The entire Constitution as intended by the Founders was to secure our rights so that we would then be free to live our lives as we chose to do so without interference from any despot, dictator, monarch, feudal lord, or totalitarian government.

The Founders saw that the people were "entitled" to have their rights secured from inteference by all, domestic and foreign, such rights including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They saw it as a violation of those rights and a form of tyranny to confiscate the property of one citizen for the benefit of another. Every single one of them would have turned thumbs down on the entitlement programs the federal government have imposed at the expense of liberty and fiscal responsibility.

 

[Uncensored2008]

was in a massive deadly depression.

Then Kynesian spending for the war effort brought us out of that depression.

Bullshit, and I've corrected you with details on this before, meaning you are being dishonest.