Part of the *communist* theory of government? ...Perhaps, but what I'm deriving my plan from is Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal projects which put thousands to work and created a new infrastructure of roads, parks, bridges, and dams, etc., etc. Besides anytime you gain employment in the *United States* it is on condition of ability and often times "need"... Women raising children CAN do it too! Anyone can, it's just a matter of applying a labor requirement which matches the person (given their own situation)...The point is to have people do something to get something...For example, a Mother can raise her kid and get funding assistance in doing so. The mother will receive aid and support (such as reading material, pamphlets in child-welfare techniques) to do her "job" properly. There will be basic audits and requirements as in any federal job...The most important thing is to be a good Mother regardless of being poor or not. Public assistance is a good thing, but you have to "give to get"...That is my point. What does USA#1 have to do with my argument? ...Well, my mindset is based on this working in the U.S.A., and anytime I think U.S.A., I think #1 since I really do believe the United States is number one and I am so proud of my country and what it is capable of! Would it have made you feel better if I said: Hei konei ra?
FYI, I am not a "leftist." Nor am I Democrat. Not that those are unreasonable assumptions after that anti-conservative tirade. Like I said before, I'm still trying to reconcile my conflicting beliefs and ideology. And since the menu of political parties in America doesn't provide many options, I haven't adopted another party since I've abandoned the GOP. I actually still believe in the basic efficiencies of the private sector and free enterprise, the importance of minimizing tax and regulatory burdens, the need for fiscal conservatism to ensure the availabiilty of capital for private enterprise, and the necessity of a generally pro-business climate in order to grow the economic pie. I also know that the public sector and government programs piss away lots of hard-earned taxpayer money, and in the process shrink that economic pie as well. In spite of all that, I've come to realize that even the best-intentioned and well-meaning subset of our population is incapable of and/or unwilling to contribute a sufficient portion of their income on a consistent, ongoing basis to provide for those in need. And given that there is a substantial subset of our population that doesn't give a flying f*** about the needy, the reality is too many people would not get a big enough piece of the pie to subsist. Yes, the reality sucks. Yes, in an ideal world we could dispense with any sort of income redistribution. Yes, there are costs to government-run programs, both because of inefficiencies resulting in waste, and diversion of capital and other resources that could be used for truly productive, job-producing, wealth-creating activities. But no, the problems addressed by welfare programs won't disappear if all resources are completely allocated to private enterprise. Even when the pie grows because resources are allocated to the more efficient private sector, the reality is there are plenty of callous, gluttonous f*cks out there that will grab that extra pie before the less fortunate get theirs -- because trickle-down is often just a golden shower. And it's not a matter of "I'm not giving unless everybody else is." The unfortunate truth is, people do have to be forced to give up some of their income for this and other programs that they may not support. I'm not pleased that large chunks of my hard-earned money have to go to subsidizing war profiteers and the military-industrial complex, or to our ever-growing police state and an out-of-control war on drugs. But just as in any non-trivial problem, there are going to be trade-offs. And the trade-offs involved with these programs are necessary and good. As for making the beneficiaries of assistance programs earn their benefits -- through work programs, labor camps, or whatever -- I haven't formed an opinion. On the surface it seems fair enough. But the notion that you have "give to get" really isn't a hard rule with me. Plenty of people in this country get a disproportionate, unfair share of the pie relative to their contributions -- yet they still get assistance from the government in other forms, because of their plutocratic influence. As Hakeem once said (or at least quoted), very few people in this world get what they deserve. And I know that some people deserve help regardless of their contributions, or what they put in. To me, that's being optimistic about my fellow man. For very personal reasons -- and for the reasons Batman Jones so concisely summarized -- I was offended and enraged by the hypocrisy of Refman's optimism-towards-fellow-man quote. Was I abrasive? Yes, and deliberately so. Was I a "jackass?" Absolutely, but I had my reasons. This wasn't about conducting a civilized debate, or ingratiating myself with the members of this BBS -- this was about responding to a comment that for personal, emotional reasons was like a slap in the face. If in the process I alienate some people, so be it. Am I an "angry little sh*t?" As I said before, the comment enfuriated me. But on the balance, I'm a happily-married guy with a beautiful wife, a great job, a great dog, living in a great neighborhood in a great city. What more can you ask in these times? My main fault in the context of this forum is only feeling compelled to respond to things that really anger me -- most posts I silently admire, or ignore indifferently. As for being a "little sh*t," you can believe whatever you want Refman, if it makes you feel better big guy. I've said worse things face-to-face to other people who could probably beat the sh*t out of you, let alone me -- but fear of physical violence was never a consideration of mine. I may have crossed the line with my post, but you may have just crossed another, far worse line.
This is what gets me...you PRESUME that I am in some way being hypocritical or flippant. How are you really to judge that? Remember this later in my post. Sorry if optimism is so offensive to you. If that comment enfuriated you...then you have some serious issues. Recall that quote of yours above? Hmmm...that logic sounds familiar. I INTENTIONALLY called attention to the fact that it is EASY for somebody to come onto a BBS and anonymously post aspersions to somebody's integrity because they subscribe to a different ideology. I seriously doubt that you would do so in person. Maybe I'm wrong...but it's just my impression.
