Who has the duty to take care of them

[uppy]

Who has the duty "to take care of people who can’t take care of themselves"? According to almost 7 out of 10 Americans, government has that responsibility.
I bet its not that high in this fourm
_______________________________

Trends in Political Values and Core Attitudes: 1987-2007
Political Landscape More Favorable To Democrats


Increased public support for the social safety net, signs of growing public concern about income inequality, and a diminished appetite for assertive national security policies have improved the political landscape for the Democrats as the 2008 presidential campaign gets underway.

At the same time, many of the key trends that nurtured the Republican resurgence in the mid-1990s have moderated, according to Pew's longitudinal measures of the public's basic political, social and economic values. The proportion of Americans who support traditional social values has edged downward since 1994, while the proportion of Americans expressing strong personal religious commitment also has declined modestly.

more.......



http://pewresearch.org/pubs/434/trends-in-political-values-and-core-attitudes-1987-2007

[uppy]

If your family or friends refuse to take responsibility for you, should you die in the gutter ?

[JLB]

Why again are they not taking care of themselves?

[pmoon6]

We all have a responsibility to take care of each other. I prefer to do it at the community level.

[sukie]

Out of those respondents... how many don't realize that the Government has no money other than what they themselves pay in?

[uppy]

James Madison ~

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

[uppy]

BTW...I'm sick of fighting about Mr.Bush and the war on terror so I'm taking
a few days off on those issues

[JLB]

BTW...I'm sick of fighting about Mr.Bush and the war on terror so I'm taking
a few days off on those issues

I'll be available for anybody interested in getting straightened out.:guy:

But only between the hours of 11 am and 2 pm after that :dunno:

[mikgaes]

Can anyone help me get this hook out of the back of my hand?

http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g290/mikgaes/IMGP0319.jpg?t=1184515955

[uppy]

I'll be available for anybody interested in getting straightened out.:guy:

But only between the hours of 11 am and 2 pm after that :dunno:

I'll pass the flag to you Sir !

now back to the thread


"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison (Letter to Edmund Pendleton)

[uppy]

Should we do absolutely nothing. Why should "we as a people" spend

resources on the most worthless dregs of society? There is no return on that

investment.

[Ru]

Should we do absolutely nothing. Why should "we as a people" spend

resources on the most worthless dregs of society? There is no return on that

investment.

We do have a responsibility to those less fortunate. Now, I'm not talking generations of welfare recipients, but rather those that have fallen on hard times and need help until they can find new employment or those that due to physical or mental handicaps cannot function as a productive member of society. We do have a responsibility to these people IMO. My problem is that it is not the job of the federal government to do so. This should be done at the local level IMO.

[uppy]

We do have a responsibility to those less fortunate. Now, I'm not talking generations of welfare recipients, but rather those that have fallen on hard times and need help until they can find new employment or those that due to physical or mental handicaps cannot function as a productive member of society. We do have a responsibility to these people IMO. My problem is that it is not the job of the federal government to do so. This should be done at the local level IMO.

Ok, but, if we feel a society is often judged by how it treats its most

unfortunate members,is it not the job of the federal government to

do it?

[Ru]

Ok, but, if we feel a society is often judged by how it treats its most

unfortunate members,is it not the job of the federal government to

do it?

Just because the federal government isn't administering the programs does not mean that we as a society are not taking care of our less fortunate members. I see no where in the Constitution that providing welfare, social assistance, etc. is the job of the Federal Government.

[uppy]

Just because the federal government isn't administering the programs does not mean that we as a society are not taking care of our less fortunate members. I see no where in the Constitution that providing welfare, social assistance, etc. is the job of the Federal Government.

If a hurricane wipes out your City or some other "Act of God" causes you a catastrophic loss, then the people should look out for you until you can support yourself again right?

The Federal Goverment is the only one that has the resources to help.

Also, a very brief perusal of the Constitution yields Article I, Section 8. You know, the part about giving Congress the power to, amongst other things, "provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States" makes it the Feds job.

[Gibby]

The church has this duty, but alas its AWOL and so therefore the government has to assume the responsibility.

[sukie]

I don't need Fema... I have State Farm.

[35Pete]

If a hurricane wipes out your City or some other "Act of God" causes you a catastrophic loss, then the people should look out for you until you can support yourself again right?

The Federal Goverment is the only one that has the resources to help.

Also, a very brief perusal of the Constitution yields Article I, Section 8. You know, the part about giving Congress the power to, amongst other things, "provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States" makes it the Feds job.

Do you read threads here? Madison explicitly contradicts that assertion in Federalist Paper No. 44.

Galveston was wiped out before FEMA was born. It rebuilt itself. So don't give me that crap.

[35Pete]

The church has this duty, but alas its AWOL and so therefore the government has to assume the responsibility.

Yeah but the constitution forbids it. And for good reason.

[Gibby]

Who has the duty "to take care of people who can’t take care of themselves"? According to almost 7 out of 10 Americans, government has that responsibility.
I bet its not that high in this fourm
_______________________________

Trends in Political Values and Core Attitudes: 1987-2007
Political Landscape More Favorable To Democrats


Increased public support for the social safety net, signs of growing public concern about income inequality, and a diminished appetite for assertive national security policies have improved the political landscape for the Democrats as the 2008 presidential campaign gets underway.

At the same time, many of the key trends that nurtured the Republican resurgence in the mid-1990s have moderated, according to Pew's longitudinal measures of the public's basic political, social and economic values. The proportion of Americans who support traditional social values has edged downward since 1994, while the proportion of Americans expressing strong personal religious commitment also has declined modestly.

more.......



http://pewresearch.org/pubs/434/trends-in-political-values-and-core-attitudes-1987-2007

I'll make it so easy that even Uppy can understand it. Who is responsible for taking care of the disadvantaged? You are.

[Gibby]

Yeah but the constitution forbids it. And for good reason.

Really? You don't say, so this isn't part of the preamble? WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

and this isn't in article one section eight? and to provide for the . . . general welfare of the United States

Now that we have established that the constitution demands that the government provide for the general welfare of the people, and trust me this includes providing for the least well off, where can you find where it expressly forbids it.

Secondly, WTF do you mean when you say and for good reason? What reason would you have for it, selfishness?

Ah yes, understanding that the founding fathers intended that the government look after the general welfare of the people is so easy a Libertarian can understand it.

[Gibby]

James Madison ~

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

how about article 1 section eight or the preamble and are we sure that Madison said this? I want to see a link to a credible source, take your time Uppy.

[uppy]

Do you read threads here? Madison explicitly contradicts that assertion in Federalist Paper No. 44.

Galveston was wiped out before FEMA was born. It rebuilt itself. So don't give me that crap.

Yet public welfare and entitlement programs have long been ruled Constitutional. Care to address that paradox? How is it that so manny distinguished and presumably patriotic jurists have consistently upheld the Congressional right to appropriate monies for the general welfare?

[uppy]

I want to see a link to a credible source, take your time Uppy.

I thought you where a history major ?

[Gibby]

Yet public welfare and entitlement programs have long been ruled Constitutional. Care to address that paradox? How is it that so manny distinguished and presumably patriotic jurists have consistently upheld the Congressional right to appropriate monies for the general welfare?

Easy because one paper Fed 44 and Libertarians did not the constitution make. No the founders were not Libertarians and in fact I defy Pete to find even one who fits the bill.

[uppy]

Easy because one paper Fed 44 and Libertarians did not the constitution make. No the founders were not Libertarians and in fact I defy Pete to find even one who fits the bill.

Good point Gibby

[uppy]

Do you read threads here? Madison explicitly contradicts that assertion in Federalist Paper No. 44.

Galveston was wiped out before FEMA was born. It rebuilt itself. So don't give me that crap.

Madison's concerns as I see it were related to the Federal government funding "objects of benevolence" not the general Welfare

Also, it should be noted that Madison's now famous objecton to the appropration of $15,000 for French refugees was rejected by his colleagues in Congress and by President Washington. Certainly many of those men were also delegates to the Constitutional Convention. So it can certanly be argued that Madison, irrespective of his role at the Convention, did not represent the maintream views of the Founders.

[35Pete]

Madison's concerns as I see it were related to the Federal government funding "objects of benevolence" not the general Welfare

Also, it should be noted that Madison's now famous objecton to the appropration of $15,000 for French refugees was rejected by his colleagues in Congress and by President Washington. Certainly many of those men were also delegates to the Constitutional Convention. So it can certanly be argued that Madison, irrespective of his role at the Convention, did not represent the maintream views of the Founders.

Link?

[Green Lantern]

Uppy, did your kid log on with your ID?

I only ask because I would like to join in this thread but:

A) you sound too reasonable

B) you are typing all your words correctly

Let me know.

[Gibby]

Uppy, did your kid log on with your ID?

I only ask because I would like to join in this thread but:

A) you sound too reasonable

B) you are typing all your words correctly

Let me know.

Just goes to show you what can happen when someone uses common sense

[35Pete]

Jesus Americans are dumbed down. Starts with the education system.

Someone google avalon project, start with Paper No. 1 and keep reading.

[uppy]

Uppy, did your kid log on with your ID?

I only ask because I would like to join in this thread but:

A) you sound too reasonable

B) you are typing all your words correctly

Let me know.

I'm taking my time and I'd like to get back to a thread where the debate
doesn't end in a shit storm on the war on terror or Mr. Bush for a few days.
BTW Aqua,I am very reasonable when the national security of my country
is not in question.

[uppy]

Link?


How do I link a history book Pete ?

[Gibby]

Jesus Americans are dumbed down. Starts with the education system.

Someone google avalon project, start with Paper No. 1 and keep reading.

Three questions

1) Do you mean the one on the Yale Law School site? (if so thanks because its been added to my favorites list along with the Fordham Halsall project, lots of useful and fun primary documents)

2) Are you saying that people who disagree with you are dumbed down? If so is this not poisoning the well?

3) Should public schools cease to exist?

[Green Lantern]

OK Upstart:

First, why did you change "government" to "federal government" in this debate?

What I mean is 'people' think government is responsible for the helpless and after a few posts you change the appellation to 'federal'. Did you mispost the cited article or do you assume 'government' equates to 'federal government' for all the people who answered the poll?

[35Pete]

Three questions

1) Do you mean the one on the Yale Law School site? (if so thanks because its been added to my favorites list along with the Fordham Halsall project, lots of useful and fun primary documents)

Yep.

2) Are you saying that people who disagree with you are dumbed down? If so is this not poisoning the well? Nope. Just that Americans in general are incredibly stupid at history. They really are. Easily distracted with crap like Survivor or that Fred Thompson show...whatever the hell it is, and often swallow platitudes like a bass gobbling a shiner.

3) Should public schools cease to exist?. Yep. (federal or even state - keep it local).

Yep. LOL (I haven't watched a network show in 7 years. LOL).

[35Pete]

OK Upstart:

First, why did you change "government" to "federal government" in this debate?

What I mean is 'people' think government is responsible for the helpless and after a few posts you change the appellation to 'federal'. Did you mispost the cited article or do you assume 'government' equates to 'federal government' for all the people who answered the poll?

Distribution of the pillage. :rofl:

[Gibby]

Pete this survivor, what is it? During college, and now when I have free time, I read, watch Turner Classic Movies, C-SPAN, and the Daily Show and Colbert Report.

[uppy]

OK Upstart:

First, why did you change "government" to "federal government" in this debate?

What I mean is 'people' think government is responsible for the helpless and after a few posts you change the appellation to 'federal'. Did you mispost the cited article or do you assume 'government' equates to 'federal government' for all the people who answered the poll?

It wasn't done for any particular reason other then twisting Pete's tail and
getting him into the debate.I know how he feels about the general Welfare
wording in Article I, Section 8. and I wanted to see what he had to say.

[Green Lantern]

It wasn't done for any particular reason other then twisting Pete's tail and
getting him into the debate.I know how he feels about the general Welfare
wording in Article I, Section 8. and I wanted to see what he had to say.

Then, second question:

Why did you start with the question who should take care of the helpless in general and then expand it to include catastrophic emergencies like hurricanes?

Is it not enough to just pose and discuss the question of who should take care of the helpless?

I, personally, think 'duty' to do what is right does not mean it should be part of a 'right' for people who receive it.

[uppy]

Distribution of the pillage. :rofl:

If the "people" have a moral obligation to provide some assistance to their less fortunate, the government, like it or not, is the representative of the "people" in that regard.

And the Constitutional issue which has been brought up is in no small part a strawman, for two reasons. First federal antipoverty programs have withstood constitutional challenge for quite some time now even with the Supreme Court moving in an increasingly conservative direction over the past quarter century. You can quote Madison until you're blue in the face, but it doesn't change that fact Pete.

[uppy]

[QUOTE=aquaman#1;1711148]Then, second question:

Why did you start with the question who should take care of the helpless in general and then expand it to include catastrophic emergencies like hurricanes?

Go back and read Ru's post before my catastrophic emergencies post.

Is it not enough to just pose and discuss the question of who should take care of the helpless?

I, personally, think 'duty' to do what is right does not mean it should be part of a 'right' for people who receive it.

Then you feel that a person should be allowed to die alone in a gutter
if no one comes to their aid ?

[35Pete]

If the "people" have a moral obligation to provide some assistance to their less fortunate, the government, like it or not, is the representative of the "people" in that regard.

And the Constitutional issue which has been brought up is in no small part a strawman, for two reasons. First federal antipoverty programs have withstood constitutional challenge for quite some time now even with the Supreme Court moving in an increasingly conservative direction over the past quarter century. You can quote Madison until you're blue in the face, but it doesn't change that fact Pete.

Bad precedent based on bad precedent does not make it constitutional. Why can't the community provide that role? All you're advocating is stealing for a "good cause".

It's still stealing.

[Green Lantern]

Go back and read Ru's post before my catastrophic emergencies post.



Then you feel that a person should be allowed to die alone in a gutter
if no one comes to their aid ?

My question was about how the debate changed. Thanks.

No, I do not think people should die in the gutter but I also don't think what is a moral duty to do when you CAN help should be translated into codified law.

I believe that all the social programs we have should be understood to be conventions that we are able to undertake because we are the wealthiest nation on earth. Capitalism, like any other human endeavor, comes with limitations and flaws. When we are able, we remediate these deficiencies. This is one of the functions of any government. Some people are selfish and don't want to help others and when these people win the day in a debate then their opponents stoop to trying to convince others that these things, these social programs, are 'human rights'.

Both are wrong; in my view.

[Green Lantern]

If the "people" have a moral obligation to provide some assistance to their less fortunate, the government, like it or not, is the representative of the "people" in that regard.

And the Constitutional issue which has been brought up is in no small part a strawman, for two reasons. First federal antipoverty programs have withstood constitutional challenge for quite some time now even with the Supreme Court moving in an increasingly conservative direction over the past quarter century. You can quote Madison until you're blue in the face, but it doesn't change that fact Pete.

What have you done with Upstart?

[uppy]

Bad precedent based on bad precedent does not make it constitutional. Why can't the community provide that role? All you're advocating is stealing for a "good cause".

It's still stealing.


The Constitution became a living, breathing document the moment
Marbury v. Madison was ruled upon. thank you John Marshall. You may not like it, but thems the breaks Pete.

life is good

[Green Lantern]

Bad precedent based on bad precedent does not make it constitutional. Why can't the community provide that role? All you're advocating is stealing for a "good cause".

It's still stealing.

What IS constitutional is decided by the Supreme Court, not your reading of the Constitution; so, 'bad precedent' is law.

[35Pete]

What IS constitutional is decided by the Supreme Court, not your reading of the Constitution; so, 'bad precedent' is law.

A precedent is established with a slight deviation from constitutionality. No one notices. Then a precedent with another deviation is based on that precedent. And so on and so on. Before you know it all sorts of nonsense is called constitutional when it's not.

Just human nature. I think a ctrl-alt-del attitude needs to be reinstilled in this country.

Go back to the basics. We're thinking our way out of constitutionality and the entire purpose of the constitution in the first place.

[uppy]

What have you done with Upstart?

I have always been here Aqua.....but when it comes national security or
moonbat politcal agenda's I state my opinion and the left melts down.
Then goes back to an old lawyer's trick. When you can't attack the facts, go after the witness.You do it too all the time Aqua in your own way.

[Green Lantern]

I have always been here Aqua.....but when it comes national security or
moonbat politcal agenda's I state my opinion and the left melts down.
Then goes back to an old lawyer's trick. When you can't attack the facts, go after the witness.You do it too all the time Aqua in your own way.

Nehe,

Stop hacking into Uppy's account.

[uppy]

Bad precedent based on bad precedent does not make it constitutional. Why can't the community provide that role? All you're advocating is stealing for a "good cause".

It's still stealing.



One flaw in constitutional analysis is reliance upon what some guys may have said or written 200+ years ago. The words of Constitution are defined by these Justices, today.

http://www.wkrn.com/files/images/ap/politics/2007/04/scotus-abortion.jpg


It means no more or less than what they say it does.

[35Pete]

One flaw in constitutional analysis is reliance upon what some guys may have said or written 200+ years ago. The words of Constitution are defined by these Justices, today.

http://www.wkrn.com/files/images/ap/politics/2007/04/scotus-abortion.jpg


It means no more or less than what they say it does.

OMG. So you say that they are kings?

[Green Lantern]

They are 'the decider's'.

[uppy]

Pete,you need to get back to your game you are taking a beating

OMG. So you say that they are kings?

No,they defined the Constitution and thats the bottom line.

[uppy]

Pete, I know you have been run off in this thread but tell me and we may be getting somewhere. That is, if you understand that if a program has a stated purpose of advancing the general welfare of this country it can be assumed to have passed Constitutional muster as per Article 1, Sec 8.

Which means Madison was wrong.

A yes or no is all I need

[Gibby]

If the "people" have a moral obligation to provide some assistance to their less fortunate, the government, like it or not, is the representative of the "people" in that regard.

And the Constitutional issue which has been brought up is in no small part a strawman, for two reasons. First federal antipoverty programs have withstood constitutional challenge for quite some time now even with the Supreme Court moving in an increasingly conservative direction over the past quarter century. You can quote Madison until you're blue in the face, but it doesn't change that fact Pete.

What have you done with Upstart?

Okay Upstart gotta agree with Aqua here, who are you and what have you done with Uppy?

[uppy]

Okay Upstart gotta agree with Aqua here, who are you and what have you done with Uppy?

Uppy was knocked off by Bu$hco yesterday,Carl R. is now posting in his
place its a trap to catch traitors to the country

[Green Lantern]

Just so long as we are all still Imperialists, I'm good with that.

[uppy]

Should 'natural selection' be the means witch we care for the less well off.And as Darwin pointed out when he helped coin the concept of "survival of the fittest," it is not necessarily the biggest, the swiftest, the strongest, that wins the day. Luck plays a HUGE role,should the un-lucky be pushed
away to conform to what the founders "implied" ?

[Green Lantern]

Should 'natural selection' be the means witch we care for the less well off.And as Darwin pointed out when he helped coin the concept of "survival of the fittest," it is not necessarily the biggest, the swiftest, the strongest, that wins the day. Luck plays a HUGE role,should the un-lucky be pushed
away to conform to what the founders "implied" ?

I find it difficult to apply 'natural' selection to the conventions of men.

[uppy]

I find it difficult to apply 'natural' selection to the conventions of men.


Do you agree,Spencer said:"This survival of the fittest, which I have here sought to express in mechanical terms, is that which Mr. Darwin has called 'natural selection', or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life."

Darwin:""I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term natural selection, in order to mark its relation to man's power of selection. But the expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer, of the Survival of the Fittest, is more accurate, and is sometimes equally convenient."?

[Green Lantern]

Do you agree,Spencer said:"This survival of the fittest, which I have here sought to express in mechanical terms, is that which Mr. Darwin has called 'natural selection', or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life."

Darwin:""I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term natural selection, in order to mark its relation to man's power of selection. But the expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer, of the Survival of the Fittest, is more accurate, and is sometimes equally convenient."?

No. I do not agree with Spencer or his disciples. Manmade society is not natural and so you cannot call what is favorable in any given society a 'natural' selection.

Spencer and his followers see our system changing from agriculture to industrialization, they see some suffer and fall, they see others rise and they proclaim that those who have succeeded to be a natural aristocracy.

There is nothing any more natural about agriculture than industry. Both are conventions of man and they end up having different victors. Who deserves to be left to die then?

[uppy]

No. I do not agree with Spencer or his disciples. Manmade society is not natural and so you cannot call what is favorable in any given society a 'natural' selection.

Spencer and his followers see our system changing from agriculture to industrialization, they see some suffer and fall, they see others rise and they proclaim that those who have succeeded to be a natural aristocracy.

There is nothing any more natural about agriculture than industry. Both are conventions of man and they end up having different victors. Who deserves to be left to die then?


The two quotes I gave you from Darwin and Spencer say otherwise. They seem to make the equivalence of the terms pretty clear. Since they were the ones considered the authors of the terms and concepts, I'll take their expertise over yours. Now we still have you not addressing the question who deserves to be left to die then ?

[Green Lantern]

The two quotes I gave you from Darwin and Spencer say otherwise. They seem to make the equivalence of the terms pretty clear. Since they were the ones considered the authors of the terms and concepts, I'll take their expertise over yours. Now we still have you not addressing the question who deserves to be left to die then ?

They coined a term, true. If you want to believe them, that is your choice. I have not posted anything they have not themselves admitted; except that they would not point out that there is nothing natural about a country's economy. Their argument is that those who rise to the top would rise to the top no matter what type of economy or government one imposes on a society or a society chooses.

I say it is convention. When you set up rules, those naturally best predisposed for success should rise to the top. I do believe that different people succeeded when swinging battle axes was more important than those who forged the battle axe. Different rules, different people succeed. There is nothing "natural" about it and the 'survival of the fittest' is the survival of the fittest for the system imposed by men.

As for people being left to die, I think I have answered that: save who we can when we can.

[uppy]

They coined a term, true. If you want to believe them, that is your choice. I have not posted anything they have not themselves admitted; except that they would not point out that there is nothing natural about a country's economy. Their argument is that those who rise to the top would rise to the top no matter what type of economy or government one imposes on a society or a society chooses.

I say it is convention. When you set up rules, those naturally best predisposed for success should rise to the top. I do believe that different people succeeded when swinging battle axes was more important than those who forged the battle axe. Different rules, different people succeed. There is nothing "natural" about it and the 'survival of the fittest' is the survival of the fittest for the system imposed by men.

As for people being left to die, I think I have answered that: save who we can when we can.

Great post Aqua,I'm going to bed now and will respond Monday after work,
the fat HR bitch keeps an eye on me so I will not be back until after 5:00pm
or so.JLB, will have spamed this thread to page two by then, but I will bring
it back up.

[TigerJ]

I think any discussion of who takes care of those who can't take care of themselves needs to include a little talk about who they are. "They" include the elderly poor who don't have the financial resources for long term care when they can no longer care for themselves. "They" would include adults who are developmentally disabled, have mental illness, or physical disabilities that mean they are unable to work for themselves. "They" includes children whose parents have been guilty of abuse or neglect so that the children can't be considered safe in their own parents' homes. That's not an exhaustive list, but that can get us started. My mother could be considered "elderly poor." My father died when my mom was 60, with inadequate life insurance, pension benefits and social security. My three brothers and one sister and I have felt that we have some responsibility to supplement her income so that she can live in reasonable comfort. That's OK for now. Should she need nursing home care at some point, I suspect we'll decide that she's a candidate for medicaid. She'll lose her house and most of her possessions at that point. None of us have ever figured there would be an inheritance.

Another example: My wife and I are foster parents of a girl whose parents were neglectful and abusive. Her early childhood left her emotionally disturbed. She may also have bipolar disorder. She is on medicaid which pays for medication (she spent 2 weeks in a children's psychiatric ward earlier this year). For being foster parents, the county pays us about $15 a day. Out of that we buy all her food and clothing. She just had a birthday and we gave her about $150 in gifts, plus in May we took her to Walt Disney World. We figure we just about break even. Of course, not all foster parents take their foster kids to Walt Disney World. We figure we're not in it for the money. We just wanted to provide a kid who came out of hell with love and affection, and something close to the kind of home our own kids had. Some foster parents warehouse kids. They have three kids in a hundred square foot bedroom, buy clothes at rummage sales and the Salvation Army. Some have enough foster kids they can add a substantial supplement to family income, and the kids see little direct benefit from the money paid for their care. The government can't pay enough for all the kids in foster care to have attentive affectionate caretakers. If these kids are really going to have a loving home, there have to be people willing to do it 24 hours a day without being paid minimum wage or even what a high school kid would get hourly for babysitting.

The government has a role to play, a vitally important role. But government can't do it alone. If we have family members who can't care for themselves, I think our families have a role to play, but when it becomes too much for families, the government needs to be there. The government needs to have the agency in place to protect children from abusive and neglectful parents, but the government can't take care of the children themselves. They can't even compensate those that do the actual childcare at any kind of rate comparable to what people can earn at their local McDonalds. So if these children are going to have a loving home, it's because there are people who do it for the love of children and not for the monthly stipend. So the answer is no one entity can do it all. Families can't do it all. Government can't do it all. Community members can't do it all. Everyone has a role, and the more people pitch in the less people have to suffer.

[35Pete]

:rofl:

Uppy's got to playing rope a dope. LOL

[shiva2999]

It's like I walked into the movie "Charlie".

[г]

What have you done with Upstart?

The fat HR bitch has commandeered his PC

[Ru]

That's not Uppy. His writing style is completely different.

[uppy]

They coined a term, true. If you want to believe them, that is your choice. I have not posted anything they have not themselves admitted; except that they would not point out that there is nothing natural about a country's economy. Their argument is that those who rise to the top would rise to the top no matter what type of economy or government one imposes on a society or a society chooses.

I say it is convention. When you set up rules, those naturally best predisposed for success should rise to the top. I do believe that different people succeeded when swinging battle axes was more important than those who forged the battle axe. Different rules, different people succeed. There is nothing "natural" about it and the 'survival of the fittest' is the survival of the fittest for the system imposed by men.

As for people being left to die, I think I have answered that: save who we can when we can.

Would you agree with what Wallace, wrote: "I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term natural selection, in order to mark its relation to man's power of selection. ?

[uppy]

That's not Uppy. His writing style is completely different.

I have a writing style ?

[uppy]

It's like I walked into the movie "Charlie".

lol

I don't like the way that movie ended.

[Green Lantern]

Would you agree with what Wallace, wrote: "I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term natural selection, in order to mark its relation to man's power of selection. ?

I can agree with that statement for the sake of our discussion, yes. Personally, I think nature works the other way: slight variations, if not fatal, survive.

[35Pete]

Ohh my God.

Am I reading Uppy or am I having a windowpane flashback from 1983?

[uppy]

Ohh my God.

Am I reading Uppy or am I having a windowpane flashback from 1983?

I had the same feelings a month ago reading your posts....lol

[35Pete]

I had the same feelings a month ago reading your posts....lol

:rofl:

I know what you are up to. Kinda arrogant of you to think that you could fool the most brilliant intellectual mind on the internet. That'd be me of course.

LOL

[Green Lantern]

I had the same feelings a month ago reading your posts....lol

Ouch.

[uppy]

I can agree with that statement for the sake of our discussion, yes. Personally, I think nature works the other way: slight variations, if not fatal, survive.

Then would that make those that set up rules the fittest and making the case
for natural selection.

[uppy]

:rofl:

I know what you are up to. Kinda arrogant of you to think that you could fool the most brilliant intellectual mind on the internet. That'd be me of course.

LOL

Ok I will admit it and I got gibby on page one when he went along with
several of my posts one being:


One flaw in constitutional analysis is reliance upon what some guys may have said orwritten 200+ years ago. The words of Constitution are defined by these Justices, today. It means no more or less than what they say it does.

Now, he can't give me the line we are not at war because congress has
not decleared war.You on the other hand Pete held your ground.

[Green Lantern]

Then would make those that set up rules the fittest and making the case
for natural selection.

I think that is more like what Shiva complains about: those who steal and kill the best get to the top and, once there, tilt the rules to favor themselves and claim 'natural selection' as proof that they deserve to be there.

But if you want to go with that analogy, 'the best' depends upon the system we are discussing then. Right? What is the best in communist China, natural selection, is not the same as what is the best in Saudi Arabia, natural selection.

This is why I can't agree with 'natural' selection for manmade criteria.

[35Pete]

Ok I will admit it and I got gibby on page one when he went along with
several of my posts one being:




Now, he can't give me the line we are not at war because congress has
not decleared war.You on the other hand Pete held your ground.

Rope a dope. LOL

[Gibby]

It's like I walked into the movie "Charlie".

Uppy are you Charles Gordon of Donagon's Bakery?

[Gibby]

News flash I hear Ms. Kinyan kinda digs you.

[uppy]

News flash I hear Ms. Kinyan kinda digs you.

Are these your quotes my boy:

Easy because one paper Fed 44 and Libertarians did not the constitution make. No the founders were not Libertarians and in fact I defy Pete to find even one who fits the bill.

My quote

The Constitution became a living, breathing document the moment
Marbury v. Madison was ruled upon. thank you John Marshall. You may not like it, but thems the breaks Pete

Gibby you where sucking hard on this one

Yet public welfare and entitlement programs have long been ruled Constitutional. Care to address that paradox? How is it that so manny distinguished and presumably patriotic jurists have consistently upheld the Congressional right to appropriate monies for the general welfare?

and the best one:

Really? You don't say, so this isn't part of the preamble? WE THE PEOPLE of the United States' in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

and this isn't in article one section eight? and to provide for the . . . general welfare of the United States

Now that we have established that the constitution demands that the government provide for the general welfare of the people, and trust me this includes providing for the least well off,where can you find where it expressly forbids it.

Secondly, WTF do you mean when you say and for good reason? What reason would you have for it, selfishness?

Ah yes, understanding that the founding fathers intended that the government look after the general welfare of the people is so easy a Libertarian can understand it.

lol



general welfare of the people

"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions."

" The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

You can't have it both ways son,you shit on Article 1, Sec 8,then give
a big wet one on "declared wars"

[JLB]

:rockon:

[35Pete]

Are these your quotes my boy:



My quote



Gibby you where sucking hard on this one



and the best one:



lol



general welfare of the people

"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions."

" The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

You can't have it both ways son,you shit on Article 1, Sec 8,then give
a big wet one on "declared wars"
See Uppy. When you take your time, check your facts, and think through your arguments, you make posts like this. That would make you a formidable opponent rather than an easy target.

BTW. Love the quotes towards the end. I see that you have been reading. :)

[uppy]

Thank you Pete !

[JLB]

Thank you Pete !

Ron is watching.:rockon:

[uppy]

Ron is watching.:rockon:

Mr Reagan

[JLB]

Mr Reagan

:rockon:

Now back to the thread!

[JLB]

post 83 and 84 are especially disturbing.:dunno:

[uppy]

I think that is more like what Shiva complains about: those who steal and kill the best get to the top and, once there, tilt the rules to favor themselves and claim 'natural selection' as proof that they deserve to be there.

But if you want to go with that analogy, 'the best' depends upon the system we are discussing then. Right? What is the best in communist China, natural selection, is not the same as what is the best in Saudi Arabia, natural selection.

This is why I can't agree with 'natural' selection for manmade criteria.

Neither you, nor I, nor any economic wizard can build a model that will predict with any consistancy and acuracy how businesses and economies will definitely grow or shrink. There's just too many variables on the producer end managerial decisions, inovations, acts of God and consumer end (perception of product's value, demand in general) to possibly ever create an all-knowing predictor of how markets will work.So how can they tilt the rules to favor themselves and claim 'natural selection' as proof that they deserve to be there ?

[Green Lantern]

Neither you, nor I, nor any economic wizard can build a model that will predict with any consistancy and acuracy how businesses and economies will definitely grow or shrink. There's just too many variables on the producer end managerial decisions, inovations, acts of God and consumer end (perception of product's value, demand in general) to possibly ever create an all-knowing predictor of how markets will work.So how can they tilt the rules to favor themselves and claim 'natural selection' as proof that they deserve to be there ?

Just like the latest problems with companies doing some slight-of-hand with their tax and profit data because the IRS and the FTC et al. have not caught up with the changing realities of multinational corporations and companies that are parent companies of multiple subsidiaries, etc., the men who wrote about 'natural selection' were the ones who were best at taking advantage of people and doing immoral and unethical things BEFORE there were laws preventing them. Once the laws were set up, and they were already masters of industry, they said "Look, the rules are fair and we are at the top." They failed to mention that the fair rules were set up after they got to the top.

Read about Carnegie if you want a specific example.

[uppy]

Just like the latest problems with companies doing some slight-of-hand with their tax and profit data because the IRS and the FTC et al. have not caught up with the changing realities of multinational corporations and companies that are parent companies of multiple subsidiaries, etc., the men who wrote about 'natural selection' were the ones who were best at taking advantage of people and doing immoral and unethical things BEFORE there were laws preventing them. Once the laws were set up, and they were already masters of industry, they said "Look, the rules are fair and we are at the top." They failed to mention that the fair rules were set up after they got to the top.

Read about Carnegie if you want a specific example.

I don't belive this can be rationalized by claiming "18th century context,"
meaning Darwin, Spencer or Wallaace where wrong because the technology
of our world is better,man has not changed just our tools.

[Green Lantern]

I don't belive this can be rationalized by claiming "18th century context,"
meaning Darwin, Spencer or Wallaace where wrong because the technology
of our world is better,man has not changed just our tools.

I think you are misreading my post. My argument has nothing to do with technology. I used the past as an example.

[uppy]

[QUOTE=aquaman#1;1712187]I think you are misreading my post. My argument has nothing to do with technology. I used the past as an example.

I disagree Aqua, you posted:

Just like the latest problems with companies doing some slight-of-hand with their tax and profit data because the IRS and the FTC et al. have not caught up with the changing realities of multinational corporations and companies that are parent companies of multiple subsidiaries, etc


I think that is more like what Shiva complains about: those who steal and kill the best get to the top and, once there, tilt the rules to favor themselves and claim 'natural selection' as proof that they deserve to be there.


No. I do not agree with Spencer or his disciples. Manmade society is not natural and so you cannot call what is favorable in any given society a 'natural' selection.

You are setting up a time line and a strawman to down play the theories
on the term "natural selection" to fit the way you interpret it for this debate.

[Green Lantern]

[QUOTE]

I disagree Aqua, you posted:









You are setting up a time line and a strawman to down play the theories
on the term "natural selection" to fit the way you interpret it for this debate.

Wrong. Nice try though.

There is nothing natural about an economic philosophy. You can have a selection of the best based on the current choice of economies and call them an aristocracy but you cannot call them "naturally" best. They are best suited to the conditions of the game, they are not the best.

[Green Lantern]

[QUOTE]

I disagree Aqua, you posted:









You are setting up a time line and a strawman to down play the theories
on the term "natural selection" to fit the way you interpret it for this debate.

Second, Uppy, I have already stated that these things are what I think and why I think them. You can't really accuse me of posting my opinions in posts where I say these are my opinions.

Natural selection exists. In nature. I down-play none of Darwin's theories.

[uppy]

[QUOTE=Uppy;1712197]

Second, Uppy, I have already stated that these things are what I think and why I think them. You can't really accuse me of posting my opinions in posts where I say these are my opinions.

Natural selection exists. In nature. I down-play none of Darwin's theories.

You do down-play Darwin's theories when it comes to man:

I find it difficult to apply 'natural' selection to the conventions of men.

Are men above nature,or do you in fact down-play Darwin's theories ?

[Green Lantern]

You do down-play Darwin's theories when it comes to man:



Are men above nature,or do you in fact down-play Darwin's theories ?

I think you are confounding these definitions.

I do not down-play Darwin's theories when it comes to humans as organisms that are constrained by the limits of nature.

I do not agree when social Darwinist's take the notion that the best survive who are best adapted to survive and flourish in nature, apply it to those who survive and flourish best within an artificial set of rules drawn up by other men, and call these victors 'naturally' the best.

The best attributes to make a successful baseball player are not necessarily the same 'best' attributes to survive on a deserted island with no help. What is best in any given culture may not be best in any other given culture so how can it be 'naturally' the best?

[sukie]

I think you are confounding these definitions.

I do not down-play Darwin's theories when it comes to humans as organisms that are constrained by the limits of nature.

I do not agree when social Darwinist's take the notion that the best survive who are best adapted to survive and flourish in nature, apply it to those who survive and flourish best within an artificial set of rules drawn up by other men, and call these victors 'naturally' the best.

The best attributes to make a successful baseball player are not necessarily the same 'best' attributes to survive on a deserted island with no help. What is best in any given culture may not be best in any other given culture so how can it be 'naturally' the best?

Interesting post... Makes me desire to scroll up to see WTF your view is on coddling the down trodden

[uppy]

an artificial set of rules drawn up by other men

Why do these men set up the rules,better yet how do they get to come
into the position to do this ?

[Green Lantern]

Interesting post... Makes me desire to scroll up to see WTF your view is on coddling the down trodden

I'll save you time: save those you can when you are able. Don't make it the law.

[sukie]

Okay... I see what you are getting at, aqua... BUT isn't changing "rules" also in Darwin's Natural Selection ideas? Corporations gain by taking advantage... thus changing the environment. Subjects in that "New" environment need to adapt or cease. I think regardless of the cause of change... man made or natural... the adaptation is up to the individual.

[sukie]

I'll save you time: save those you can when you are able. Don't make it the law.

So you are going with "there is no DUTY" argument... Right?

[Green Lantern]

Why do these men set up the rules,better yet how do they get to come
into the position to do this ?

In the history of the world, I am pretty sure that there are infinite ways and causes.

Would you like to have a discussion or are you more intent on setting another logic trap?

[sukie]

He's Uppy for Christ's sake... It all boils down to the uncomfortable factor with him and the FAT HR BITCH.

[Green Lantern]

So you are going with "there is no DUTY" argument... Right?


No. Good, honorable people feel 'duty'. All others sit and spin.

Legislating duty is a wrong that was concieved as a way to fight the 'others' who refuse to see duty and makes it's adherents no better than the troglodytes who refuse to aid their fellow man.

[uppy]

Okay... I see what you are getting at, aqua... BUT isn't changing "rules" also in Darwin's Natural Selection ideas? Corporations gain by taking advantage... thus changing the environment. Subjects in that "New" environment need to adapt or cease. I think regardless of the cause of change... man made or natural... the adaptation is up to the individual.


Aqua,made his stand in this thread when he posted:

I find it difficult to apply 'natural' selection to the conventions of men.

He like Shiva can't admit he could be wrong

[sukie]

No. Good, honorable people feel 'duty'. All others sit and spin.

Legislating duty is a wrong that was concieved as a way to fight the 'others' who refuse to see duty and makes it's adherents no better than the troglodytes who refuse to aid their fellow man.

But the premise of the thread, IMO is who has the (bound) duty or obligation... I feel it should not be mandated and charities are there for a reason

[uppy]

He's Uppy for Christ's sake... It all boils down to the uncomfortable factor with him and the FAT HR BITCH.

The fat HR bitch is sucking my **** these days....thus proving Darwin's theories about Natural Selection

life is good

[Green Lantern]

Aqua,made his stand in this thread when he posted:



He like Shiva can't admit he could be wrong

You are slipping back into a coma, Uppy.

I have never said I was right or that I could not be wrong. What I have posted is my opinion. This whole thread is peppered with "I think".

IN MY VIEW, the adherents of this philosophy fail to address my concern that manmade rules are not "natural".

[Green Lantern]

Okay... I see what you are getting at, aqua... BUT isn't changing "rules" also in Darwin's Natural Selection ideas? Corporations gain by taking advantage... thus changing the environment. Subjects in that "New" environment need to adapt or cease. I think regardless of the cause of change... man made or natural... the adaptation is up to the individual.

I have never disagreed with your presumptions on change and adaptation. I disagree with anyone who says that when corporations change the rules, those who survive are 'by nature' better than those who fail.

[uppy]

I have never disagreed with your presumptions on change and adaptation. I disagree with anyone who says that when corporations change the rules, those who survive are 'by nature' better than those who fail.

Aqua,you had me on the ropes yesterday I will admit.The fact is, today you
fail to admit the strawman on the issue of the "off topic post "we have
had today.I will be happy to get into a Darwin, Spencer and a Wallaace
debate in a new thread.Lets get back to "who has the duty to take care
of them" shall we ?

[uppy]

BTW,where are the bleeding hearts on this subjects......lol

[Green Lantern]

Aqua,you had me on the ropes yesterday I will admit.The fact is, today you
fail to admit the strawman on the issue of the "off topic post "we have
had today.I will be happy to get into a Darwin, Spencer and a Wallaace
debate in a new thread.Lets get back to "who has the duty to take care
of them" shall we ?

I'm not fighting with you.

I did not offer up a straw man argument. I offered an example to answer your continuing questions. You cannot, reasonably, lead me through a line of questioning and, when I offer you examples to better explain myself to your additional questions, accuse me of going off topic.

What questions do you have about my opinion that good humans have a moral duty to aide their fellow humans when they are able to do so?

[sukie]

I have never disagreed with your presumptions on change and adaptation. I disagree with anyone who says that when corporations change the rules, those who survive are 'by nature' better than those who fail.

But isn't corporate rule changes not unlike a meteor slamming into the Yucatan peninsula and blackening the sky? Some survive most perish... unfair natural rule change don't ya think?

[Green Lantern]

But isn't corporate rule changes not unlike a meteor slamming into the Yucatan peninsula and blackening the sky? Some survive most perish... unfair natural rule change don't ya think?

Unfair?

Nature has, as Albert Camus says, a "benign indifference". Man has a goal, is self-interested. Change in nature happens, man is purposive.

[uppy]

[QUOTE=aquaman#1;1712264]I'm not fighting with you.

I did not offer up a straw man argument. I offered an example to answer your continuing questions. You cannot, reasonably, lead me through a line of questioning and, when I offer you examples to better explain myself to your additional questions, accuse me of going off topic.

Ok,thats a good point,now back to the thread


What questions do you have about my opinion that good humans have a moral duty to aide their fellow humans when they are able to do so?

State your case,goes the US goverment have a duty to care for them ?

[Green Lantern]

Ok,thats a good point,now back to the thread




State your case,goes the US goverment have a duty to care for them ?

Not particularly the US government. The question of the poll was who has a duty, and most respondents said "government".

My argument is similar to John Locke's rules of nature. His first rule of nature is to preserve yourself AND when secure, help others.

Government in a republic is 'by the people' and the people, when able, should help those they can. So, local, state and federal all should do what is within their power to do when they have enough resources.

[sukie]

Unfair?

Nature has, as Albert Camus says, a "benign indifference". Man has a goal, is self-interested. Change in nature happens, man is purposive.

But one man's goal is a benign indifferent force on another...
To segregate that is to import a sense of morals to the equation.

[Green Lantern]

But one man's goal is a benign indifferent force on another...
To segregate that is to import a sense of morals to the equation.

I disagree.

Purposive man has a goal, nature does not. Change for man is calculated for some good to some one, in nature that is not the case. Since man calculates and nature does not, I draw a distinction.

[sukie]

But cause on another is not always calculated but an innocent side effect of an action.

[Green Lantern]

But cause on another is not always calculated but an innocent side effect of an action.

I think you mean 'effect' on another is not always calculated.

The cause is almost always calculated. If you are one of the effected ones, you might not have specifically been a target, I agree. This is why in business you should not take things personally.

That still takes nothing away from the my belief that manmade things are not natural.

[sukie]

I'm not saying they are but they are still forces on a species.

[Green Lantern]

I'm not saying they are but they are still forces on a species.

I have not disagreed with you on that, only on that these forces are not 'natural'.

[sukie]

Okay so back to my thread premise question... There is no bound duty to "take care" of them? That's my position.

[Green Lantern]

Bound? No. I think you are right.

[sukie]

Wow... The banter of the last 10 posts was really pointless but a breath of fresh air over any Bush Sucks crap.

[uppy]

Aqua,I thank you for posting in this thread without insults and about issue,

you seem to be the only left leaning poster that can have a discussion about

a subject with out melting down and hurling smack.

I respect you Sir !

thank you for your posts.

[Green Lantern]

Aqua,I thank you for posting in this thread without insults and about issue,

you seem to be the only left leaning poster that can have a discussion about

a subject with out melting down and hurling smack.

I respect you Sir !

thank you for your posts.

Thank you.

And thanks for using English... :)

[sukie]

Thank you.

And thanks for using English... :)

:rofl:... The Fat HR Bitch secretly installed spell and grammar checker on his PC

[Green Lantern]

:rofl:... The Fat HR Bitch secretly installed spell and grammar checker on his PC

There is a computer program with voice recognition. Then you don't need to even be able to type.

[sukie]

Problem... Boston accent.

[Green Lantern]

Problem... Boston accent.

No problem. You say the word, if the computer can't recognize it you are requested to type the word in. After that, every time you say that word again the computer recognizes it.

I had a PS prof. who was a Russian Jew who grew up in an Israeli kibbutz and got his Ph.D. at Columbia. Worst accent ever. The computer program, after he was done typing in his accent, couldn't understand one word I said to it.

[uppy]

:rofl:... The Fat HR Bitch secretly installed spell and grammar checker on his PC

I have the fat HR bitch doing jumping jacks in the back yard as we speak.

In the last two weeks she has gone from about 150' to 125' my goal is 115'

it will happen in the next few weeks.

:partysmilies:

[uppy]

Problem... Boston accent.


How do you say Dynasty in the south ?

hahhahahahahahaha