An interesting conversation...

[brewer12345]

You are wasting your time, Martha. The Conservative Men's Elbow Exercise group is in session here and it doesn't pay to get in the way of the "firing range."

[armor99]

Thanks to everyone that has posted so far. I can assure everyone that has been reading so far, that yes.. in fact this conversation with my uncle DID in fact happen. And NO, my uncle is far from being an "idiot". He happens to believe things that I do not, but that does not make him evil, or malicious in any way. And if I or anyone here has mis-characterized the way that a "liberal" thinks, then by all means help to educate me (if you more closely identify with that way of thinking). Most, but not all of my thinking, has been categorized as "conservative". While I do not like the idea of being labeled, I suppose I do recognize certain common threads in the way that I think, and what might be termed as conservative. I like to ask questions and find out the way other people think, and why they think that way. I realize this can be somewhat of a contentious subject, which is why I posted it in the "soapbox" section, as it really has nothing to do with retirement per say. Then again, there are people who would tell you that your philosophy about life colors every decision that you make, so in that respect it is one of the most important subjects ever!

[Independent]

Quote:

Originally Posted by armor99 But "forced charity" is a horrible thing. .... My taxes should be used for things that I can at least in part derive benefit from. .... Once it [charity] is no longer a voluntary act the value of it is lost.

I selected some sentences in your post which seemed "key" to me. These appear to be expressions of "feelings" or "values" which are unprovable. Maybe you think the sentences I deleted prove them, but that wasn't clear to me.

The point is that "zealotry" is somewhat in the eye of the beholder. Yes, I'll believe there is a wide variation in people regarding how willing they are to listen to others and respect their opinions. But we all have unprovable values. You are using yours to justify a certain position on a public policy question. (It appears to me that you think we shouldn't have any tax-supported aid to the poor. Maybe I'm overlooking something you said.) How do you draw the line between using unprovable values to justify a position on gov't actions (presumably an acceptable behavior) and "zealotry" (a bad behavior)?

[Martha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by armor99 I agree with you completely. No one in this country should be hungry or cold, or have to worry about not having basic medical care. Everyone in this country IS guaranteed in our Constitution the "right" to aquire those things for themselves, as a result of their own labor. As in.... no one has the right in America to prevent you from finding work, or starting your own business to achieve all of the things in your life that you might want or need for yourself.

Well, this sounds high minded but how well does it work? Who is successful at this and who is not? Why? These are important questions.

Quote:

By the same token, the government is not required to provide any of these neccessities for you. They are required to stop others from attempting to stop you from trying.

Government is what we want it so be. I want a government that fosters individual success and gives help to those in need. My big issue is health care. A healthy society is a strong society. Working with young homeless people I have seen what poor mental and physical health can do to inhibit the ability of people to care for themselves.

Quote:

Charity is a wonderful thing. I have given freely of my time and my money on numerous occasions, and will probably continue to do so in the future.

Yes.

Quote:

But "forced charity" is a horrible thing. When the govt provides for someone that has not provided for themselves, the only way they can do that, is via all of our taxes that we pay. The govt has no money of it's own. My taxes should be used for things that I can at least in part derive benefit from. Schools, roads, libraries all qualify. What can I gain from my money going into another mans pocket? It makes me feel good that I can help someone who truly needs it. But that gets back to the whole charity thing again. Taking money from me for charity in my opinion goes against the whole point of the charitable donation, and that point is that it is voluntary. Once it is no longer a voluntary act the value of it is lost.

I just do not understand your position. Why is government assistance horrible? Why should you have to benefit?

[youbet]

I'm always amazed by the over simplified stereotypes that pop out in these types of discussions. For example, the assumption that all Dems are liberal thinking on all issues....... hardly! Or all Christian fundamentalists are Bible thumping bigots who want to impose their will on everyone....... Those types get the publicity sure, but I've spent my time with congregations of main stream Christian evangelical denominations whose social views were hardly conservative and whose social actions made their so-called liberal thinking critics appear to be greedy neo-con capitalists. Grouping all together is an act of true ignorance and close-minded thinking.

Stereotyping and stereotypers suck.......... from either side of the political spectrum. JMHO.

[honobob]

Mom forced to live in car with dogs - CNN.com

Did she make bad choices? Maybe she just wasn't lucky enough to get some of the huge farm subsidy payments.

Billionaire Gets Farm Subsidy Handout from Taxpayers!

I know our government can do better "for all the people".

[kcowan]

Quote:

My taxes should be used for things that I can at least in part derive benefit from. Schools, roads, libraries all qualify.

The thing is that any common service that is taxpayer-funded will be unfair to someone. Childless couples or singles. Shut-ins. Blind people. The role of government is ideally to decide which services make sense for the community as a whole.

A fire department is a subsidy to keep insurance costs down in the extreme case. Yet we have come to accept it as an essential service. So there is a large base of "common sense" that firms the basis for our society. Charitable programs and welfare form part of that base in western societies.

[Midpack]

Interesting that the name-calling is coming mostly from those with the least to say about the subject in the first place. Did it ever occur to those of you who are offended that Armor might actually be trying to see another POV? I'd be interested in that conversation, the vitriol is completely unnecessary.

Also interesting to see once again the great American pastime of arguing a position by pointing to exceptions. Narrow minded Bible thumpers don't make up the mainstream of conservatives any more than mindless zealots make up the mainstream of liberals (as youbet pointed out). What does that add to the discussion?

[FinanceDude]

Quote:

Originally Posted by brewer12345 If you right wingers want [moderator edit] in public, there is a board at the motley fool that has already descended from er-related content to RWCJ ([moderator edit]). Don't ruin this board with this drivel, too.

This board has PLENTY of both, and Independents, and a few others........

People who do NOT share your "vision", should NOT be labeled as RWCJ or anything else.........

[Marquette]

I'm of the opinion that the government has become the de facto charity of last resort. In essense, it always has been, but it's possible to argue that it's more humane of late. If we assume that poverty will always exist, then what are some feasible alternatives to our current solution?

Victorian times had the poorhouses.

Old-testament Biblical times had the concept of leaving extra grain on the fields for the widows to gather.

In new testament Biblical times the church took care of the widows.

Personally, I'd love to see a change to charity being concentrated at the community level. However, given our society, as it exists today, I don't think you can get there from here. I don't think I'd be willing to accept the idea of workhouses and poor farms to get there, either.

[myself]

I'm more of a centrist, but lean toward the conservative.

Poverty CAN NOT be resolved.
Once everyone has the basic necessities, the term "poverty" will change to mean not being able to afford cable, or a TV. And when every single person can afford cable or a TV, poverty will be redefined to not having the ability to have more than 2 children and still be able to survive, and on, and on, and on ...

Of course, if we all went "Star Trek" overnight, then there would be no possibility of poverty unless the definition were changed to say "different levels of abilities to help mankind".

[FIREdreamer]

Look at the tags that have been added to this thread: "ayn rand worshippers", "nazis"... Nazis? Really? Why can't we have an intelligent conversation without name calling?

[brewer12345]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FinanceDude This board has PLENTY of both, and Independents, and a few others........ People who do NOT share your "vision", should NOT be labeled as RWCJ or anything else.........

Not buying it, so keep the far right auto-response to yourself.

For the record, I think the Soap Box board is a tremendously bad idea. It encourages far right, far left, and newguy bat excrement posts to go forth and multiply, which is really not what we have been all about. I watched the retire early home page board on TMF slide into the muck as it was colonized and eventually dominated by far right nutzoids (far left would have been no better) - that is why I left and spend my time on this boarrd. I really, really REALLY do not want to see that happen here.

[FIREdreamer]

I actually like the soap box board because it segregated the political threads that were previously sprinkled all over the other boards. When I don't feel like talking about politics, I just don't visit the soap box board.

[Notmuchlonger]

I had to look up Ayn Rand worshipers

[BoutDone]

Quote:

Originally Posted by brewer12345 Not buying it, so keep the far right auto-response to yourself. For the record, I think the Soap Box board is a tremendously bad idea. It encourages far right, far left, and newguy bat excrement posts to go forth and multiply, which is really not what we have been all about. I watched the retire early home page board on TMF slide into the muck as it was colonized and eventually dominated by far right nutzoids (far left would have been no better) - that is why I left and spend my time on this boarrd. I really, really REALLY do not want to see that happen here.

I wonder who added the nazi tags?

Perhaps one's cute little German guy avitar may provide a clue.

You know - you do not have to read nor contribute to any forum you do not like.

[brewer12345]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoutDone Perhaps one's cute little German guy avitar may provide a clue.

He's Czech, actually. And he despised German-speaking Austrians as well as the Germans.

[armor99]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martha I just do not understand your position. Why is government assistance horrible? Why should you have to benefit?

Because no one.... no matter how great their personal need might be, has the "right" to take what I have earned for myself. The government has no money of it's own.... the govt's money is in fact my money, that I pay via taxes. Is it wrong to want some personal benefit with the using of my own money?

[armor99]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Midpack Interesting that the name-calling is coming mostly from those with the least to say about the subject in the first place. Did it ever occur to those of you who are offended that Armor might actually be trying to see another POV? I'd be interested in that conversation, the vitriol is completely unnecessary.

Thanks Midpack, that really was my intention. To attempt to see things from others point of view, while comparing and contrasting it to my own. I knew this topic was a bit different, and that is exactly why I put it in the soapbox section. It seemed appropriate to me. Just remember.... name calling only belittles those who engage in it's use, not those to whom it is hurled at. The greater good is still being served, and those who wish to learn and to think will, and those who do not want to think or learn ... won't....

[brewer12345]

Quote:

Originally Posted by armor99 Thanks Midpack, that really was my intention. To attempt to see things from others point of view, while comparing and contrasting it to my own. I knew this topic was a bit different, and that is exactly why I put it in the soapbox section. It seemed appropriate to me. Just remember.... name calling only belittles those who engage in it's use, not those to whom it is hurled at. The greater good is still being served, and those who wish to learn and to think will, and those who do not want to think or learn ... won't....

Yeah, you're a ****ing saint, aren't you?