<p>this is true--at least you're gonna keep your laws off my body. i'm down with that. haha</p>
<p>but i'd say that political ideologies are based primarily on economic and political philosophies. it all comes down to your stance on federal government involvement most importantly.</p>
<p>yes. and my beliefs generally revolve around individualism.</p>
<p>and may I ask -- what laws are you expecting?</p>
<p>I basically would say: "pursue your own happiness as long as it's not at the malicious intent of another."</p>
<p>and by malicious, I mean underhanded means.</p>
<p>of course, I'm probably forgetting a lot.</p>
<p>haha yea i'm more libertarain too.
i'm suuuper conservative economically, but socially i don't care what people do as long as my autonomy isn't damaged</p>
<p>
[quote]
wharfrat2: part of life is taking responsibility. if you aren't responsible enough to have a kid, get an abortion. if you want to keep your kid, you should have been responsible in the first place. it's not other people's duty to pay for your messups.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I never said it was other people's duty to pay for their "mess ups." But is it the child's fault? You're going to deprive a child of even the most minimal standard of living because their parents were irresponsible? How is that even remotely in the best interests of society?</p>
<p>welfare brings down our society. People with mental/physical disabilities should get help from private non profit organizations funded by private donors. Everyone without a disability has the opportunity to achieve success and overcome whatever initial class they are born into. They may not have equal resources as everyone else to achieve success, but the opportunities are still abundant.</p>
<p>
[quote]
welfare brings down our society. People with mental/physical disabilities should get help from private non profit organizations funded by private donors. Everyone without a disability has the opportunity to achieve success and overcome whatever initial class they are born into. They may not have equal resources as everyone else to achieve success, but the opportunities are still abundant.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Spoken like a true Republican. Yes, in theory you are absolutely correct that everyone has the opportunity to achieve success, etc. However their chances of doing so are significantly diminished if as children they are not afforded the most basic amount of food and shelter. </p>
<p>I have no way to rebut arguments concerning the lack of responsibility by parents be they mothers or fathers but I will never concede that children should be required to suffer the consequences of choices made by irresponsible adults.</p>
<p>By the way, you never did answer my questions.</p>
<p>"People with mental/physical disabilities should get help from private non profit organizations funded by private donors."</p>
<p>Wow.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"People with mental/physical disabilities should get help from private non profit organizations funded by private donors."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The good people at Walter Reed would be proud of you. This probably warms your heart too.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It could be argued that the people of a society give consent to all the laws of a government when they become citizens -- thus no violations of rights. What's the difference between entering into a social contract with a government (that involves paying taxes) and entering into a private contract with other men? A government's simply an agglomeration of men.</p>
<p>OP -</p>
<p>Before you start talking about rights, consider your rights: You have the right to believe that welfare is unfair to the rich, and to say so publicly. You have the right to vote for representatives who agree with you on the issue of welfare. You have the right to convince other people that your position is correct, and that they should vote for the same representatives.</p>
<p>If the majority of the population feels that some form of welfare is worthwhile, then chances are society will implement some form of welfare. If you can gather enough support then you can reverse this, without a revolution, in the United States. Welfare in this country is not an issue of the government's "rights," because the American government is the embodiment of the voice of the people; and even the Constitution itself can be changed if the support for the change is wide enough.</p>
<p>The real issue is whether or not welfare is worthwhile to society - it's an investment. In principle I believe some amount of welfare is good because it provides a foothold for those in desperate circumstances. Unfortunately, it can be hard to tell what the return will be for society; some people will make good use of the money, and others won't. One aspect to the problem that I've seen is that, given the chance (or even the illusion of a chance) via government assistance, someone with creative inclinations will pursue creativity while ignoring real-world economics. Personally I believe that creativity is valuable to society, but then again I'm aiming for a career in theoretical astrophysics - one of the least practical professions imaginable - so I guess I don't have the right perspective.</p>
<p>What I don't like about welfare/minumum wage: The way it's structured. Sometimes it is better for a woman to have more babies and stay at home than to go to work. Minimum wage is also not as beneficial as it sounds at first glance. Companies don't all of a sudden gain more money to pay workers-people get laid off and get downsized.</p>
<p>
[quote]
In principle I believe some amount of welfare is good because it provides a foothold for those in desperate circumstances.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Maybe if it was temporary...just to get people back on their feet.</p>
<p>Welfare is unfair to the rich. There are two main ways to get rich: through hard work or inheritance. The American Dream is to get rich through hard work. Why would you want to make them pay more for getting rich? People who inherit alot of money cannot help it. It's not like they get to choose whether they want to be born into a rich or poor family. It's not their fault, so why should they have to pay for it?</p>
<p>And no, I'm not rich. My parents make under $60,000 a year combined. It's just that, if I work extremely hard and get rich, I don't want to have to pay my hard earned money for welfare.</p>
<p>I love communism :)</p>
<p>Jman:</p>
<p>TANF - <em>Temporary</em> Asistance for Needy Families</p>
<p>Anyway, I am very skeptical that the "American Dream" you cite is at all realistic. Even in America, life is not fair. A person who starts poor and becomes rich did not necessarily reach wealth solely through his or her own hard work. Random acquaintances made through the course of life can make a big difference. The United States provides the framework within which a poor person <em>could</em> become rich, through the random convergence of a thousand independent factors, one of which is hard work/diligence.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The United States provides the framework within which a poor person <em>could</em> become rich, through the random convergence of a thousand independent factors, one of which is hard work/diligence.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well then make them pay for welfare. :P</p>
<p>I'm talking about people who go from a poor childhood and become rich solely through hard work. It's not easy and we shouldn't make them pay, or the people who inherit wealth.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Minimum wage is also not as beneficial as it sounds at first glance.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Minimum wage is good only for teenagers looking for some spending money. It is not a living wage.</p>
<p>You may be right, Jman, but unfortunately it's exceedingly difficult to determine who should pay and who shouldn't. If you think about it, it opens up another can of worms. After all, you can't determine the degree to which a rich person deserves his or her wealth without a very extensive analysis; who's going to pay the government bureaucrats who spend the whole working day performing these analyses? Is it fair to have Jane, John and family, living on $30,000/yr and struggling to put two kids through college, pay taxes to determine whether someone making several orders of magnitude more per year should pay taxes to help other people who earn nothing at all? (That last sentence employed several stereotypes, but I think you get the idea.)</p>
<p>No system is perfect, and no matter how hard we try, the system will be unfair to somebody. The least we can do is - forgive the mathematical analogy - attempt to minimize the integral of unfairness over all of society. This means taking reasonable measures to ensure that each person has a decent meal and a roof over his or her head.</p>
<p>You're right, but we do need to reform the welfare program. It could definitely be better.</p>
<p>What goes around comes around. Welfare isn't just free money to poor people. Those people will then spend that money which will keep the capitalist machine functioning. If you have too many homeless and poor, then there won't be a consumer base.</p>
<p>And why are you only upset at welfare? What about taxes that allow you to fund the city police to keep those Blacks in their place, or the taxes that allow you to show those Muslims who's boss? Are those taxes any more necessary than keeping your own countrymen alive in the barest conditions? Damn conservative ********.</p>
<p>^ I'm not really sure if you really are that stupid, but I'm just going to ignore it. </p>
<p>To the OP: You make a statement, to which I would say, so? The sort of welfare that our government doles out is simply to keep America's underclass loyal to the government. There's nothing really inherently evil about it, even if it is socialist to some degree. Yea, there are plenty of things wrong with it, not because it's "socialist" but because it's putting us in debt. That's why I'll be voting Democrat in the next election.</p>