What's wrong with having govt help us with ordinary problems in life?

[Little-Acorn]

In another recent thread, poster Dmp commented on reasons why more people voted for Obama than for Romney. He said:

The vote went the way it did for the following reasons:

1) People like those who promise free shit.
2) Voter Fraud.
3) Voter ignorance.

But I believe there's a fourth reason.

In the last several decades, government has been doing more and more. Running retirement insurance programs, health care programs, regulating workplaces, regulating wages, regulating food content, regulating whether you can drain a swamp on your land, forcing people to sell their land so other people can use it differently, etc. etc. Such activites were never dreamed of by the people who first formed our government; and where they were thought of, they were banned from the government doing them. But in modern times as govt did more and more of them, people have been responding: some to take advantage of the benefits, some to avoid the pitfalls, etc. And govt has been responding in turn, in its quest to get more votes from those people.

Voters have realized that government has moved into the business of favoring one group over another, and imposing its rules and restrictions based not on the complete equality originally demanded by the Constitution, but on constantly-changing standards of "deserving", such as whether they are minorities, whether they are in unions, whether they own land where the snail darter or spotted owl lives, etc. (Needless to say, people who have earned and saved a lot of money, are at the bottom of this list.)

So many of those voters have inserted another qualification on whom they will vote for, for President. Their preferred candidate must be one who will favor them above others.

Such selfish (and even larcenous) desires are not exactly socially acceptable, so they couch their preference in innocent-sounding phrases such as "I want a candidate who understands me", or "I want a candidate who sympathizes with the problems I am facing".

Back when government's only functions were national defense, coining money, setting standards, dealing with foreign nations, prosecuting certain crimes etc., such "sympathizing" was unnecessary. People tended to vote for the candidate they thought could handle the actual, legitimate functions of government better. And they tended to vote for stern, fatherly figures such as George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Grover Cleveland etc. whom they thought would enforce the laws impartially and deal with challenges sternly and with some degree of integrity.

But now that government's main function has become to relieve you of the everyday problems in your own personal life (distributing health care, controlling the people around you and regulating what they built, what they sold you, what they said in your hearing, planning your retirement savings for you, deciding for you what your children could eat in school, and generally saving you from your own follies and mistakes), more and more voters have now decided that it is more important to have a President they can count on to favor them more than they favor people not like them.

Thus do candidates who fight to "give" them health care based on how much they need rather than how hard they work to pay for what they get, and who favor those who "need more" over those who managed to provide their own without the assistance of government, get voted for more often than candidates who promise to make sure nobody stops you from earning enough to pay for your own health care. Same for candidates who promise to get you into college due to your skin color or national origin, over candidates who promise to make sure you have the same (and no more) chance to get into college regardless of your skin color... but leave it up to you to pay for it yourself.

Back when such matter were none of government's business, there was no point in voting for the more "sympathetic" candidate... and people would even wonder what kind of slippery trick you were trying to pull if you wanted someone who promised to make sure a pound of grain would weigh more at your mill than at the next town's mill... weights and measures being one of the few legitimate functions of government the candidate would actually be able to influence, in obedience to the Constitution.

And in the timeless response to socialistic governments throughout history (including govts with those characteristics long before the term "socialism" was invented), even the people who wanted to stick to the old rules of actual fairness and impartiality, have started to see that it is now a losing gambit. If they don't try to sway government into favoring them more than their neighbor, they will simply find government favoring them far less and oppressing them even more.

And so, one by one, they gradually release their fealty toward stern, impartial govenment that stays out of their lives, and throw in their lot with the people already trying to cadge more favors from government, whether in the name of "making reparations for the wrongs done by previous generations" or "providing health care to those who don't have it (itself a misleading lie)". And they do their best to vote for the candidate who (they will righteously tell you) "understands my own plight a little better" or "sympathizes for people in my particular position" - both phrases that boil down to "he will do more good things for me, and relax the regulations a little more for me, than he will for that guy over there."

Dmp mentioned three reasons why people vote more and more for Obama. One of those reasons was "voter fraud".

But in a sense, I'm pointing out that voter fraud isn't just fraud perpetrated AGAINST voters. There's another kind: The subtle fraud perpetrated BY voters against their fellow men, in an attempt to get government "on my side and not on your side".

The problem with this, of course, is that government isn't like some personal friend, who wouldn't mind lending you his lawnmower or toaster oven for a while, and then kidded you later if you forgot to bring them back. Government is something that has laws it can (and should) force you to obey, and can even throw you in jail (or worse) if you don't.

And though subtle, this other kind of fraud is the most pernicious in the long run, since it causes the remaining fair, upright voters to abandon, one by one, their dedication to truly impartial government, and go over to supporting corruptible, me-over-you government.

And the more people who go over to this corruptible, me-over-you government, the more pressure this puts on the remaining (and now dwindling) individual citizens who desire stern-but-impartial government, to give up that desire, follow.

And a government that was trying to "help you", turns into a government that uses its power to force people to do things, to force YOU to do things that it judges other people need more than you do.

And worse, this tends to make you try to get government to do it even more... for you (and against the other guy) instead of against you. And the vicious cycle gets worse and worse, without end. And you can't stop the abuse just by gentle kidding... or any other way, when "the other guy" is encouraging that abuse.


Comments/criticism?

[Robert A Whit]

In another recent thread, poster Dmp commented on reasons why more people voted for Obama than for Romney. He said:

The vote went the way it did for the following reasons:

1) People like those who promise free shit.
2) Voter Fraud.
3) Voter ignorance.

But I believe there's a fourth reason.

In the last several decades, government has been doing more and more. Running retirement insurance programs, health care programs, regulating workplaces, regulating wages, regulating food content, regulating whether you can drain a swamp on your land, forcing people to sell their land so other people can use it differently, etc. etc. Such activites were never dreamed of by the people who first formed our government; and where they were thought of, they were banned from the government doing them. But in modern times as govt did more and more of them, people have been responding: some to take advantage of the benefits, some to avoid the pitfalls, etc. And govt has been responding in turn, in its quest to get more votes from those people.

Voters have realized that government has moved into the business of favoring one group over another, and imposing its rules and restrictions based not on the complete equality originally demanded by the Constitution, but on constantly-changing standards of "deserving", such as whether they are minorities, whether they are in unions, whether they own land where the snail darter or spotted owl lives, etc. (Needless to say, people who have earned and saved a lot of money, are at the bottom of this list.)

So many of those voters have inserted another qualification on whom they will vote for, for President. Their preferred candidate must be one who will favor them above others.

Such selfish (and even larcenous) desires are not exactly socially acceptable, so they couch their preference in innocent-sounding phrases such as "I want a candidate who understands me", or "I want a candidate who sympathizes with the problems I am facing".

Back when government's only functions were national defense, coining money, setting standards, dealing with foreign nations, prosecuting certain crimes etc., such "sympathizing" was unnecessary. People tended to vote for the candidate they thought could handle the actual, legitimate functions of government better. And they tended to vote for stern, fatherly figures such as George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Grover Cleveland etc. whom they thought would enforce the laws impartially and deal with challenges sternly and with some degree of integrity.

But now that government's main function has become to relieve you of the everyday problems in your own personal life (distributing health care, controlling the people around you and regulating what they built, what they sold you, what they said in your hearing, planning your retirement savings for you, deciding for you what your children could eat in school, and generally saving you from your own follies and mistakes), more and more voters have now decided that it is more important to have a President they can count on to favor them more than they favor people not like them.

Thus do candidates who fight to "give" them health care based on how much they need rather than how hard they work to pay for what they get, and who favor those who "need more" over those who managed to provide their own without the assistance of government, get voted for more often than candidates who promise to make sure nobody stops you from earning enough to pay for your own health care. Same for candidates who promise to get you into college due to your skin color or national origin, over candidates who promise to make sure you have the same (and no more) chance to get into college regardless of your skin color... but leave it up to you to pay for it yourself.

Back when such matter were none of government's business, there was no point in voting for the more "sympathetic" candidate... and people would even wonder what kind of slippery trick you were trying to pull if you wanted someone who promised to make sure a pound of grain would weigh more at your mill than at the next town's mill... weights and measures being one of the few legitimate functions of government the candidate would actually be able to influence, in obedience to the Constitution.

And in the timeless response to socialistic governments throughout history (including govts with those characteristics long before the term "socialism" was invented), even the people who wanted to stick to the old rules of actual fairness and impartiality, have started to see that it is now a losing gambit. If they don't try to sway government into favoring them more than their neighbor, they will simply find government favoring them far less and oppressing them even more.

And so, one by one, they gradually release their fealty toward stern, impartial govenment that stays out of their lives, and throw in their lot with the people already trying to cadge more favors from government, whether in the name of "making reparations for the wrongs done by previous generations" or "providing health care to those who don't have it (itself a misleading lie)". And they do their best to vote for the candidate who (they will righteously tell you) "understands my own plight a little better" or "sympathizes for people in my particular position" - both phrases that boil down to "he will do more good things for me, and relax the regulations a little more for me, than he will for that guy over there."

Dmp mentioned three reasons why people vote more and more for Obama. One of those reasons was "voter fraud".

But in a sense, I'm pointing out that voter fraud isn't just fraud perpetrated AGAINST voters. There's another kind: The subtle fraud perpetrated BY voters against their fellow men, in an attempt to get government "on my side and not on your side".

The problem with this, of course, is that government isn't like some personal friend, who wouldn't mind lending you his lawnmower or toaster oven for a while, and then kidded you later if you forgot to bring them back. Government is something that has laws it can (and should) force you to obey, and can even throw you in jail (or worse) if you don't.

And though subtle, this other kind of fraud is the most pernicious in the long run, since it causes the remaining fair, upright voters to abandon, one by one, their dedication to truly impartial government, and go over to supporting corruptible, me-over-you government.

And the more people who go over to this corruptible, me-over-you government, the more pressure this puts on the remaining (and now dwindling) individual citizens who desire stern-but-impartial government, to give up that desire, follow.

And a government that was trying to "help you", turns into a government that uses its power to force people to do things, to force YOU to do things that it judges other people need more than you do.

And worse, this tends to make you try to get government to do it even more... for you (and against the other guy) instead of against you. And the vicious cycle gets worse and worse, without end. And you can't stop the abuse just by gentle kidding... or any other way, when "the other guy" is encouraging that abuse.


Comments/criticism?

I have to compliment you for perhaps the most profound post I have ever read and this goes back to about 1996.

We were warned that when the public could vote itself rewards, it would pick the politicians who promised the most to us.

Sadly the democrats are masters of that craft and have corrupted this country.

I have posted the great statement by Davy Crockett a lot of times.

I wish all of us would google "IT IS NOT YOURS TO GIVE" by Davy Crockett and put a lot of thought into the wisdom of it's words.

I submit you are explaining why some voters are very dishonest.

They may as well find the names of the rich and go to the banks holding their cash and using a gun to protect themselves, simply take those funds from the rich mans bank.

This is what congress does all the time.

[fj1200]

Any comment on the subject of the thread? (why govt should or should not "help us"?)

I guess if there were some stats to go with your comments then it would help your analysis but with 50% still just blaming Bush, that fulfills the "voter ignorance" section quite well. Also why government should or should not help us speaks to whether Romney was an effective candidate or not. Which goes to my point that we didn't have an effective educator explaining his positions to the great unwashed.

EDIT:

Oh, and government should not due to moral hazard.

[Abbey Marie]

What is especially disturbing is that in Obama's/the Dem's lexicon, it is the rich oppressing the poor that makes all of this government largesse necessary. Thus the debate shifts from "Should the government help its citizens with ordinary problems?" to "How can we stop the wealthy from playing the system and getting 'unfair' gains?" A totally different premise, and one that makes it almost impossible to ask the root question that you have asked here.

I am sorry to say that the question whether the government should get involved, has probably moved to the point of immateriality. That horse has left the barn and most likely isn't trotting back.

[Robert A Whit]

There is a very good reason why people blame Bush for much of the current mess we are in.

Since the system we use has rules, just how does it work that Bush gets blamed?

Bush nor Obama create nor craft laws. They act as advisers to congress but the congress has the power and can reject what presidents seek.

When a president signs a bill containing law or other matters, he is only agreeing with the lawmakers. .

So, what did congress do that Bush agreed with that caused our problems?

I will list some things Bush agreed with that in my view caused some of the problems.

1. Bush signed the law that provides my medicine. (my cost of medicine is zero)
2. Bush put a small number of our men into Afghanistan but that is not the only thing. Bush totally backed and even, approved and egged on by Congress, put a military machine into operation that costs plenty. Not so much for the men, but for the cost of things like Fuel for airplanes and ships and vehicles, and ammo. Ammo is not cheap. The bonus money paid to the military only in time of war added to the cost.
3. Bush might have been deliquent had he not run with the law signed by Bill Clinton calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein. It was in law when Bush showed up. But only Bush gets blamed for that act. I dunno why. (Saddam grew a bit by being hung for his crimes so his corpse is a bit taller)
4, Bush tried every trick he had in his bag to prevent the melt down.

Obama hogged the credit for saving the auto industry. But that is not how it was. Bush handed the Auto industry 30 billion dollars to keep them alive. But Obama the nice guy ignored that and took 100 percent of the credit.

Obama even backed to the hilt saving the banks. While the Auto industry is still in debt to the USA, the Banks paid back the money they got.

Obama has had 4 years to get onto the only path that can give us close to full employment but he refuses. He has proven he still does not know how to use the Feds to create jobs. He blocks republicans who do know how it works and then blames them.

No, President Bush did not cause this.

As president, he did not have the means or authority to have caused it.

If you can prove he caused it, just commence.

When democrats try to prove it was Bush, they expose to the world they just don't understand how government actually works.

[Little-Acorn]

I am sorry to say that the question whether the government should get involved, has probably moved to the point of immateriality. That horse has left the barn and most likely isn't trotting back.

Plenty more horses still in the barn, Abbey. This discussion centers around the idea of whether the government should be in charge of the gate. It currently has taken a lot of that power from the people who used to retain it. But is that a good idea? And, should we take positive steps (I don't know which ones, yet) to strip that authority away from govt again? Or should we let govt keep doing what it's doing, and even increase its "participation"?

In other words, should government go on running health care, retirement, heavy-handed food regulation, universal zoning, and other such functions, leaving them horribly open to corruption and favoritism as they have already shown to be?

And, more generally, should people get even more used to the idea that government is where they turn, to get routine help and resources they use to run their lives? Or should that tendency be reversed, and people get more used to (instead) relying only on themselves, and other people around them (singly or in groups) for the things they need to survive and prosper?

[Robert A Whit]

Plenty more horses still in the barn, Abbey. This discussion centers around the idea of whether the government should be in charge of the gate. It currently has taken a lot of that power from the people who used to retain it. But is that a good idea? And, should we take positive steps (I don't know which ones, yet) to strip that authroity away from them? Or should we let them keep doing what they are doing, and even increase their "participation"?

In other words, should government go on running health care, retirement, heavy-handed food regulation, universal zoning, and other such functions, leaving them horribly open to corruption and favoritism as they have already shown to be?

And, more generally, should people get even more used to the idea that government is where they turn, to get routine help and resources they use to run their lives? Or should that tendency be reversed, and people get more used to (instead) relying only on themselves, and other people around them (singly or in groups) for the things they need to survive and prosper?

All very good questions.

I liken this to a story.

Say the Sheriff caught a criminal and had him in jail.

A mob shows up determined to hang the crook.

So, the mob wants to impose it's version of justice.

We, those like you and I get things such as you name run down our throats despite our plea to simply obey the constitution.

When democrats creat new rules, we all pay for it.

Sooner or later they will bring down the USA as sure as Rome was brought down.

[Little-Acorn]

What is especially disturbing is that in Obama's/the Dem's lexicon, it is the rich oppressing the poor that makes all of this government largesse necessary. Thus the debate shifts from "Should the government help its citizens with ordinary problems?" to "How can we stop the wealthy from playing the system and getting 'unfair' gains?" A totally different premise, and one that makes it almost impossible to ask the root question that you have asked here.


I didn't find any difficulty in asking the question. My keyboard works fine, and all.

Only if you let the liberals sucker you into going along with their desperate change of subject, will you have trouble.

So don't.

Just ignore their diversions and return to the real subject. Works for me.

(This time with a little help from moderator Jimnyc, who moved the posts on other subjects to their own thread for separate discussion, thanx Jim! :salute: )

[Abbey Marie]

I didn't find any difficulty in asking the question. My keyboard works fine, and all.

Only if you let the liberals sucker you into going along with their desperate change of subject, will you have trouble.

So don't.

Just ignore their diversions and return to the real subject. Works for me.

(This time with a little help from moderator Jimnyc, who moved the posts on other subjects to their own thread for separate discussion, thanx Jim! :salute: )

Well, I guess you told me. :rolleyes:

BTW, Jim is the board owner/admin; not a moderator.

For the record, I would not have moved the posts. We would be moving posts all day long, and actually messing up the flow of conversation in doing so. Going off-topic is par for any message board thread, and a good topic finds it's way back to front and center without any help.

[Little-Acorn]

For the record, I would not have moved the posts. We would be moving posts all day long, and actually messing up the flow of conversation in doing so.
Ahem... such off-topic posts themselves, mess up the flow of conversation. Often intentionally. That's my entire objection to them. Moving them to their own thread as I asked Jim to do, restores the flow. In fact it creates two clear flows that no longer interfere with each other - a clear win-win with no downside.


Going off-topic is par for any message board thread,
And getting lost and catching poison oak is par for any hiking trip. Does that mean it's a good thing?


and a good topic finds it's way back to front and center without any help.
That has certainly NOT been my experience.

I frequently start topics that our brethern of the southpaw persuasion don't want exposed or explored. And they frequently jump in and change the subject to somebody's imaginned "greed", or George W. Bush, or other standard talking point that's been argued ad infinitum... and which can be guaranteed to spark repetitions of the same arguments, unrealted to the topic of the thread. And my many attempts to bring the subject back to the original, frequently go unheeded as interested parties drop out of the thread. This has happened time and again.

Nor are our southpaws the only guilty party. Even those with no intention of diverting the conversation, cause such diversion anyway. Notice that we are now talking about subject changes, not the deleterious effects of government "helping" people?

Back to the subject:
Various governments throughout history have tried to "help" their subjects, by using force to transfer wealth, or by relaxing laws and restrictions for one group over another. Every time, the overall result has been the deterioration of the society as a whole - a net loss in integrity and prosperity. And you can't call the cops on them when they do it - they ARE the cops.

Even the ironclad bans against such activity that people try to put in place against their governments - including those in out own AoC and Constitution - can be gotten around (or simply ignored) if the people let it happen. And we are letting it happen more and more.

There is only one possible result of such venturing into such corruptible me-over-you government. And whatever its intentions may have been, the result ISN'T "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, and insure domestic tranquility". Precisely the opposite happens. EVERY time.

[Robert A Whit]

Various governments throughout history have tried to "help" their subjects, by using force to transfer wealth, or by relaxing laws and restrictions for one group over another. Every time, the overall result has been the deterioration of the society as a whole - a net loss in integrity and prosperity. And you can't call the cops on them when they do it - they ARE the cops.

Even the ironclad bans against such activity that people try to put in place against their governments - including those in out own AoC and Constitution - can be gotten around (or simply ignored) if the people let it happen. And we are letting it happen more and more.

There is only one possible result of such venturing into such corruptible me-over-you government. And whatever its intentions may have been, the result ISN'T "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, and insure domestic tranquility". Precisely the opposite happens. EVERY time.

When "THEY" don't want to do it, such as shelter a neighbor who just lost their home to a Tornado or earthquake or Hurricane, they want government to shelter the victims.

They pass the buck and believe they did well.

Yet whom do they expect to pay for that charity?

Not them. If they felt they wanted to kick in, they would not depend on government. They plan for the rich to do all the paying.

Somehow or the other somebody trained them to think of the rich as evil, as not worthy, and greedy.

Of all the rich people I ever met, I can't think of any of them I can call greedy or evil or bad citizens.

Take Ed for instance. While he is no Bill Gates, money is not a problem for him. Ed came to CA with little money from West VA.

He took a job at a door factory painting doors. He needed a place to live and his wife spotted an ad for an apartment manager. She took the job and had a small kid.

Ed took up drag racing. He learned about working on cars. He started a repair shop. He did okay. Stayed alive and paid his rent.

He decided he needed a specialty. So he started rebuilding automatic transmissions. It took him many years of hard work but he ended up with 2 automatic transmission shops.

He was smart enough to use his profits to buy the property his shops were on.

I saw Ed pay his workers very well. And if they worked overtime, he paid them very well.

I took care of Ed's real estate matters. Ed bought 6 acres in the top of the hills where a tiny home was sitting. Ed commenced to expand the tiny home. In a matter of a few years, that home turned into a two story home with 4,500 sq feet, a swimming pool and tennis court and his garage was double deep and extra wide. I sold that property for Ed in the Clinton era for $700,000. I sold Eds commercial property yet he still owns a commercial building today in my city all paid for. He rents that out for about $6,000 per month. In Oregon he took the profits from sales in CA and bought rental property there.

What kind of guy is Ed? If his friends need help at all, Ed does not even ask much about why they need help, he simply helps them out.

Ed is like a brother to me.

Ed must be getting over $20,000 per month in rents in Oregon.

Ed created his own retirement program.

BTW, he voted for Romney.

[Abbey Marie]

Enjoy it while you can. It won't be happening again, unless there are posts deserving of a move to the cage.

[Little-Acorn]

Interestingly, the U.S. Constitution is specifically set up to forbid the Fed govt from doing any more than running Defense, foreign relations, prosecuting certain defined crimes, and the rest of the (very limited) list it contains, mostly in Article 1 Section 8. They even wrote in a section misleadingly called the "Welfare Clause", that should more problerly be called the "Uniformity Clause", that forbids the govt from spending money on anything but Defense and a few other specified programs, plus any programs that help all Americans equally. In other words, spending on special interests, is forbidden.

That amount to maybe 25% of what the Fed govt is actually doing today... a proportion that's decreasing fast.

[logroller]

There is only one possible result of such venturing into such corruptible me-over-you government. And whatever its intentions may have been, the result ISN'T "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, and insure domestic tranquility". Precisely the opposite happens. EVERY time.
I understand what you're saying, the people need to help each other, not have govt force us to. But realistically, I'm appreciative of Abbey's horse out of the barn analogy. How domestically tranquil would We be if SSI, TANF etc just ended tomorrow?
Seems there needs to be an alternative, a privately ran alternative system in place. I believe there are some, if not many, that do lend help. The YMCA, the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, etc, and I believe there needs to be more people pushing for (and committing money to) these organizations to supplant the public dependance on government assistance. It's no easy challenge, but I don't believe we'll just undo government help in a congressional or presidential term; it'll receive far too much opposition; thus we'll need to work on an alternative before rallying for government help to cease.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I understand what you're saying, the people need to help each other, not have govt force us to. But realistically, I'm appreciative of Abbey's horse out of the barn analogy. How domestically tranquil would We be if SSI, TANF etc just ended tomorrow?
Seems there needs to be an alternative, a privately ran alternative system in place. I believe there are some, if not many, that do lend help. The YMCA, the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, etc, and I believe there needs to be more people pushing for (and committing money to) these organizations to supplant the public dependance on government assistance. It's no easy challenge, but I don't believe we'll just undo government help in a congressional or presidential term; it'll receive far too much opposition; thus we'll need to work on an alternative before rallying for government help to cease.

With obama and the agenda he has implemented your wishful thinking about solving the problem that way is pure folly. He seizes more power everyday. He will not allow any of that to take place. In fact, he will push for much more power for the Executive branch and he will get it by fear and inaction from Congress and by Executive Orders. That horse left the barn too but it did not just walk AWAY it ran full speed and still going strong!

Your tagline-- Adolph Hitler 1933. Dictators love to promise security that only they can bring, obama creates crisis/fear then offers himself as the Saviour just like Hitler did. Figures that you'd choose a Hitler quote as a tagline..-Tyr

[logroller]

With obama and the agenda he has implemented your wishful thinking about solving the problem that way is pure folly. He seizes more power everyday. He will not allow any of that to take place. In fact, he will push for much more power for the Executive branch and he will get it by fear and inaction from Congress and by Executive Orders. That horse left the barn too but it did not just walk AWAY it ran full speed and still going strong!

Your tagline-- Adolph Hitler 1933. Dictators love to promise security that only they can bring, obama creates crisis/fear then offers himself as the Saviour just like Hitler did. Figures that you'd choose a Hitler quote as a tagline..-Tyr
Being accused of wishful thinking by someone who rallies for secession and state militias overpowering the US government...:rolleyes:
I've helped establish a nonprofit soccer league that has raised over $10000 for charity this year alone. Yes, I did build that mr obama. How much money have you raised for your militia operation and secession legislation?

[Kathianne]

I understand what you're saying, the people need to help each other, not have govt force us to. But realistically, I'm appreciative of Abbey's horse out of the barn analogy. How domestically tranquil would We be if SSI, TANF etc just ended tomorrow?
Seems there needs to be an alternative, a privately ran alternative system in place. I believe there are some, if not many, that do lend help. The YMCA, the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, etc, and I believe there needs to be more people pushing for (and committing money to) these organizations to supplant the public dependance on government assistance. It's no easy challenge, but I don't believe we'll just undo government help in a congressional or presidential term; it'll receive far too much opposition; thus we'll need to work on an alternative before rallying for government help to cease.

I've never seen any responsible person, in public or private life, advocate for ending any entitlement, this minute, for all. I've seen, 'find a point or age' and make that the start; I've seen, 'apply means testing for this or that.

As for the rest of your post, seems to me you are asking private charities to create a contract for replacing what government does. Not going to happen. The numbers that qualify for 'help' would diminish and the aim and quality of the help needed would increase. However, would some of the 'unworthy' not make it? I think so. What to do with those? They are not the children, elderly, physically ill. If the states would redo the mental health requirements regarding voluntary and involuntary commitments, most of the mentally ill too wouldn't be without help. That's a societal question.

[Little-Acorn]

I've never seen any responsible person, in public or private life, advocate for ending any entitlement, this minute, for all.

(Holds up hand)

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I've helped establish a nonprofit soccer league that has raised over $10000 for charity this year alone. Yes, I did build that mr obama. How much money have you raised for your militia operation and secession legislation?



Your great need to brag about doing a good deed is duly noted Sir. I have no need to cite anything that I have done because I did not do it to brag about here or even to my own family. Humility is something you should consider a bit Hoss.
I do not have a militia operation but Im certainly not afraid to fight and sacrifice should it come to that, unlike cowardly appeasers some of us are prepared to do more than a bit of feel good, brag about, charity work. That you were so quick to blow your own horn on that surely makes me wonder if its true. The fact that Americans went the legal way and petitioned to secede deserves not the ridicule that you attempt here but I expect no less from you! For your sense of honor and respect for citizens's rights would surely fit into a thimble with plenty of room to spare.--Tyr